First came “good faith” subscription, then an proposal for women deaconesses, followed by the Strategic Plan. Now comes the National Partnership. It was a semi-private group of PCA pastors whose aim was to help the PCA out of the predicament that Tim Keller once celebrated — its diversity, that is, the inability of officers and members to agree on basic matters such as what constitutes Reformed Protestantism and a Reformed church. The Partners were a covert enterprise until their “confidential” letter went public at the Aquila Report. The Partners aims are three:
1. Greater participation in the Polity of the PCA through church courts. We keep our members informed on presbytery work (including key votes) across the denomination and provide resources for those presbyters seeking advice.
2. Greater dedication to the work of the Assembly through preparation, committee participation and floor debate. We seek to staff committees for healthy and effective denominational business.
3. Greater love for the Brethren through resourcing and communication. We share ideas and uphold our good faith subscription to the standards, preferring charitable and respectful dialogue over the action of courts in settling theological differences.
These aims will help in “preserving and advancing our beloved Church as the gospel-centered, pastoral, missional and reformed denomination our forefathers envisioned,” and “serve our denomination by active engagement in the church courts the Lord has entrusted to us.”
One question that arises from these aims is why the PCA’s current Presbyterian polity and standards for ordination and membership are incapable of serving these ends. Perhaps the problem is that the denomination is divided over whether or not to follow its standards of polity, theology, and worship. That might explain the language of love and dedication. You go subjective when the objective isn’t working.
Andy Webb interprets that Partnership as another effort to thwart the voices and efforts of conservatives in the PCA:
Despite the manifest failure of conservatives to move the PCA in a conservative direction in matters of critical importance like creation, the National Partnership represents the second major group formed by PCA liberals and moderates to attempt to overcome our supposed influence. If your objective is to force conservatives out of the PCA, you will probably succeed. Many of us are already teetering on the brink of leaving, and making it clear that we will never be allowed to influence the PCA to cause it to remain on what we believe to be a Biblical and confessional path or hold positions in the denominational leadership would probably be all that it takes to force us out.
I don’t presume to advise the PCA on its problems opportunities even if it was the first Reformed communion to have (all about) me as a member. But I can draw on experience in the OPC and make a couple of suggestions.
First, Webb talks about the gatherings of conservatives in the PCA in ways that resemble the after-hours activities of OPC commissioners to General Assembly:
When conservatives do meet, it is usually a casual smoker at an event convened for other purposes, such as the General Assembly, the GPTS Spring Conference or Twin Lakes. There is no docket, no moderator, no secret handshake and little or no consensus. Usually we sit around, catch up with old friends, discuss theology and politics, and engage in the conservative’s favorite past-time: complaining about the direction in which things are going both in the culture and the denomination. Occasionally solutions to perceived problems are offered, but there is hardly ever agreement on them and nothing is implemented.
In other words, conservatives in the OPC don’t have to have special gatherings because they are already meeting to do the work of the church. No one really knows if conservatives dominate the OPC because the denomination’s ministry is generally confessional and those who belong to it sense intuitively and explicitly the boundaries of participation. Envelope pushers know when they have left the fold and do so.
Second, the OPC pitches in for all its ministries. To be sure, not every congregation contributes to the funds of World Wide Outreach which pays funds the work of foreign missions, home missions, and Christian education. Some congregations can barely afford a pastor. But the OPC has a strong sense of the collective ministry of the church such that denominational efforts are the business of the entire church. In contrast, the PCA, as Paul Settle’s 25th anniversary history shows, has operated much more along congregational as opposed to presbyterian models. Missionaries have to raise their own funding; agencies have to do the same whether through sales of materials or direct contributions from wealthy individual donors. The PCA is presbyterian formally, but does not function that way.
The lesson may be that the PCA needs to go from being the Southern Baptist Convention to a truly Reformed church where ministers (even celebrated ones), congregations, presbyteries, and agencies all recognize that they are already partners in a common enterprise regulated by Presbyterian polity, Calvinist theology, and Reformed worship.
Old Life 
“its diversity, that is, the inability of officers and members to agree on basic matters such as what constitutes Reformed Protestantism and a Reformed church.”
Nice.
LikeLike
“To God All Praise and Glory”.
Someone besides Hart & Muether wrote a Presbyterian history? The nerve.
I can’t find it on Amazon.
These folks need to read “Seeking a Better Country” on the history of the PCUSA to see where they are headed if they continue to tolerate liberalism. It quickly goes from things like tolerating women’s ordination to refusing to ordain men who don’t affirm women’s ordination.
LikeLike
In our search (after disaffection with another fellowships drift) Me and the wife recently attended a fellowship under the banner of the PCA thinking our search had perhaps come to an end. Then I come across this article and the “conflict” in the PCA. I guess there’s no where we can go to get away from this sort of haggling and what Tim Keller termed “fights are always fueled in part by ego and spiritual immaturity,” I’ve had enough!
LikeLike
Compromise, cave in, or leave.
LikeLike
D.G.
Good post. I particularly like the last two paragraphs. We in the PCA really need to do some soul-searching.
LikeLike
The pic that is to the right of this article (of J, Ligon Duncan III and Tim Keller) and the pic that is to the right of the acticle on Why the NBA is Unwatchable (Chris Anderson) are a very interesting contrast when looked at together. The parallels and contrasts are interesting to think of, but perhaps an article on Why the PCA is Unwatchable would be a classic. After all, someone has already admitted to having a Tim Keller tat. Will the PCA continue to let Keller have nothing but free throws without even calling fouls?
LikeLike
The PCA is a weird animal. The idea that it is formally presbyterian but in practice southern baptist, with varying emphasis on southern or baptist depending on where you are and which way the wind is blowing sounds about right.
LikeLike
These developments in the PCA, our sister denomination, are sad to see. Seems to me that a communion which tolerates church officers who deny the historical Adam and/or view Genesis 1-11 as Divinely inspired mythology (as I’m given to understand certain segments of the PCA do); which tolerates church officers who promote and teach the Federal Vision error; and which allow churches to practice intinctionism (so much for the Protestant effort to restore the cup to the laity; not to mention the regulative principle!), is a church in decline. One wonders if the PCA a generation from now will be virtually indistinguishable from the PCUSA today.
LikeLike
Geoff,
The PCA, like evangelicalism, gets it exactly backwards. They’re heading toward intolerance on cultural mores and considerations and toward tolerance on church practice and doctrinal adherence.
LikeLike
Conservative Presbyterians just need to seek out an OPC — the best church in the world — if you can stand it (TM).
LikeLike
Check out Hart’s interview with Todd Wilken where he compares being a member of an OPC to eating oatmeal:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/american_evangelicalism
Or his interview with Mark Dever:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/resources/a/faithful_in_secular_world
Hart from the heart.
LikeLike
Geoff and Sean, maybe the parallel is not the SBC but Rome.
LikeLike
Geoff,
The first two items strike me as very odd. The PCA has explicit doctrinal statements on them. And while Leithart’s defense is, “I didn’t teach *that*, but *this*”, everyone seems to consider that the denominational statement is binding as far as it goes. I would assume that the same goes for the denominational statement that allows three views on the age of the earth (young, old, framework) and requires the historicity of Adam. That certainly seems to be the case in my Presbytery, where any old-earther is immediately required to give clarification.
Are things different elsewhere?
LikeLike
Unfortunately, there are several dynamics that tend to get in the way of achieving a fix. One is the bunker mentality that tends to take hold on conservatives when they can only bear so much. So many who at least have the principles to help become practical congregationalists. Another is that the coalition of conservatives has a substantial number of men that are more cultural conservatives than, say, confessionalists. Then there is the dynamic that money and numbers have power – and those big, moneyed churches tend to list toward broad evangelicalism. Finally there is a signficant bureacracy – at least compared to the OPC – and that bureacracy isn’t interested in the kind of fixes that might be suggested here.
LikeLike
Darryl,
That works for the western and midwest and noreastern Keller-FV contingent I think. But then you get the very southern, maybe Greenville, RTS group which, in my mind, tracks conservative SBC. But then you’ve got the FV reaching into the south per the Wilkins-Wilson brand which reminds me of CTC as well. And of course the CTC looks nothing like most american RC. Sounds like something for a historian to trace out. It’s all enough to make me grab a drink and a smoke.
LikeLike
These theologically left-ward developments within the PCA, a sister denomination with which we in the OPC maintain fraternal relations, are sad to see. Seems to me that a communion which tolerates (for example) church officers who deny the historical Adam and/or view Genesis 1-11 as Divinely inspired mythology (as I’m given to understand certain segments of the PCA do); which tolerates church officers who promote and teach the Federal Vision error; and which allow churches to practice intinctionism (so much for the Protestant effort to restore the cup to the laity; not to mention the regulative principle!), is a church in decline. One wonders if the PCA a generation from now will be virtually indistinguishable from the PCUSA today. May our Lord see fit to renew the PCA in a more consistently confessional direction, and spare her from wolves in sheep’s clothing.
LikeLike
Perhaps the criteria for a good church should be whether or not they have a cat in residence:
http://thecore.uchicago.edu/Winter2013/departments/cat-in-the-belfry.shtml
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle wrote: “The first two items strike me as very odd. The PCA has explicit doctrinal statements on them. And while Leithart’s defense is, “I didn’t teach *that*, but *this*”, everyone seems to consider that the denominational statement is binding as far as it goes. I would assume that the same goes for the denominational statement that allows three views on the age of the earth (young, old, framework) and requires the historicity of Adam. That certainly seems to be the case in my Presbytery, where any old-earther is immediately required to give clarification.”
GW: Sorry, by the way, for reposting my first comment. When I refreshed the page it hadn’t appeared, so I assumed it hadn’t posted successfully. Hence the re-post.
Yes, now that you mention it, I am aware of the PCA report on the Federal Vision. If the PCA considers it to be a faithful expression of the denomination’s “animus” with respect to this issue, then I am grateful to know that. At the same time, I am aware of a number of leaders in the Federal Vision movement (besides just Rev. Leithart) who are affiliated with the PCA. If they have not recanted (or at least clarified) their views, been censured for holding non-confessional views, or left the denomination, then can we not surmise that the PCA “tolerates” their view, its’ GA report notwithstanding? Is it not true that a church which will not enforce its confessional standards by bringing censures against those who clearly and impenitently teach contrary to those standards is a “confessional” church in name only?
Regarding the denominational statement on the historicity of Adam, does not Dr. Peter Enns, former Westminster Seminary professor and author of “Inspiration and Incarnation”, continue to be a ministerial member in good standing of the PCA? I read Dr. Enns’ book, and he seems clearly to teach that Gen. 1-11 is Divinely inspired mythology (not literal space-time history); and while he does not (to my recollection) explicitly reject the historical Adam, such a rejection is a “good and necessary consequence” of his mythological view. Has his Presbytery called upon him to repent of and recant his heretical views on this matter (with the threat of censure if he refuses), or does he continue as a church officer in good standing? If the latter, is it not fair to say that the PCA in reality “tolerates” those who reject the historicity of Adam, the PCA GA’s statement upholding the historicity of Adam notwithstanding?
LikeLike
Geoff, wrt the Federal Vision, the animus was against specific teachings and not the brand name. So it’s necessary for censures to proceed on the usual basis of complaint and trial.
I for one am very interested in the SJC decision that is forthcoming.
wrt Peter Enns, I don’t know. He left WTS and went to another seminary. But I don’t know what his position is within the denomination. I didn’t even know that he was PCA.
LikeLike
I gotta go with Eric. Cat in residence distinctions make it a whole lot easier when selecting a church to attend.
LikeLike
The parallel is a toss up. All the bapterianism so SBCish. All the intinction Rome-y.
LikeLike
Zrim,
It’s all B.S. Give me six months to run the denomination. I’ll manage to offend each and every faction, then they can rally around their dislike for me, give me the right foot of fellowship, and live off the afterglow for about 3 months or until the next presbytery fails to understand what covenant theology is, errrr, what’s wrong with FV. Hopefully by then Keller and his sect and seminary will have become episcopalian and be in discussions with the CTC run RC working out a more perfect union, with Keller attaining a JHN role of prominence. FV will still be FV with their rival papacy in Idaho.
LikeLike
Of course that still leaves the SBC-southeastern PCA, so, she’s back to where she started. Their plank of orthodoxy and affiliation can be; “We aren’t the flat-earth society”.
LikeLike
“give me the right foot of fellowship”
Funny line.
LikeLike
Erik, re: felines, you’re preaching to the choir.
LikeLike
Jeff and Geoff, Pete Enns had been a scholar in residence at Trinity Presbyterian (a Redeemer satellite in Westchester, NY), but it looks like that affiliation is cold.
LikeLike
As a low level lay person who left the PCA almost 3 years ago for some of these very reasons and issues, I can say that what Andy Webb states here hits it spot on……..
“Despite the manifest failure of conservatives to move the PCA in a conservative direction in matters of critical importance like creation, the National Partnership represents the second major group formed by PCA liberals and moderates to attempt to overcome our supposed influence. If your objective is to force conservatives out of the PCA, you will probably succeed.”
I don’t know if that is there objective, nonetheless it will be (has been) the result. The conservatives have failed in the PCA, that just has to be owned, it does not make them bad folks, it’s just true. The conservatives and Confessionalist should probably just go. The confessional folks have a place to go, I’m not so sure about the “conservatives”. Many a PCA “conservative” still won’t like the OPC or the RPCNA.
But it is not just the issue of Creation, (which is huge for the PCA conservatives) it is also doctrine in general, RPW, embedded pragmatism & Federal Vision. To name just a few other issues. For us Confessional lay folks who have left the PCA, we got sick and tired of the historic Reformed doctrines consistently disregarded. They were not being taught consistently in many PCA churches that call themselves “Reformed” & Presbyterian. Instead we witnessed a virtual discard of those doctrines in favor of whatever the pragmatic, “relevant”, revivalistic, ‘myth of influence’, Federal Vision or social justice trend was. “National Partnership” sounds like one more in a long line (Strategic Plan) of issues that are at the heart of PCA decline. I say that with no bitterness. I love the PCA and I did not leave with a clinched fist, I left with a heart ache & tears. Nonetheless, I knew it was time for my family & I to leave.
Grace & Peace
LikeLike
Mikelmann states above in regards to this problem in the PCA…………..
“the coalition of conservatives has a substantial number of men that are more cultural conservatives than, say, confessionalists”
Bingo!!! Witnessed this first hand for many many years.
LikeLike
DG say the OPC is like oatmeal. I wish the PCA was more like grits. In a good way.
LikeLike
Yellow (not white), all-natural, stone-ground grits for you sensitive types.
LikeLike
Brad,
Here’s to grits:
LikeLike
Erik, you’re an orthodox geekaterian. I’m all about hominy in the church.
LikeLike
What if you can’t?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Geoff and Sean, maybe the parallel is not the SBC but Rome.
RS: It is interesting how you (2K) make a very sharp distinction between the kingdom of man and the kingdom of God. But in terms of the kingdom, it appears that you want all things to go through the courts of churches which means a court of men as well. How is that you are so sure that in the kingdom of God that it operates and functions through the courts of churches? They are fallen men as well.
While you see a parallel of the PCA with the SBC or perhaps Rome, you are unhappy when others point out the parallel between a strong confessionalism and Rome which also has a strong confession. Could it be that some of the writers of the WCF who were not Presbyterian (John Owen and Thomas Goodwin) were not so far off? Could it be that a strong Presbyterian form of government is not really what the Bible teaches? Could it be that the real issue with all the churches is really that they don’t love God and seek His face enough?
LikeLike
Walt,
Then we’ll give you a special dispensation to go to a URC.
LikeLike
Between his roles in “Goodfellas”, “Home Alone” and “My Cousin Vinny” I think Joe Pesci wins the award for actor of the 90s’. “Vinny” is one of the better movies I have seen. Watch it on TV as opposed to DVD if you can. You lose the bad language without losing the humor. Marisa Tomei won an Oscar and actually kept her clothes on.
LikeLike
In the comparision between the OPC & the PCA in regards to how they support missions one could make a strong argument that the OPC has more in common with the SBC than the PCA at least in missions. The SBC is very centralized in how they support their mission agencies. Through their cooperative program the Southern Bapts support their seminaries, domestic missions, & foreign missions. Unlike the PCA & like the OPC Bapt missionaries do not have to raise their own fianicial funds.
My understanding is that PCA founders were highly suspicious of denominational missions(PCUS missions). Churches coming out of the PCUS set a pattern for the denomination that is still in play. Churches wanted a say in who they support. They also saw groups such as Campus Crusade, Intervarsity & other independent missions as more trustworthy than denominational missions. Hence today the PCA is very congregational in missions support as each church functions as a mission board
LikeLike
“Walter what is the point? Look we all know who is at fault here what are you talking about.?”
LikeLike
“They also saw groups such as Campus Crusade, Intervarsity & other independent missions as more trustworthy than denominational missions. ”
Not a lot of Reformed theology in those organizations, is there? Presbyterianism?
LikeLike
There’s none within hundreds of miles of me. the PCA is closest.
I actually tried to get a URC going one time. It fell through.
Presbyterian ministers, in general, are very ecumenical with the evangelicals. You will never hear one say, for instance, that the Wesleyan Arminianism of evangelicalism is heretical. The Westminster Standards say that the difference between a true church and a false one is a long continuum and thus Presbyterian ministers interpret that to mean evangelical churches and parachurch orgs are more true than false. Thus, it is OK to partner with them, even to the detriment of their own churches.
Let me hop back on my favorite hobbyhorse. Say a PCA child goes to ‘kollege’ and joins Intervarsity. The parents are happy b/c the kid is going to ‘church’ whilst living in Babylon. The kid graduates and keeps going to evangelical ‘churches.’ In this way also the next generation is lost back to evangelicalism. Round we go! Weeeeee!
LikeLike
Walt,
Where do you live?
This is an old debate within Presbyterianism, going back to the “Plan of Union” in 1801:
http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=27
We have to be content to remain small in order to remain serious about being Presbyterian & Reformed. The Spirit will do what it wills, but we can’t compromise to orchestrate “growth”.
LikeLike
After reading the article and the comments, is it any wonder why many smaller church pastors and smaller churches themselves, just don’t even attend General Assembly any more? Then, of course, there are the travel and lodging expenses – for what? To have only the elite churches and their pastors, along with all those who vote, but represent NO local churches tell them what they ought to do. I’m still waiting on the overture that allows only all those who vote represent a particular church. Of course, all ordained TEs should have the right to speak, but only pastors and their REs can vote on issues. But, then I’ve only been around since 1973..
LikeLike
Walt S: Presbyterian ministers, in general, are very ecumenical with the evangelicals. You will never hear one say, for instance, that the Wesleyan Arminianism of evangelicalism is heretical. The Westminster Standards say that the difference between a true church and a false one is a long continuum and thus Presbyterian ministers interpret that to mean evangelical churches and parachurch orgs are more true than false. Thus, it is OK to partner with them, even to the detriment of their own churches.
“It concerns every minister of the gospel to put a stop to any opinion which hath the least tendency to Arminianism. We are not as idle spectators, to stand by with patience to see the truths of the gospel either openly invaded, or secretly supplanted, but as long as we are able to frame a thought, or hold a pen, it is our duty to make a vigorous opposition.” Thomas Goodwin
“The chief cause I take to be that which JEneas Sylvius gave why more maintained the pope to be above the council than the council above the pope,—because popes gave archbishoprics, bishoprics, & c , but the councils sued ” in forma pauperis,” and, therefore, could scarce get an advocate to plead their cause. The fates of our church having of late devolved the government thereof into the hands of men tainted with this poison, Arminianism became backed with the powerful arguments of praise and preferment, and quickly prevailed to beat poor naked Truth into a corner. It is high time, then, for all the lovers of the old way to oppose this innovation, prevailing by such unworthy means, before our breach grow great like the sea, and there be none to heal it.” John Owen
CHAPTER IV.
Of the providence of God in governing the world diversely, thrust from this pre-eminence by the Arminian idol of free-will. John Owen
LikeLike
Ron,
Newbie…
LikeLike
Commercial interruption. D.G. Hart & Todd Wilken discuss Reformed Protestantism & The Theology of the Cross. Actually relevant to the PCA.
http://issuesetc.org/guest/darryl-hart/
LikeLike
Richard,
Thanks. That was 400 years ago. Presbyterian ministers are different now. I used the modifier “Wesleyan” to try to place things in a historical context.
I’m not sure how you read my comment and thought I was advocating this form of ecumenism. The Plan of Union is interesting. Obviously we see the result today. Or maybe there aren’t enough of us left to see the result or remember the Plan.
Maybe we could do the opposite of the Plan to foster organic growth.
LikeLike
Walt,
I understood where you were coming from. We agree.
LikeLike
People don’t so much dialogue here as take turns preaching sermons. Think the crazy man wearing the sandwich board standing on the street corner.
LikeLike
Walt S.: Richard, Thanks. That was 400 years ago. Presbyterian ministers are different now. I used the modifier “Wesleyan” to try to place things in a historical context.
We have to be content to remain small in order to remain serious about being Presbyterian & Reformed. The Spirit will do what it wills, but we can’t compromise to orchestrate “growth”.
I’m not sure how you read my comment and thought I was advocating this form of ecumenism. The Plan of Union is interesting. Obviously we see the result today. Or maybe there aren’t enough of us left to see the result or remember the Plan.
RS: I did not think you were advocating that form of ecumenism. I thought I was agreeing with you and giving some quotes from times of old when people were really Calvinistic in theology. When you said that modern Presbyterian ministers interpret the WCF in such a way that makes it ” OK to partner with them, even to the detriment of their own churches,” (referring to Wesleyan Arminianism) it seemed clear that you were against that. My quotes were intended, then, to support your position that the old is better than the new in this case.
LikeLike
Erik: People don’t so much dialogue here as take turns preaching sermons. Think the crazy man wearing the sandwich board standing on the street corner.
The sandwich board man leaves his dwelling and gets some clean air and actually talks to real people during his day.
LikeLike
Good piece Darryl.
LikeLike
When I mentioned that early PCAers were suspicious of denominational missions it was not b/e they rejected a reformed way of doing things but b/e they suspected the PCUS missionary board of liberalism. At least Campus Crusade believed the Bible which is more than what they believed about the PCUS.
Today while the majority of PCA churches decide which individual missionaries to support they do largely support MTW missionaries.
But it would be a mistake to say that the PCA does missions like the Southern Baptists b/e the Southern Baptists have more in common with the OPC than they do with the PCA at least in regards to missions. SBC missionaries are fully supported by their board & like the OPC they don’t have to raise individual support.
I think that many PCA mission folk see the way they do missions in a pragmatic way b/e porportionly they have more missionaries than the Southern baptists & most PCA churches have missionaries in & out of their churches on a very regular basis while many Southern Baptists never see missionaries.
LikeLike
I think you could though make a strong case that the PCA is more Reformed today(although not uniformily confessional) than it was when it was formed in 73. Back then most of the TEs were Columbia grads with a scattering of RTS & WTS grads. Many were more motivated by cultural conservatism including race than they were reformed theology. Since then RTS, CTS & WTS have been the primary seminary influence on the PCA
LikeLike
Hart on Nevin v. Edwards on the conversion experience. This would help our PCA brethren:
LikeLike
Quote: Hart on Nevin v. Edwards on the conversion experience. This would help our PCA brethren:
RS: Dr. Hart, I listened to the lecture above and was truly frightened.
Dr. Hart: How can I ever match this conversion experience?
RS: No need to match a person’s conversion experience. Edwards taught that as well. He said God did the converting and God converts people as He pleases and He does not always follow the same pattern.
Dr. Hart: Why would someone who only went to Sunday School and church need to be converted?
RS: Because they are born dead in sins and trespasses and until they are made alive by the Holy Spirit they are going to Sunday School and church for reasons other than love for God.
Dr. Hart: A child grows up and never knows anything but being a child of God.
RS: Let us say that is possible, but surely the heart needed to be changed at some point.
Dr. Hart: Why would you want to undergo a dramatic change if you have grown up a pious child?
RS: Because the pious child just may be a pious Pharisee child and may be quite proud of his or her pious life rather than coming from a love for God.
Dr. Hart: Nevin tried to be converted by having a conversion experience. (not an exact quote)
RS: Perhaps, then, Nevin did not understand Puritan evangelism or Edwards but instead that may show that he did not understand what Edwards and the Puritans were talking about. Perhaps Nevin tried to be converted without realizing that God must do the work rather than himself.
Dr. Hart: (not an exact quote). You live day by day and without those ecstatic experiences.
RS: But you are born in a fairly short period of time. The birth process can be very painful for both the mother and infant.
DR. Hart: You come to love your father and don’t realize how that happens or when it occurs (not an exact quote).
RS: Coming to love your human father is a far different thing than loving God because people are born at enmity with Him and hate Him.
Jesus Christ: Matthew 18:3 “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
RS: Remember, Jesus was speaking to covenant children when He said that. He was also speaking to a covenant child in John 3:3-8.
LikeLike
Quote: Hart on Nevin v. Edwards on the conversion experience. This would help our PCA brethren:
Dr. Hart: The Heidelberg speaks of conversion as a way of life or path of life and not some experience (not exact quote)
HC Question 86. Since then we are delivered from our misery, merely of grace, through Christ, without any merit of ours, why must we still do good works?
Answer: Because Christ, having redeemed and delivered us by his blood, also renews us by his Holy Spirit, after his own image; that so we may testify, by the whole of our conduct, our gratitude to God for his blessings, (a) and that he may be praised by us; (b) also, that every one may be assured in himself of his faith, (c) by the fruits thereof; and that, by our godly conversation others may be gained to Christ.
HC: Question 87. Cannot they then be saved, who, continuing in their wicked and ungrateful lives, are not converted to God?
Answer: By no means; for the holy scripture declares that no unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous man, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or any such like, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Question 88. Of how many parts does the true conversion of man consist?
Answer: Of two parts; of the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man.
Question 89. What is the mortification of the old man?
Answer: It is a sincere sorrow of heart, that we have provoked God by our sins; and more and more to hate and flee from them.
Question 90. What is the quickening of the new man?
Answer: It is a sincere joy of heart in God, through Christ, (a) and with love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works.
(a) Rom.5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: Rom.14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
RS: In the context of the line of the questions (86-90) it does seem as if the Heidelberg speaks of conversion in the context of justification and the new birth. 86 speaks of being delivered from our misery. 87 speaks of being saved or not saved and not being converted to God. 88 speaks of conversion as putting to death the old man and the quickening of the new man, which can only happen in regeneration. 90 speaks of the quickening of the new man and gives Rom 5:1 on justification as a proof text.
RS: The conclusion is that the Heidelberg does speak of conversion in much the same way that the English and American Puritans did. Men must be born again and that birthing can be painful when men come under a deep conviction of sin as did the jailer at Phillip did who in agony of heart cried out asking what must he do to be saved.
LikeLike
Good work Richard! I fully concur 🙂
LikeLike
RS, you’re sounding (and looking) like one of the Callers. You see continuity when it suits your purposes. If you were really honest, you’d admit that the First Great Awakening did not regard conversion as a life long process. I also believe that Ursinus would have regarded Phebe Bartlett as an embarrassment, not a sign that the Spirit was at work.
But good for you and Doug to once again find agreement. That’s the way it is with those who view the gospel as antinomian. (And which explains Doug’s remarkable obtuseness in reading Paul, the OT, and the entire Reformed tradition. Then again, he reads it all through the lens of Bahnsen, sort of the way the Callers view everything through the lens of the romantic views of the papacy.)
LikeLike
Richard, Qn 88 reads very much like a description of sanctification.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, you’re sounding (and looking) like one of the Callers.
RS: Ad hominem
D.G. Hart: You see continuity when it suits your purposes.
RS: Ad hominem
D.G. Hart: If you were really honest,
RS: Ad hominem
D.G. Hart: you’d admit that the First Great Awakening did not regard conversion as a life long process.
RS: But of course I would admit that. Regeneration is changing the heart and conversion is the person turning to God. However, the term “conversion” was and is used to refer to the whole process. That is also how the Heigelberg uses it.
D.G. Hart: I also believe that Ursinus would have regarded Phebe Bartlett as an embarrassment, not a sign that the Spirit was at work.
RS: But is not a real argument.
D.G, Hart: But good for you and Doug to once again find agreement. That’s the way it is with those who view the gospel as antinomian.
RS: Another ad hominem rather than a real argument. By the way, I don’t view the Gospel as an antinomian.
D.G. Hart: (And which explains Doug’s remarkable obtuseness in reading Paul, the OT, and the entire Reformed tradition. Then again, he reads it all through the lens of Bahnsen, sort of the way the Callers view everything through the lens of the romantic views of the papacy.)
RS: Dr. Hart, you did not present anything to rebut what I said and did not present one real argument. I guess I will now be accused of being in agreement with Bryan Cross. The doctrine of conversion (or how a person is turned from the self-centeredness and self-love of being dead in sin to being centered upon God in love) is not something just to throw out random (so to speak) statements about. It is dead serious.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Richard, Qn 88 reads very much like a description of sanctification.
RS: I would agree that it can be taken as one question in and of itself. But when it is taken in the context of the other questions, it takes on a different picture. For example, 87. Notice how it uses the word “converted” as synomymous with saved and the word “saved” is certainly referring to those who are delivered from the wicked lives of the unregenerate.
Question 87. Cannot they then be saved, who, continuing in their wicked and ungrateful lives, are not converted to God?
Answer: By no means; for the holy scripture declares that no unchaste person, idolater, adulterer, thief, covetous man, drunkard, slanderer, robber, or any such like, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
LikeLike
Richard, those aren’t ad hominems. He’s describing your argument, not you as a person.
The ad hom form is,
* Richard is a bad, bad man, so
* His argument is false.
(As in: Stellman converted to Catholicism, so we can ignore Dual Citizens)
If there’s any fallacy afoot, it would be “guilt by association” or “by similarity”: Your argument looks like X, so it has the features of X. This is a formal fallacy, but a useful inductive argument.
What it really is, is an invitation for you to explain in what ways your position is not X.
LikeLike
JRC: Richard, Qn 88 reads very much like a description of sanctification.
RS: I would agree that it can be taken as one question in and of itself. But when it is taken in the context of the other questions, it takes on a different picture. For example, 87. Notice how it uses the word “converted” as synomymous with saved and the word “saved” is certainly referring to those who are delivered from the wicked lives of the unregenerate.
I understand. But the juxtaposition could just as easily be a movement from justification in 87 to sanctification in 88.
A great place to check would be Ursinus’ commentary to see what he’s thinking. I’ll let you do that.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Richard, those aren’t ad hominems. He’s describing your argument, not you as a person.
The ad hom form is,
* Richard is a bad, bad man, so
* His argument is false.
RS: The use of an ad hom is when you go after the person rather than the argument. Since he did not go after my position or argument and bascially dismissed the whole point based solely on his remarks about me, I take the whole position as an ad hominem.
LikeLike
Ursinus on Parts of True Conversion
III. OF HOW MANY PARTS DOES CONVERSION CONSIST?
Conversion consists of two parts: the mortification of the old man, and the quickening of the new man. We speak more properly in this way, using the language of Paul, than if we were, as some do, to make conversion consist in contrition and faith. By contrition they understand mortification; and by faith the joy which follows the desire of righteous ness and new obedience, which are indeed effects of faith, but not faith itself. Contrition also precedes conversion, but is not conversion itself, nor any part of it, being only a preparation, or that which leads to conversion; and that only in the elect. The old man which is mortified is the sinner only, or the corrupt nature of man. The new man which is quickened is he who begins to depart from sin, or it is the nature of man as regenerated. The mortification of the old man, or of the flesh, consists in the laying off and subduing of the corruption of our nature, and includes, 1. A know ledge of sin, and of the wrath of God. 2. Sorrow for sin, and on account of having offended God. 3. Hatred of sin, and an earnest desire to avoid it. The Scriptures speak of this mortification of sin in the following places: “If ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” “Rend your hearts, and not your garments.” “Come and let us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.” (Rom. 8:13. Joel 2:13. Hosea 6:1.) From this it appears that mortification, or conversion, is very im properly attributed to the wicked, in whom there is no hatred or shunning of sin, nor sorrow for sin, all of which is embraced in the mortification of the old man. A knowledge ,of sin precedes sorrow, because the affections of the heart follow knowledge. Sorrow may follow a knowledge of sin on the part of the ungodly, from a sense of present, and from a fear of future evil, viz: of temporal and eternal punishment; yet this sorrow is not properly a part of conversion, nor a preparation to it; but rather a flight and turning away from God, and a rushing into desperation, as in the case of Cain, Saul, Judas, &c. It is called a sorrow, not unto salvation the sorrow of the world, working death a sorrow not after a godly sort, &c. In the godly, however, this sorrow arises from a sense of the displeasure of God, which they sincerely acknowledge and lament, and is connected with a hatred and abhorrence of all past sins, and with a shunning or turning away from all present and future sin. This sorrow is a part of con version, or at least a preparation to it, and is called a sorrow unto salvation a sorrow which is after a godly sort, working repentance unto salvation. The knowledge of sin, sorrow for sin, and a flying from it, differ in their subject, or as it respects that part of our being in which they have their proper seat. The knowledge of sin is in the mind, sorrow for sin in the heart, and fleeing from it in the will. The turning, which is included in conversion, is in the heart and will, and is a turning from one thing to another from evil to good, according to what the Psalmist says: “De part from evil and do good.” (Ps. 34:14.)
It is called in Scripture mortification, 1. Because, as one that is dead cannot perform the actions of a living man, so our nature, when its corruption is once removed, no more performs the actions peculiar to it in its corrupt state; that is, it does not produce actual sin when original sin is once circumscribed and kept under proper restraint. “For he that is dead is freed from sin.” (Rom. 6:7.) 2. Because, this mortification is not without wrestling and pain: “for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:17.) It is for this reason that this mortification is called a crucifixion of the flesh. “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” (Gal. 5:24.) 3. Because, it is a ceasing from sin. It is, moreover, not simply called mortification, but the mortification of the old man, because, by it not the substance of man, but sin in man, is destroyed. The expression, old man, is also added for the purpose of distinguishing between the repentance of the godly and ungodly; for in the godly, no t the man, but the old man is destroyed, whilst in the ungodly it is not the old man, but the man.
The quickening of the new man is a true joy and delight in God, through Christ, and an earnest and sincere desire to regulate the life according to the will of God, and to perform all good works. It embraces three things which are different from what is included in mortification: 1. A knowledge of the mercy of God, and an application of it in Christ. 2. Joy and delight arising from the fact that God is reconciled to us through Christ, and that obedience is begun in us and shall be perfected. 3. An ardent desire to perform new obedience, or to sin no more, but to render gratitude to God during our whole life, and to retain his love, which desire is itself new obedience according to the following declarations of Scripture: “Being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” “The kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” “I dwell in the high and holy place; with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.” “Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” “Nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (Rom. 5:1; 14:17. Is. 57:15. Rom. 6:11. Gal. 2:20.)
This part of conversion is called quickening, 1. Because, as a living man performs the actions of one that is alive, so this quickening includes the kindling of new light in the understanding, and the producing of new qualities and activities in the will and heart, from which a new life and new works proceed. 2. Because, it includes on the part of those who are converted, joy and delight in God, which affords great comfort and consolation. It is added through Christ, because we cannot rejoice in God, unless he be reconciled unto us It is now only through Christ that God is reconciled unto us. Hence, we only rejoice in God through Christ. These two parts of conversion spring from faith. The reason is, because no one can hate sin and draw nigh to God, unless he loves God. But no one loves God who is not possessed of faith. Hence, although there is no express mention made of faith in either part of conversion, this is done, not because faith is excluded from conversion, but because the whole doctrine of con version and thankfulness presupposes it, as a cause is presupposed from the presence of its own peculiar effect.
Obj.. But faith produces joy. Therefore, it does not produce grief and mortification. Ans. It is not absurd to affirm that the same cause produces different effects by a different kind of operation and in different respects. So faith produces grief, not of itself, but by an accident, which is sin, by which we offend God our kind and gracious father. Of itself it produces joy, because it assures us of God’s fatherly will towards us, by and for the sake of Christ. Reply. The preaching of the law precedes faith, since the preaching of repentance commences with the law. But the preaching of the law works sorrow and wrath. Therefore, there is a certain sorrow before faith. Ans. We grant that there is a certain sorrow before faith, but not such as constitutes a part of conversion; for the sorrow of the ungodly which is before and without faith, is rather a turning away from God, than a return to him, which being contrary, cannot agree neither wholly nor in part. But the contrition and sorrow which the elect experience is a certain preparation, leading to conversion, as we have already shown.
LikeLike
Richard, I did make an argument in the video you watched and I have made the argument in several books.
Pound sand with all due holiness.
LikeLike
RS, the usual way that Reformed people interpret things is to let the clearer regulate the obscure. So where 88 actually turns to conversion explicitly, you decide to go to 87 to let that indirect reference control the direct.
I’m calling the Callers.
LikeLike
RS, you’re not bad. You’re a gnat. But you’re on the right side regarding Rome. (Old) Life is complicated.
LikeLike
RS, woo hoo, you found Ursinus’ commentary. It does not lead anyone to conclude you need to give a conversion narrative like Phebe Bartlett’s to gain admission to church membership.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, I did make an argument in the video you watched and I have made the argument in several books.
Pound sand with all due holiness.
RS: I guess I missed the argument as such, but all of the hisorical information was interesting. I also noticed many deductions that you made from statements of Edwards that could at least have other explanations. I would give arguments, for example, that Edwards was not the first to come up with this stuff but was in line with the English and American Puritans as well as Westminster.. I would also argue that this is in line with the conversion of Luther and the writings of Luther (at points). Remember that Luther came under some kind of conviction or terror for his sin for many years before he found peace in Christ.
WLC:
Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself,[174] and giving them officers,[175] laws,[176] and censures, by which he visibly governs them;[177] in bestowing saving grace upon his elect,[178] rewarding their obedience,[179] and correcting them for their sins,[180] preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings,[181] restraining and overcoming all their enemies,[182] and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory,[183] and their good;[184] and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.[185]
Q. 59. Who are made partakers of redemption through Christ?
A. Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it;[251] who are in time by the Holy Ghost enabled to believe in Christ according to the gospel.[252]
Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace,[273] whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto)[274] he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his Word and Spirit;[275] savingly enlightening their minds,[276] renewing and powerfully determining their wills,[277] so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.[278]
Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]
LikeLike
D. G. Hart” RS, the usual way that Reformed people interpret things is to let the clearer regulate the obscure. So where 88 actually turns to conversion explicitly, you decide to go to 87 to let that indirect reference control the direct.
I’m calling the Callers.
RS: No, I went from 86 through 90 to show the context. The context in this case clears up the single comment which is obscure when taken out of its context.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, you’re not bad. You’re a gnat. But you’re on the right side regarding Rome. (Old) Life is complicated.
RS: No, I am far smaller than a gnat. However, I am not the side of new life in Christ rather than the complicated life of the old life. I am quite against the side of Rome and am sorry that you don’t realize that.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, woo hoo, you found Ursinus’ commentary. It does not lead anyone to conclude you need to give a conversion narrative like Phebe Bartlett’s to gain admission to church membership.
RS: No, but it does give what he thinks about 88. The conversion narrative of Phebe Bartlett was not given to show she could become a member of the church, but in order to show the conviction of sin that a more or less pious child might have regarding her sin. As the Westminster Larger Catechism points out, true faith comes when “being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition” (Q. 72). Any sinner that has any rational abilities will see that if s/he is truly convinced of his or her sin and the attending miseries along with his or her disability to recover him or herself from that lost condition may indeed have times of inward distress and agony of soul. It is what Ursinus spoke of as working sorrow in the heart.
LikeLike
Correction: D. G. Hart: RS, you’re not bad. You’re a gnat. But you’re on the right side regarding Rome. (Old) Life is complicated.
RS: No, I am far smaller than a gnat. However, I am on the side of new life in Christ rather than the complicated life of the old life. I am quite against the side of Rome and am sorry that you don’t realize that. I firmly believe that the sinner is saved by Christ alone and grace alone and yet a life of holiness will result from that. A life of holiness is according to the law of God (see Heidelberg 91 for what a good work is). That is not what Rome believes.
Question 90. What is the quickening of the new man?
Answer: It is a sincere joy of heart in God, through Christ, (a) and with love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works. (b)
Question 91. But what are good works?
Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith, (a) are performed according to the law of God, (b) and to his glory; (c) and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men.
LikeLike
RS: I was actually saying you’re on the right side regarding Rome. Now you’re telling me you don’t know which is the right side? Talk about complicated.
LikeLike
Richard, but that “context” (which is actually leading up to the Law — oh, no, here comes Doug) says nothing about the conversion experience that Puritans developed and that flared with the First Pretty Good Awakening. I believe in conversion. Just look at Heidelberg. What I don’t see is the conversion of Phebe Bartlett or using it as a model in Heidelberg.
LikeLike
On Luther and terror for sin, I think it would be hard to find Luther trying to scare the bejeebers out of people who are already members in the church. But I know, you’re not a fan of observant Christianity. It has to be worn on one’s sleeve (which is why boasting about the law comes in handy).
LikeLike
RS, and what Phebe’s conversion really showed was how undiscerning Edwards was.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS: I was actually saying you’re on the right side regarding Rome. Now you’re telling me you don’t know which is the right side? Talk about complicated.
RS: Oh, I guess that was my bad. I thought you meant that I was on the right side as Rome regards things. Yes, complicated.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: Richard, but that “context” (which is actually leading up to the Law — oh, no, here comes Doug) says nothing about the conversion experience that Puritans developed and that flared with the First Pretty Good Awakening. I believe in conversion. Just look at Heidelberg. What I don’t see is the conversion of Phebe Bartlett or using it as a model in Heidelberg.
RS: I am not arguing that Heidelberg sets out the “conversion experience” of Phebe Bartlett as such, but that her period of conviction is not a contradiction to Heidelberg. It (or Ursinus) speaks of the sorrow for sin of the unconverted as well as sorrow for sin of the converted. Indeed she is not a model for them, but then again she was too young to be a model.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: On Luther and terror for sin, I think it would be hard to find Luther trying to scare the bejeebers out of people who are already members in the church. But I know, you’re not a fan of observant Christianity. It has to be worn on one’s sleeve (which is why boasting about the law comes in handy).
RS: No sleeve is necessary for Christianity except in the case of modesty. Christianity is of the heart and not the sleeve. The only boasting one should do about the Law is how it reflects the glory and character of God, opens our hearts to see our sin, and of how Christ fulfilled it and then died to satisfy its demands.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, and what Phebe’s conversion really showed was how undiscerning Edwards was.
RS: And here I thought Phebe’s conversion demonstrated the greatness of God to the praise of the glory of His grace.
LikeLike
RS,
Thanks. The quote you provided is actually ambiguous. It speaks certainly of the “beginning of new obedience”, and so on. But this is consistent with either
(a) A conversion that takes place at the moment of faith (and grounded in faith, as Ursinus points out), OR
(b) A conversion that begins at the moment of faith and continues throughout life.
Which is it? We can’t tell from this, though one might read it more naturally as (a) than (b). So we read on a little bit:
Oh. Well, that would settle the question, right?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, Thanks. The quote you provided is actually ambiguous. It speaks certainly of the “beginning of new obedience”, and so on. But this is consistent with either.
RS: While it is not always easy to tell which side of the fence he is speaking of, I think it is consistent with the idea of conversion being a time of turning to God which a life of turning to God. This is more or less Luther’s idea of one that has repented being a repenter for the rest of life. But I do think that in the context of the Heidelberg and then some of the statments themselves show that he does use the term conversion to refer to the actual turning from sin to God. For example, the last sentence of the quote below (taken from the quote in a previous post) seems to be without equivocation in showing that there is a contrition and sorrow that the elect have that prepares them and leads them to conversion. This is the sorrow that comes before faith that yet prepares the soul for faith. That is the language that the Puritans and Edwards used.
RS quoting Ursinus: Reply. The preaching of the law precedes faith, since the preaching of repentance commences with the law. But the preaching of the law works sorrow and wrath. Therefore, there is a certain sorrow before faith. Ans. We grant that there is a certain sorrow before faith, but not such as constitutes a part of conversion; for the sorrow of the ungodly which is before and without faith, is rather a turning away from God, than a return to him, which being contrary, cannot agree neither wholly nor in part. But the contrition and sorrow which the elect experience is a certain preparation, leading to conversion, as we have already shown.
LikeLike
Richard, the issues on the table are not what you imagine.
Do we need to be born again? Absolutely. John 3.
Do we need to be converted? Absolutely again.
Is there conversion at the moment of faith, whenever that may be? Yes. For if not, then you would have either believers who come to faith unrepentant, or else unbelievers who come to faith having already repented. Both hypotheticals are nonsense. There is a conversion that takes place when one enters the kingdom of God.
These issues are not in question for anyone here.
What is in question is whether conversion, the theological term, can be properly mapped to a specific conversion experience, a psychological term.
I argue, No. The human psyche is too diverse, people’s conversion experiences are too different from one another, to be able to go beyond the basic Confessional description, which Ursinus lays out in sec. 7.
The Puritans really added to Scripture certain emotional / affective requirements that they imagined distinguished “genuine conversion” from “not genuine conversion.” It is those requirements that are being opposed here.
LikeLike
Richard, what exactly is your beef here? The point seems to assume the validity of conversion but to think of it in organic terms over against mechanical, and that given all the organic metaphors the former is much more biblical. Your worry about presuming upon one’s salvation is well taken, but it isn’t obvious how an organic take on conversion gives cover to presumption. If anything, a mechanical take does, as in pray this prayer or have this affection (or pop this sacrament) and zip-bang you’re in. Life long conversion would seem to do wonders against presumption.
LikeLike
RS, yes, you drank the First Pretty Good Awakening Kool Aid.
LikeLike
D.G.,
What kind of church were those lectures given in and what was the occasion for you being there?
LikeLike
I think the primacy placed on Christianity as an “experience” as opposed to a confession is seen throughout evangelicalism. This is touched on in Muether’s essay in NTJ 3.1.
I think evangelicalism informing the PCA is what has led to a lot of their turmoil as well.
A lot of this stuff ties together at Old Life.
LikeLike
Say what you want about Hart, but his insights are not new. You see consistency going back to the beginning of the NTJ. He & Muether are really hearkening back to Old School Presbyterianism.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Richard, the issues on the table are not what you imagine.
RS: But I do more than just imagine them.
Jeff Cagle: Do we need to be born again? Absolutely. John 3.
RS: But we need to do more than just believe that it is true, but instead it must actually happen to the soul.
Jeff Cagle: Do we need to be converted? Absolutely again.
RS: Again, there is a difference between believing that one must be converted and actually being converted by the grace and power of God.
Jeff Cagle: Is there conversion at the moment of faith, whenever that may be? Yes. For if not, then you would have either believers who come to faith unrepentant, or else unbelievers who come to faith having already repented. Both hypotheticals are nonsense. There is a conversion that takes place when one enters the kingdom of God.
RS: Indeed, but true repentance and true faith are different than just believing those things are true.
Jeff Cagle: These issues are not in question for anyone here.
What is in question is whether conversion, the theological term, can be properly mapped to a specific conversion experience, a psychological term.
RS: But a conversion experience is not a psychological term, but rather something that actually happens to people. A person that has experienced being stabbed is one that has been stabbed. A person that has experienced the new birth is one that has been born from above and is a new creature.
Jeff Cagle: I argue, No. The human psyche is too diverse, people’s conversion experiences are too different from one another, to be able to go beyond the basic Confessional description, which Ursinus lays out in sec. 7.
The Puritans really added to Scripture certain emotional / affective requirements that they imagined distinguished “genuine conversion” from “not genuine conversion.” It is those requirements that are being opposed here.
RS: Which simply leaves you with a rational thought and a moral choice of the will. A person that is a new creature in Christ is one that is new in all aspects of the soul. The person now has (increasingly) the mind of Christ, the affections of Christ, and the choices of Christ. A person with a new heart will have new affections, so it is not wrong to examine those things to see if the affections demonstrate that the soul is united to Christ. As long as the Bible speaks of true believers having true love and unbelievers having no true love, then one has to admit that there is something in the affections that change.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: I argue, No. The human psyche is too diverse, people’s conversion experiences are too different from one another, to be able to go beyond the basic Confessional description, which Ursinus lays out in sec. 7.
RS: But when one argues (as did Ursinus) that people must have true sorrow and contrition along with true joy, this is something that goes into the realm of the affections which is the work of the Holy Spirit. When Ursinus is speaking of a converted person being quickened and having a joy and delight in God, he is speaking of what happens to converted people and that includes their affections. I would argue that Ursinus does speak much of the affections.
HC: Question 90. What is the quickening of the new man?
Answer: It is a sincere joy of heart in God, through Christ, (a) and with love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works. (b)
RS: Here part of the bringing life to teh new man is a sincere joyof heart and a love and delight to live according to the will of God.
HC: Question 91. But what are good works?
Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith, (a) are performed according to the law of God, (b) and to his glory; (c) and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men.
RS: The law of God is only fulfilled in love and one must love Him to do all to His glory. There again we see the necessity of the affections. One can have many great and profound thoughts of God, but unless one loves the God of those thoughts are those truly acceptable to God? I argue that they are not.
This part of conversion is called quickening, 1. Because, as a living man performs the actions of one that is alive, so this quickening includes the kindling of new light in the understanding, and the producing of new qualities and activities in the will and heart, from which a new life and new works proceed. 2. Because, it includes on the part of those who are converted, joy and delight in God, which affords great comfort and consolation. It is added through Christ, because we cannot rejoice in God, unless he be reconciled unto us It is now only through Christ that God is reconciled unto us. Hence, we only rejoice in God through Christ. These two parts of conversion spring from faith. The reason is, because no one can hate sin and draw nigh to God, unless he loves God. But no one loves God who is not possessed of faith. Hence, although there is no express mention made of faith in either part of conversion, this is done, not because faith is excluded from conversion, but because the whole doctrine of con version and thankfulness presupposes it, as a cause is presupposed from the presence of its own peculiar effect.
Obj.. But faith produces joy. Therefore, it does not produce grief and mortification. Ans. It is not absurd to affirm that the same cause produces different effects by a different kind of operation and in different respects. So faith produces grief, not of itself, but by an accident, which is sin, by which we offend God our kind and gracious father. Of itself it produces joy, because it assures us of God’s fatherly will towards us, by and for the sake of Christ. Reply. The preaching of the law precedes faith, since the preaching of repentance commences with the law. But the preaching of the law works sorrow and wrath. Therefore, there is a certain sorrow before faith. Ans. We grant that there is a certain sorrow before faith, but not such as constitutes a part of conversion; for the sorrow of the ungodly which is before and without faith, is rather a turning away from God, than a return to him, which being contrary, cannot agree neither wholly nor in part. But the contrition and sorrow which the elect experience is a certain preparation, leading to conversion, as we have already shown.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, what exactly is your beef here? The point seems to assume the validity of conversion but to think of it in organic terms over against mechanical, and that given all the organic metaphors the former is much more biblical. Your worry about presuming upon one’s salvation is well taken, but it isn’t obvious how an organic take on conversion gives cover to presumption. If anything, a mechanical take does, as in pray this prayer or have this affection (or pop this sacrament) and zip-bang you’re in. Life long conversion would seem to do wonders against presumption.
RS: I am not sure why you think that I believe in a mechanical take on this. I hold to conversion as the English and American Puritans thought of it (more or less). I would also argue that Luther held to something like this as well.
The real concern is that a person can have a belief about something that is true and go through all manners of religious actions but still be an unconverted (unregenerate) person. The love, desires, and delights of the person must be changed as well as the theology and life of the person to be thought of as truly converted. The heart of love for self can be very focused on loving self and doing for self and simply use religion as a way of finding that goal or end. The Pharisees were very theological and very moral, but their hearts were not changed and all they did was for self.
So my view is not of a mechanical conversion at all, but one that demands that the mind, heart, and will be changed and be growing. These things will be something that lasts the whole life and for all eternity because Christ Himself is the life of those who are united to Him. By the way, I can’t eat beef so I have no beef with anyone here.
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,[93] 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;[94] which is commonly called original sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions.
RS: The sinfulness of human beings mean that man “is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually.” What this means is that man must have his whole disposition changed by a work of grace.
Belgic 24: We believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a “new man,”^57 causing him to live the “new life”^58 and freeing him from the slavery of sin.
Therefore, far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned.
RS: In other words, there must be a radical change of the heart that can happen only by grace alone and for the sake of Christ alone. All children are born dead in sins and trespasses and are by nature children of wrath. They must not just be made religious and to believe certain things are true, but instead God alone can raise them from the spiritual dead and this must actually happen to them. They must actually have new hearts and new loves and desires if they are truly born from above.
LikeLike
JRC: Do we need to be born again? Absolutely. John 3.
RS: But we need to do more than just believe that it is true, but instead it must actually happen to the soul
Did you intend to place faith before regeneration here?
JRC: Do we need to be converted? Absolutely again.
RS: Again, there is a difference between believing that one must be converted and actually being converted by the grace and power of God.
No argument. Again, I think you are imputing things to the opposite position that aren’t there.
RS: But a conversion experience is not a psychological term…
Yes, actually, it is, and it encompasses non-Christian conversions also.
RS: …but rather something that actually happens to people. A person that has experienced being stabbed is one that has been stabbed. A person that has experienced the new birth is one that has been born from above and is a new creature.
Sure. But not everyone that has had a conversion experience has been born again (or genuinely converted), and vice-versa.
JRC: The Puritans really added to Scripture certain emotional / affective requirements that they imagined distinguished “genuine conversion” from “not genuine conversion.” It is those requirements that are being opposed here.
RS: Which simply leaves you with a rational thought and a moral choice of the will.
Not at all. It leaves you with what HC 86-90 describes, which is mostly internal rather than external.
The problem here is that you read words like “love” or “joy” in the HC and think of something outwardly visible. That’s not what those terms mean.
Seriously, I think you have me and DGH and Zrim confused with the Clarkians.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, yes, you drank the First Pretty Good Awakening Kool Aid.
RS: It was actually living water flavored with Divine love. One needs to drink deeply at those wells.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: JRC old comment: Do we need to be born again? Absolutely. John 3.
RS old Comment: But we need to do more than just believe that it is true, but instead it must actually happen to the soul
JRC: Did you intend to place faith before regeneration here?
RS: I don’t think that I did.
JRC old comment: Do we need to be converted? Absolutely again.
RS old comment: Again, there is a difference between believing that one must be converted and actually being converted by the grace and power of God.
JRC: No argument. Again, I think you are imputing things to the opposite position that aren’t there.
RS: Have you listened to the lecture? Perhaps, in order to set out the contrast, things are set out with a greater degree of disparity.
LikeLike
RS old comment: But a conversion experience is not a psychological term…
JRC: Yes, actually, it is, and it encompasses non-Christian conversions also.
RS: Perhaps you are using the term in a different way, but the older way of thinking about it (as the Puritans used it) was that it was something that actually happened to a person and it was God that was the One causing it to happen. It was not just a psychological term before psychology came around.
RS old comment: …but rather something that actually happens to people. A person that has experienced being stabbed is one that has been stabbed. A person that has experienced the new birth is one that has been born from above and is a new creature.
JRC: Sure. But not everyone that has had a conversion experience has been born again (or genuinely converted), and vice-versa.
RS: If a person has not been truly converted, then a person has not had a conversion experience. To have a conversion experience a person must have had God work in and on them and cause them to be truly converted.
JRC old comment: The Puritans really added to Scripture certain emotional / affective requirements that they imagined distinguished “genuine conversion” from “not genuine conversion.” It is those requirements that are being opposed here.
RS old comment: Which simply leaves you with a rational thought and a moral choice of the will.
JRC: Not at all. It leaves you with what HC 86-90 describes, which is mostly internal rather than external.
The problem here is that you read words like “love” or “joy” in the HC and think of something outwardly visible. That’s not what those terms mean.
Seriously, I think you have me and DGH and Zrim confused with the Clarkians.
RS: No, I am not thinking of things that are necessarily outwardly visible. I am thinking of something that must be true in the soul. The souls of those who are truly converted are not those that just know things, do religious things, and are externally moral. They were children of the devil and now they are children of the living God. They have been translated from the reign and rule of darkness and now they are in the kingdom of the Beloved Son. Those things really and truly must happen. I am not sure I am confusing you with the Clarkians, but I am not sure why you would think that and think that I am focusing on external things.
LikeLike
RS: “I’m not sure why that you think that I’m focusing on external things.”
Because that’s what the Puritans’ “experimental religion” was all about: finding the invisible things in the visible. Being the city on the hill. Discerning the hand of providence. Looking at the state of your soul by your outward affect.
Edwards tries to rein this in (Religious Affections), but he is culturally situated.
Taking a stand with the New Side Puritans means (implies, suggests) that your focus is on divining the secret things of God and the soul by using the outward things as proxies. Your claim to be able to discern love and/ or regeneration in others is consistent with this reading.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: “I’m not sure why that you think that I’m focusing on external things.”
JRC: Because that’s what the Puritans’ “experimental religion” was all about: finding the invisible things in the visible. Being the city on the hill. Discerning the hand of providence. Looking at the state of your soul by your outward affect.
RS: I am not sure that you have that quite right. The things of the soul had to have outward manifestations, but there were things like motives and intents in the heart as well. I would have thought that you would have argued that the Puritans were too much about inward things.
JRC: Edwards tries to rein this in (Religious Affections), but he is culturally situated.
RS: I am not sure I have ever read or heard anyone say something quite like that.
JRC: Taking a stand with the New Side Puritans means (implies, suggests) that your focus is on divining the secret things of God and the soul by using the outward things as proxies.
RS: Again, I am not sure that is quite right. It is not so much divining as it is spiritual illumination and the Bible. It is not so much about the secret things of God as it is the works of God in the soul. It is not so much about looking at outward things as proxies as it is about how God works in the soul and also works through things on the outward parts as well.
JRC: Your claim to be able to discern love and/ or regeneration in others is consistent with this reading.
RS: But I don’t claim to be able to discern these things with infallibility. It is also helping others see things about themselves. If one cannot discern love and/or regeneration at all, then one one can never know that another person is a believer and so one cannot know if s/he loves a believer or an unbeliever. Even unbelievers are able to see that people are the disciples of Christ when they love each other. It is also the case that all the externals of Christianity can be done by unbelievers, so unless we have some way of discerning true love in ourselves or others we have no real way of knowing if what we are doing is done as a Christian or not. See I Cor 13:1-3 for that.
1 John 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him:
1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message which you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another; 12 not as Cain, who was of the evil one and slew his brother. And for what reason did he slay him? Because his deeds were evil, and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
I John 4:20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.
LikeLike
Erik, I was lost and they were without a conference speaker. Talk about providence.
Actually, I think they came across my arguments in Recovering Mother Kirk and in Mod Ref. So they wanted to see me if I was coherent in person.
It was a non-denom church, formerly charismatic of some kind.
LikeLike
RS, every Sunday, my friend, and it comes with a piece of bread.
LikeLike
JRC: Taking a stand with the New Side Puritans means (implies, suggests) that your focus is on divining the secret things of God and the soul by using the outward things as proxies.
RS: Let me try to explain this a little more. God is Spirit and has not a body like men. In other words, He cannot be seen but in some way has to reveal Himself to the mind/soul either in a more direct way (illumination) or by the use of outward things. God makes Himself known to all men according to Romans 1:18ff and Psa 19. Now if God makes Himself known and in fact He shines His glory in the hearts of men so that they can see His glory in the face of Christ, why is it such an outrageous thing to think that the God of glory can actually reveal/illuminate or make Himself known to believers?
In the very preaching of the Word Paul knew that some in Thessalonica were believers. Sure, he was an apostle, but is this beyond the reach of all? He knew that they were elect, not because of his apostolic powers as such, but because the Gospel came to them “in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.”
I Thess 1:4 knowing, brethren beloved by God, His choice of you; 5 for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction; just as you know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake
RS: How does a person know if s/he loves God if we cannot know things except with external things? What is there that the believer can do that the unbeliever can’t do other than true love? The unbeliever can do all the external things that a believer does, but the unbeliever has no access to true love. So true love must be able to be “seen” in some way or there is no way to discern if “I” am a true believer or if anyone else is either. What God reveals is not secret and if He takes a man or woman and makes them His child that child is then a work of God and is a new creature in Christ. Can we not discern the work of God? Can it be that scientists are learning so much about the external world and we are left to know virtually nothing about the inner man of people?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, every Sunday, my friend, and it comes with a piece of bread.
RS: But why don’t/can’t/won’t you see that God manifests His glory in His people in other ways?
Romans 5:5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.
2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.
2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
I Cor 2:9 but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
LikeLike
The real concern is that a person can have a belief about something that is true and go through all manners of religious actions but still be an unconverted (unregenerate) person. The love, desires, and delights of the person must be changed as well as the theology and life of the person to be thought of as truly converted. The heart of love for self can be very focused on loving self and doing for self and simply use religion as a way of finding that goal or end. The Pharisees were very theological and very moral, but their hearts were not changed and all they did was for self.
Richard, brace yourself—I don’t think anybody here would really disagree with that concern. But as I’ve suggested to you before, the thing is that the sort of semi-experientialism for which you vie is just as vulnerable to externalism.
The real question is what category is biblical Christianity primarily concerned for—the intellectual or the moral or the affections, what? Protestantism says that while all of those are involved, it is through faith that God and man relate. Where liberals and logicians might privilege reason, experimental Calvinists and pietist evangelicals emphasizes the affections. But confessional Protestants simply press sinners to faith, and that without prescribing any extra-biblical test of affections or otherwise. And that’s what makes your system vulnerable to externalism, because it emphasizes a category the Bible doesn’t, because it thinks it can improve upon God’s chosen means, which is why you are suspected of neonomianism.
LikeLike
I would like to read ” Recovering Mother Kirk” but I don’t have an extra $62.94 for a used copy on Amazon. See if you can get the publisher to reissue that title.
LikeLike
DGH,
Kindlefy your books and I will make a promise to God to read all of them.
LikeLike
RS, you’re sounding like the Callers again: “How does a person know if s/he loves God if we cannot know things except with external things? What is there that the believer can do that the unbeliever can’t do other than true love? The unbeliever can do all the external things that a believer does, but the unbeliever has no access to true love. So true love must be able to be “seen” in some way or there is no way to discern if “I” am a true believer or if anyone else is either. What God reveals is not secret and if He takes a man or woman and makes them His child that child is then a work of God and is a new creature in Christ. Can we not discern the work of God? Can it be that scientists are learning so much about the external world and we are left to know virtually nothing about the inner man of people?”
Your question is really an assertion. We MUST know. It HAS to be. (We MUST have a pope). This is all what Clark calls the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. It flies in the face of Deut. 29:29.
We see by faith, not by sight. We trust, we don’t have epistemic certainty. But your attachment to Edwards confirms David Bebbington’s point that the awakenings were on an epistemological course on which the Enlightenment also traveled.
You need to read more Luther on the hiddenness of God.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, brace yourself—I don’t think anybody here would really disagree with that concern. But as I’ve suggested to you before, the thing is that the sort of semi-experientialism for which you vie is just as vulnerable to externalism.
The real question is what category is biblical Christianity primarily concerned for—the intellectual or the moral or the affections, what? Protestantism says that while all of those are involved, it is through faith that God and man relate. Where liberals and logicians might privilege reason, experimental Calvinists and pietist evangelicals emphasizes the affections.
RS: Okay, I braced myself, but then the difference came to light again. The Reformed in the Puritan era (shall we say) believed in the primacy of human reason and at the same time believed in the primacy of the human heart (including affections). The primacy of human reason stressed the ORDER of the way the soul was meant to work, while the primacy of the heart stressed the primacy of IMPORTANCE. In other words, the order that God has ordained is that all things are to go through the mind and yet the heart (the core principle of the soul) is more important than the information itself. It is not that experimental (older version anyway) Calvinists just focused on the affections in and of themselves, but that they stressed them when others ignored them as unimportant or overly dangerous. True love will have some degree of affection involved. True affections flow in the channel of understanding.
Indeed it is through faith that God communicated to, with, and in His people, faith includes the whole soul. It is more than just an intellectual belief which the devil has, but it is a belief that includes the whole being and faith is the (shall we say) the senses of the soul. It is by faith that the soul sees and hears God. It is by faith that the soul tastes and sees that the Lord is good. It is by faith that the soul realizes and participates in the fact that God has a river of delights.
Zrim: But confessional Protestants simply press sinners to faith, and that without prescribing any extra-biblical test of affections or otherwise.
RS: Faith without understanding is blind faith. Faith without affections (joy, love) is empty and devoid of the things Christ commands. There can be no true faith apart from understanding and love, which is to say that one cannot press people to faith apart from that biblical faith really is.
Zrim: And that’s what makes your system vulnerable to externalism, because it emphasizes a category the Bible doesn’t, because it thinks it can improve upon God’s chosen means, which is why you are suspected of neonomianism.
RS: But it is not a category that the Bible does not speak to. The Bible speaks often and stresses the affections. The Bible commands love and joy and delight. The Bible speaks of those things as the work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible speaks of rejoicing, delighting, fervent love, and many things like those that include the affections. But again, a love without some affection (and remember, true affection is informed by the understanding and follows the channel of the understanding) is not a love that we can accept. It is faith, hope, and love as to what is vital. Apart from love nothing we do is acceptable.
1 Peter 1:8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory,
Psa 36:7 How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God! And the children of men take refuge in the shadow of Your wings. 8 They drink their fill of the abundance of Your house; And You give them to drink of the river of Your delights. 9 For with You is the fountain of life; In Your light we see light.
LikeLike
Walt, but books are easier to read (and the decision is not mine but the publisher’s).
LikeLike
RS: …why is it such an outrageous thing to think that the God of glory can actually reveal/illuminate or make Himself known to believers?
It’s not. Back at you: Why is it such an outrageous thing to think that God reveals Himself in Word and sacrament, and His will should be sought there and not in the affect of others?
You’re getting confused about who says what here because you are not distinguishing having godly affections (which is genuinely good) with being able to identify them (which is perilous). So you say,
RS: The Bible speaks often and stresses the affections. The Bible commands love and joy and delight. The Bible speaks of those things as the work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible speaks of rejoicing, delighting, fervent love, and many things like those that include the affections.
And we say, Sure, no problem. Then you say, NO, there is a problem!
What problem?
If the problem is that believers need to have love, joy, and peace, then that’s not a problem. We all agree.
If the problem is that believers need to earnestly and frequently look inside themselves to see that they have love, joy, and peace, well, that’s a problem. The Scripture doesn’t command that. The Scripture commands us to fix our eyes on the author and finisher of our faith, not on the faith that is being finished.
LikeLike
Richard, who’s vying for faith without understanding or love? The point is that we are not saved by our doctrine, morality, or affections—we are saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. I’m sure you’d affirm that, but then you also say “apart from love nothing we do is acceptable.” No, the category isn’t love but faith, as in apart from faith we can do nothing that is acceptable.
By the way, revivalists take a mechanical view of conversion. You admit to being semi-revivalist, which is why I take you to affirm a semi-mechanical view of conversion.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, you’re sounding like the Callers again: “How does a person know if s/he loves God if we cannot know things except with external things? What is there that the believer can do that the unbeliever can’t do other than true love? The unbeliever can do all the external things that a believer does, but the unbeliever has no access to true love. So true love must be able to be “seen” in some way or there is no way to discern if “I” am a true believer or if anyone else is either. What God reveals is not secret and if He takes a man or woman and makes them His child that child is then a work of God and is a new creature in Christ. Can we not discern the work of God? Can it be that scientists are learning so much about the external world and we are left to know virtually nothing about the inner man of people?”
D.G. Hart: Your question is really an assertion. We MUST know. It HAS to be. (We MUST have a pope). This is all what Clark calls the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty. It flies in the face of Deut. 29:29.
RS: But there is a legitimate certainty as well. Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.” You (and Clark) focus on the secret things, but that verse also speaks of the things that are revealed. Shall we have uncertainty about the things God has clearly revealed? The issue is what God has revealed and what His Spirit continues to reveal (not new revelation as such), but more like shining a light on things or opening our minds to them.
D.G. Hart: We see by faith, not by sight.
RS: Indeed we see by the eye of faith (Spiritual) rather than by sight (physical). But the point is just how much can the eye of faith see or just how much does God reveal to the eye of faith?
D.G. Hart: We trust, we don’t have epistemic certainty.
RS: It depends on what you mean. Are you saying we cannot be sure that God exists? Are you saying that we cannot know for sure that Christ died on the cross and rose again? The eye of true faith sees those things with certainty, though if one only looks at them through the eyes of human ability one cannot be sure about those either. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
D.G. Hart: But your attachment to Edwards confirms David Bebbington’s point that the awakenings were on an epistemological course on which the Enlightenment also traveled.
RS: Or perhaps Bebbington has an epistemological certainty that others cannot have that certainty. It is interesting that people speak with such epistemological certainty about how we cannot have epistemological certainty. The things that God has revealed and continues to reveal (again, illuminate the minds of His people to through His Word) does give a version of epistemological certainty. I think I can say with certainty that God exists and Jesus Christ is His only begotten Son who died on the cross and rose again. I can say with certainty that Jesus Christ is absolute Lord of all and as Prophet He can teach what He wants to whom He pleases. I suppose some of this might depend on what realm one things knowledge operates in and if spiritual knowledge can be counted as knowledge and if the Holy Spirit gives epistemic access to truth.
D.G. Hart: You need to read more Luther on the hiddenness of God.
RS: Are you speaking of Theologia Germanica? Luther had far more mustical thinking than perhaps many will admit to today. The hiddenness of God was a book that had a lot in common with the mystical work The Cloud of Unknowing. One point of those, however, is not that God cannot be known at all, but that we can grow in knowledge forever. If we ever think we know God completely we can know that we know nothing at all. However, Jesus Christ came to reveal the truth of the Father. Christ is and was Truth Himself. While there is much to be said about the hiddenness of God, there is a lot more to be said about what God has revealed through Christ. Let us not flee from the truth that Christ is revealed and stand behind something He has not revealed.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, who’s vying for faith without understanding or love? The point is that we are not saved by our doctrine, morality, or affections—we are saved by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ alone. I’m sure you’d affirm that, but then you also say “apart from love nothing we do is acceptable.” No, the category isn’t love but faith, as in apart from faith we can do nothing that is acceptable.
RS: But faith works by love, so one cannot have faith without having love (Gal 5:6). Faith is what unites to Christ and Christ works love in His people by His Spirit. The point is that it is not faith in and of itself that saves since sinners are saved by grace alone and Christ alone. But sinners are saved by faith alone in order that it may be by grace alone. Of course it is not the affections that save or contribute to salvation, but the point is that men are totally depraved and all aspects of them are saved. If a man’s mind is darkened and he denies essential doctrine, we would say that the man has not been savingly enlightened and given understanding. If a person lives in open rebellion we say that the person has not been savingly changed. So if a person does not have true affections, why not say that the person has not had a new heart? Does Christ only save part of us or does He save all of us?
Zrim: By the way, revivalists take a mechanical view of conversion. You admit to being semi-revivalist, which is why I take you to affirm a semi-mechanical view of conversion.
RS: In that case I am not a semi-revivalist. Throughout history the teaching of revival has been on the sovereign God doing as He pleases and saving those whon He pleases. Finney brought in (or at least applied) some new ways of doing things and the whole world seemed to follow him. But not all did so. The old way was to seek the Lord who alone could regenerate sinners as He pleased and He did as as He pleased.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: …why is it such an outrageous thing to think that the God of glory can actually reveal/illuminate or make Himself known to believers?
JRC: It’s not. Back at you: Why is it such an outrageous thing to think that God reveals Himself in Word and sacrament, and His will should be sought there and not in the affect of others?
RS: I guess I would argue that the sacraments are taught (outside the Gospels) in basically one chapter. The emphasis on the sacraments is way over the weight of Scripture in contrast to the work of the Spirit in the soul through the Scriptures. The soul is said to the dwelling place of the Spirit and of Christ and so the point is to look at where we see the Scriptures teaching that Christ and His Spirit work.
JRC: You’re getting confused about who says what here because you are not distinguishing having godly affections (which is genuinely good) with being able to identify them (which is perilous).
RS: But if we cannot identify (to some degree) godly affections from non-godly affections, then there is no difference and no use even speaking of them. If we cannot identify them and recognize them, then we cannot distinguish between the love of the world and the love of God in us.
LikeLike
JRC: You’re getting confused about who says what here because you are not distinguishing having godly affections (which is genuinely good) with being able to identify them (which is perilous). So you say,
JRC quoting RS: The Bible speaks often and stresses the affections. The Bible commands love and joy and delight. The Bible speaks of those things as the work of the Holy Spirit. The Bible speaks of rejoicing, delighting, fervent love, and many things like those that include the affections.
JRC: And we say, Sure, no problem. Then you say, NO, there is a problem!
What problem?
If the problem is that believers need to have love, joy, and peace, then that’s not a problem. We all agree.
If the problem is that believers need to earnestly and frequently look inside themselves to see that they have love, joy, and peace, well, that’s a problem. The Scripture doesn’t command that. The Scripture commands us to fix our eyes on the author and finisher of our faith, not on the faith that is being finished.
RS: Which leads to three great problems on your part. 1. Scripture does command us to examine ourselves. 2. If we cannot distinguish between a spiritual love, joy, and peace versus that given to us by the devil, then we have a huge problem and no way to be spiritually discerning or to try the spirits. 3. If faith works by love (Gal 5:6), then the author and finisher of our faith does not give us a way to detemine who is working on our faith. I would say that your system has huge problems.
LikeLike
Erik opines: I would like to read ” Recovering Mother Kirk” but I don’t have an extra $62.94 for a used copy on Amazon. See if you can get the publisher to reissue that title.
Come on Erik! Aren’t you the crusty old white guy, with all the money? LOL! Perhaps DGH could throw you a bone, sort of like Rush Limbaugh has been known to do, with his “ditto heads”, eh?
Come on Darryl, show a little charity brother! Can’t you flip Erik a free copy? You know, faith working itself out through love, sort of thing.
LikeLike
RS: So if a person does not have true affections, why not say that the person has not had a new heart?
If we could know the affections of a man, then we would.
LikeLike
RS: RS: Which leads to three great problems on your part. 1. Scripture does command us to examine ourselves.
Yes, it does, in 2 Cor 13 and again in 1 Cor 11. What criteria does it lay out for such self-examination? And what does this have to do with examining others?
RS: 2. If we cannot distinguish between a spiritual love, joy, and peace versus that given to us by the devil, then we have a huge problem and no way to be spiritually discerning or to try the spirits.
How does John tell us to test the spirits? Not by affections.
RS: 3. If faith works by love (Gal 5:6), then the author and finisher of our faith does not give us a way to detemine who is working on our faith.
Why not determine this by the usual method: examine the fruits?
See, love is not seen in its affection. Love is seen in its action. “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” — 1 John 3.17, 18.
And there are several other passages of that nature. (“Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord…”).
We can’t see the affections of others, which is why actors can portray powerful emotions even while thinking ‘The lights are so hot and the director is so annoying.”
We ourselves cannot see clearly our own affections, which is why so many will be surprised on the day of judgment.
—
The big picture, RS, is what we are going to point to, what will fill our field of vision. Will it be Christ or ourselves?
The self- and others-examining regime that you seem to advocate encourages us to fill our minds with ourselves and “how am I doing?” There is a time to ask that question — for example, during confession in worship. But generally speaking, our vision ought to be on Christ.
And the only way to do that is to uphold Christ, not our affections about Him.
LikeLike
RS, we were/are talking about conversion and you made assertions that made it seem you could tell when someone has genuine love. This was what Edwards was after, hence Phebe and Religious Affections. But Scripture nowhere reveals who is converted. And it is an inference on your part to say that Scripture specifies those attributes that give you certainty to assess someone else’s conversion. And this goes back to Heidelberg. It’s description of conversion is not Edwards’. Edwards could be right and Ursinus wrong. But they are different (unless you want to invoke the historical continuities that plague the Callers).
LikeLike
Doug, why don’t you buy Erik a copy?
LikeLike
From NTJ 3.1:
OF COURSE, NONE OF THIS IS
new. In the nineteenth century, John
Williamson Nevin protested the lowchurch views of evangelicals (who did
not know better) and Presbyterians
(who should have) alike. He argued
against the privatization of religion that
occurred in the over-emphasis upon
conversion by revivalists. Such an
emphasis shifted the individual’s focus
away from the church and the
sacraments, to himself. In turn,
evangelicals created new sacraments
(the Anxious Bench) and new churchlike structures (the so-called
“Benevolent” Empire). With these new
institutions and means, the church
faded in significance.
Nevin’s protest was not heard by 19 –
th
century evangelicals or Presbyterians,
nor are his words any more likely to be
heeded in the new millennium.
American Protestants have too much
practice in shopping for heaven to
change their ways. The question
remains whether Presbyterians will
continue to follow the pied piper of
revivalism or recover those marks of
the church described in the standards to
which they subscribe.
Sean Michael Lucas SC8
LikeLike
Actually, if Hart has copies I could buy one from him vs. Amazon. I’m working my way backwards through his books so I can wait awhile.
If you come speak at our church maybe this can be one of the titles on the book table in the back. You would have to pack an extra suitcase full of books along with the golf clubs, though.
Course opens in two weeks. Hosting the Big XII Women’s Conference Meet.
http://www.harvestergolf.com/
LikeLike
Why force me to buy a book that I’m not in agreement with? You on the other hand, (wrote the dang thing) and have an opportunity to look magnanimous. Picture me throwing a perfect batting practice strike to you; take it yard, Doctor! When can Erik expect to receive your gracious (love working itself out if faith) gift?
P.S. He’s already promised you 18 holes, the next time you get over his way, the least you can do is throw the dog a bone.
LikeLike
Doug, you said I should send a book out of charity. Why don’t you show some charity as well?
No one is forcing anyone here. Take that back. You’re threatening with a lot of law.
LikeLike
Richard, we can examine one’s outward doctrine and life. I’ve no idea how to examine anybody’s affections. And the old way is actually Word and sacrament. But I know, laze and disobedience.
LikeLike
Sheesh…Erik, I’d be happy to mail you my copy as along as you’re ok with fingerprint dust–my office had a break in. The lady cop said, “Looking at all your books, I’d say our man could have stood to read a few.” Who says chicks aren’t funny?
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’m a capitalist so I buy what I want. Do you actually have multiple copies of this rare gem?
LikeLike
I suppose Zrim also has 1970s Star Wars action figures in the original packaging and a rare Stretch Serpent.
“The Kenner Stretch Serpent also known as Cecil The Stretch Sea Serpent is extremely rare. The Serpents known to exist number is currently set at only 2. Produced at the end of the stretch era, most were destroyed and sent back to Kenner. The most unique of all the Stretches, the Serpents estimated count is set at 3 to 4 Again I lean toward the lower number due to the only 2 Serpents found in the past 7 years, knowing they were thrown or returned to Kenner for credit from the department stores, and verifying its scarcity by speaking with other collectors. The Serpent is truly one of the top 5 most impossible stretches to find.”
LikeLike
Erik, no just the one copy. But I’m a Xn so I’m called to share the gifts of God (Doug, here’s where you call me a socialist).
LikeLike
From back when I was a kid and Hart was graduating high school:
LikeLike
Zrim,
You keep yours. I’ll track one down eventually. That’s half the fun.
LikeLike
Erik, no Star Wars memorabilia. I have a wife.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS: So if a person does not have true affections, why not say that the person has not had a new heart?
If we could know the affections of a man, then we would.
RS: Apart from knowing some element of the affections we have no knowledge of love at all. Yet the Scripture does teach us that we can know that we love and others love.
John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
1 John 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: [note the plural “we”]
LikeLike
DGH if it’s charity you want to see in action, I’ll send Erik a copy of Theonomy In Christian Ethics. Now, that would be a real blessing! Just picture Erik on my side in a few short months!
Erik, I’ll do what Hart won’t do. I will send you one of my personal copies of TICE, free of charge.
LikeLike
Zrim, socialism is when the government forces charity, as in taking from one group and giving it to another. You willingly giving Erik a copy of one your old books is commendable, and I don’t fault you in the slightest. But it is rather curious you don’t know what socialism is.
LikeLike
On the topic of books, the internet is making things tough for Christian bookstores:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20130328/BUSINESS/303280088/Final-chapter-for-Christian-book-store-in-Urbandale?archive
LikeLike
O.K. Doug –
4611 Mortensen, Suite 106
Ames, IA 50014
I have his book on apologetics so I’ll look forward to reading it.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle RS: RS: Which leads to three great problems on your part. 1. Scripture does command us to examine ourselves.
JRC: Yes, it does, in 2 Cor 13 and again in 1 Cor 11. What criteria does it lay out for such self-examination? And what does this have to do with examining others?
RS: I didn’t know that we were examining others in this discussion, but were primarily on the issue of conversion.
JRC quoting RS: 2. If we cannot distinguish between a spiritual love, joy, and peace versus that given to us by the devil, then we have a huge problem and no way to be spiritually discerning or to try the spirits.
JRC: How does John tell us to test the spirits? Not by affections.
RS: In the immediate context keeping the commandments and having the Spirit are directly and inextricably linked. There is no keeping of the commandments apart from love and the fruit of the Spirit is love. There can be no true love apart from the affections. True love is part of the while matter.
1 John 3:24 The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us. 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God…. I John 5:2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and observe His commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
JRC quoting RS: 3. If faith works by love (Gal 5:6), then the author and finisher of our faith does not give us a way to detemine who is working on our faith.
JRC: Why not determine this by the usual method: examine the fruits?
RS: But affections are part of the fruit.
JRC: See, love is not seen in its affection. Love is seen in its action. “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters. If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” — 1 John 3.17, 18.
RS: But you know that people can do many things that benefit others and not have true love. Love must have actions, but there is more to true love than action. Jesus Christ died so that His people could love which was and is love for God. The mere deed does not tell us that it is true love, but instead a deed just tells us that something was done.
JRC: And there are several other passages of that nature. (“Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord…”).
RS: Exactly, so there are many who will cry out about their correct theology and about their deeds and works. They are saying the same thing (externally) that you are (in appearance). They want to be judged by their deeds and you are saying that is how they should judge themselves as well. As the text in Matthew 7 so clearly shows, the deeds are not enough.
JRC: We can’t see the affections of others, which is why actors can portray powerful emotions even while thinking ‘The lights are so hot and the director is so annoying.”
We ourselves cannot see clearly our own affections, which is why so many will be surprised on the day of judgment.
RS: Which is a problem for your position and leaves no one with any degree of assurance at all. But the Holy Spirit can give these things that you say people cannot have.
I Cor 2:7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
9 but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
LikeLike
Consider it done Erik!
LikeLike
JRC: The big picture, RS, is what we are going to point to, what will fill our field of vision. Will it be Christ or ourselves?
RS: The point is Christ, though I would argue that I am looking at the ability of Christ to reveal and teach by His Spirit and your focus appears to be on man’s ability to look to Christ. I know that is not what you are saying, but that is where you position leads if left alone.
JRC: The self- and others-examining regime that you seem to advocate encourages us to fill our minds with ourselves and “how am I doing?” There is a time to ask that question — for example, during confession in worship. But generally speaking, our vision ought to be on Christ.
RS: When a person examines himself (or is helping others examine themselves) the question is not so much how am I doing, but what is Christ doing in you. You hear me saying that the focus is on me, but I am actually attempting to point to the work of Christ through His Spirit.
JRC: And the only way to do that is to uphold Christ, not our affections about Him.
RS: If all true love is from God, then all true affection is from God as well. The source and focus of all true affections is God. The issue is not MY affections in and of themselves so as to make the focus on me, but on the affections that CHRIST gives as part of His sanctifying work.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, we were/are talking about conversion and you made assertions that made it seem you could tell when someone has genuine love.
RS: I seem to recall that I asserted that one could not tell about another infallibly, and in reality what a person does is help another examine him or herself.
D.G. Hart: This was what Edwards was after, hence Phebe and Religious Affections. But Scripture nowhere reveals who is converted.
RS: But it does. It sets out how we can know those with eternal life and those who don’t have eternal life.
D.G. Hart: And it is an inference on your part to say that Scripture specifies those attributes that give you certainty to assess someone else’s conversion.
RS: It is an inference I suppose that when Scripture says all that have_____ have eternal life and when we/they see the evidence we say that they/I have eternal life. But it is also a declaration of Scripture that all that have________ have eternal life and so the inference is not something pulled out of the air, but instead is based on Scripture.
D.G. Hart: And this goes back to Heidelberg. It’s description of conversion is not Edwards’. Edwards could be right and Ursinus wrong. But they are different (unless you want to invoke the historical continuities that plague the Callers).
RS: I would not argue that Ursinus and Edwards taught exactly the same thing. However, both saw the necessity for sorrow for sin as a preparation for conversion and they saw joy in Christ as a sign of conversion or quickening.
LikeLike
RS: Doug Sowers Speaks and .. “Consider it done Erik!”
Genesis 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
Genesis 2:2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.
RS: Doug, you may be taking that Law thing a little too far.
LikeLike
RS, quoting John: John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
1 John 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: [note the plural “we”]
Erm, you realize that John says that we way that we know love is that we keep God’s commandments. Actions, not affect.
LikeLike
RS: though I would argue that I am looking at the ability of Christ to reveal and teach by His Spirit
That might be your desire, but that isn’t what you are saying. Everything that spills forth on this topic is about being able to discern love in others.
LikeLike
Darryl,
your attachment to Edwards confirms David Bebbington’s point that the awakenings were on an epistemological course on which the Enlightenment also traveled.
Who is this Bebbington fellow, why haven’t I heard of him before?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quotin RS, quoting John: John 13:35 “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”
1 John 2:5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: [note the plural “we”]
JRC: Erm, you realize that John says that we way that we know love is that we keep God’s commandments. Actions, not affect.
RS: But the Pharisees kept the Law in tems of the outward keeping. The Pharisees prayed in order to be seen by men. So it is not just the action, but it is the action moved by true love. I Cor 13 is quite clear. You can do all the outward things and do them without love. One cannot actually keep the commands of God without love. So again, it is the heart of love moving us to do actions that is the difference between the Pharisee and the true believer (in terms of this point).
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS: though I would argue that I am looking at the ability of Christ to reveal and teach by His Spirit
JRC: That might be your desire, but that isn’t what you are saying. Everything that spills forth on this topic is about being able to discern love in others.
RS: The topic began with conversion and has always been about conversion in my mind. A person can do all the outward things that the Bible commands and still not be converted. A person must be changed by God into a new creature. A child can be raised in a very religious home and taught all the things that a child can be taught, but that child’s heart must be changed by God. So when I am arguing for the affections in this context, I am arguing that since a person must have a new heart that person must have new affections as well. The issue, then, is not about a person examining himself to see what he has done or can do, but the person is looking in his heart to see what Christ has done and what the Spirit is revealing. In doing that the person is looking for evidence of the work of God in his or her heart rather than looking at self.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: Who is this Bebbington fellow, why haven’t I heard of him before?
RS: He is a historian who is Professor of History at the University of Stirling in Scotland.
The book Dr. Hart is most likely referring to is The Dominance of Evangelicalism: The Age of Spurgeon and Moody, Inter-varsity Press, 2005
LikeLike
Doug, you call Obama a “committed socialist” (on the other thread) and then say I’m the one who doesn’t know what socialism is? Oy vey. Yours is the flip side of those who labelled GWB a “fascist.” My jab was to say what a poor reader you are, as your hyper neo-con branding of Obama clearly shows. But here’s a definition that works: socialism is man’s exploitation of man, capitalism is the reverse.
LikeLike
RS: Exactly, so there are many who will cry out about their correct theology and about their deeds and works. They are saying the same thing (externally) that you are (in appearance). They want to be judged by their deeds and you are saying that is how they should judge themselves as well. As the text in Matthew 7 so clearly shows, the deeds are not enough.
That’s correct. And so in the eschaton, God separates wheat from chaff.
Meanwhile, in the age in which we live, we have no mandate to do so. We are charged with shepherding the flock, and we make judgments on people’s sincerity based on the criteria set forth in Scripture — which does not include examining affections.
1 Cor 2 doesn’t help your case. Verse 10 makes clear that Paul is talking about the things he preaches. Those are the “things given us” in v.12. Those are the “things we speak” in v. 13.
If Paul were speaking about reading the hearts of others, he would not say But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
I can’t see how you can reconcile “appraised by no one” with your practice of appraising others.
LikeLike
JRC: You realize that John says that we way that we know love is that we keep God’s commandments. Actions, not affect.
RS: But the Pharisees kept the Law in tems of the outward keeping.
I don’t dispute that, but what does that prove?
LikeLike
But the Pharisees kept the Law in terms of the outward keeping.
Richard, isn’t inward externalistm a possibility here, as in a sinner fooling himself into believing he’s got all his affections squared away?
LikeLike
Zrim: But the Pharisees kept the Law in terms of the outward keeping.
Richard, isn’t inward externalistm a possibility here, as in a sinner fooling himself into believing he’s got all his affections squared away?
RS: Yes, in much the same way that a person can fool himself into believing that he is a regenerate person because he believes certain things and lives a religious life.
LikeLike
JRC old comment: You realize that John says that we way that we know love is that we keep God’s commandments. Actions, not affect.
RS old comment: But the Pharisees kept the Law in tems of the outward keeping.
JRC: I don’t dispute that, but what does that prove?
RS: It proves that anyone can keep the outward parts of the Law. In other words, one can keep the Law in a way that is without love and then there is a way to keep the Law from true love. Since love is the real issue and love includes true affections, one has to examine the affections to see if one has true love and if indeed one is keeping the Law. If one is keeping the Law without true love, then one has not been converted and so keeping the commands of Christ without true affections can be one way for people to deceive themselves.
LikeLike
RS: Yes, in much the same way that a person can fool himself into believing that he is a regenerate person because he believes certain things and lives a religious life.
OK, so this is a beneficial concession. So what are you angling for exactly? In terms of conversion, what do you imagine is the difference between us here?
LikeLike
RS: In other words, one can keep the Law in a way that is without love and then there is a way to keep the Law from true love.
Actually, no. I would say that one cannot keep the Law in a way that is without love, for on love hang the law and the prophets. Gal 5 also.
So love is not a quality that one adds to one’s Law-keeping to make it “good law-keeping.” Either one loves God and neighbor, resulting in obedience to commands, or one does not, resulting in disobedience (even if keeping the outward forms).
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Exactly, so there are many who will cry out about their correct theology and about their deeds and works. They are saying the same thing (externally) that you are (in appearance). They want to be judged by their deeds and you are saying that is how they should judge themselves as well. As the text in Matthew 7 so clearly shows, the deeds are not enough.
JRC: That’s correct. And so in the eschaton, God separates wheat from chaff.
RS: But if you follow the text it has a present day application. There are those who are building their house on the sand and those who are building on the rock.
JRC: Meanwhile, in the age in which we live, we have no mandate to do so. We are charged with shepherding the flock, and we make judgments on people’s sincerity based on the criteria set forth in Scripture — which does not include examining affections.
RS: So in your view elders have no way of distinguishing believers and unbelievers other than their outward lives. In your view you are to watch over the flock for wolves and you have no way to protect them other than the external things of people’s lives. Where does spiritual discernment and understanding fit in here? Unbelievers can tell the same things by looking at the lives of people.
JRC: 1 Cor 2 doesn’t help your case. Verse 10 makes clear that Paul is talking about the things he preaches. Those are the “things given us” in v.12. Those are the “things we speak” in v. 13.
RS: Sure it does. What are those things that he is preaching and expects that the believers will understand? 9 but just as it is written, “THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
RS: The natural eye and the natural ear cannot understand the things that God has prepared for those who love Him. But the spiritual eye and the spiritual ear can understand them. Why is that?
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
RS: God is revealing spiritual things to the people as opposed to things limited to exernal things. Believers receive the Spirit so that Paul can know what he taught and others can know those things that Paul taught. The natural man cannot understand those things, but the external things are those things that unbelievers can understand.
JRC: If Paul were speaking about reading the hearts of others, he would not say But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. I can’t see how you can reconcile “appraised by no one” with your practice of appraising others.
RS: Reconciliation is quite simple in this case.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually appraised. The man who is spiritual (has the Holy Spirit), however, does appraise these things. Here, according to the text, is a description of what it means to have the mind of Christ. The contrast is between the spiritual man and the natural man. The natural man cannot appraise the spiritual man and yet the spiritual man can appraise the natural man. Even if you want to say that the spiritual man cannot appraise a spritual man, though I don’t think the text is saying that, I would simply argue that it takes a spiritual man (one with the Holy Spirit) to help another person appraise himself.
LikeLike
RS, a callers problem again. “Who” is converted is not the same as “How” is converted. Watch your consonants.
“Exactly”? Say so long to history and contingencies.
LikeLike
Jed, Bebbington works in Scotland. How provincial are you?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Yes, in much the same way that a person can fool himself into believing that he is a regenerate person because he believes certain things and lives a religious life.
JRC: OK, so this is a beneficial concession. So what are you angling for exactly? In terms of conversion, what do you imagine is the difference between us here?
RS: It appears from this side that there is a huge difference. Your side appears to be willing to accept those who make a profession and lead outwardly moral lives as true believers in virtually all cases. My side says that people like that are easily deceived and need to be helped to see the nature of true regeneration and what it means to have eternal life. Indeed people can be deceived and are deceived, but my position is that my side is getting people into the deeper things of how people are deceived and so at least attempting to help them see their true state before God.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: In other words, one can keep the Law in a way that is without love and then there is a way to keep the Law from true love.
JRC: Actually, no. I would say that one cannot keep the Law in a way that is without love, for on love hang the law and the prophets. Gal 5 also.
So love is not a quality that one adds to one’s Law-keeping to make it “good law-keeping.” Either one loves God and neighbor, resulting in obedience to commands, or one does not, resulting in disobedience (even if keeping the outward forms).
RS: Of course you are correct on that, but it appears that what you have been saying is that as long as one is keeping the external things you are willing to think of that person as a converted person. I am arguing that the outward keeping of the Law is no sign of salvation at all though without it one is certainly not a converted person at all.
LikeLike
Richard, accepting an outward profession and upright life is called exercising a judgment of charity, as in not upturning inward stones or uprooting wheat with chaff or slaying sheep with goats. And I’m still not clear on how new lifers circumvent the deception of feigned affections any better than old lifers circumvent that of doctrine and life. Sounds like the Pharisaical arrogance of pietism.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, a callers problem again. “Who” is converted is not the same as “How” is converted. Watch your consonants.
RS: My continents have nothing to do with the issue other than the Continental theologians who confused things. But of course “who” is converted is not exactly the same as “how” one is converted, but the two can be linked. If a person has no idea how to be converted, that person most likely is not one of the who is converted.
D.G. Hart: “Exactly”? Say so long to history and contingencies.
RS: The Bible is history and all things are ultimately contingent upon our sovereign God, so I don’t think I have to bid history or contingencies so long. Indeed history is the unfolding of the plan of God, but just because it happened in history or just because a person or many people believed something in history does not make the content of their belief true.
LikeLike
Presbyterians fought these New School/Old School debates — up to the Civil War. At that point the divisions caused by that conflict kind of dwarfed the debate. By the time the war was over the next big debate was over modernism and the birth of the OPC was the result.
New School/Old School — no biggie. Just don’t mess with my slaves.
“Seeking a Better Country” gets into all this.
I read a recent article in the WSJ that said that a relatively small number of landowners held a lot of slaves in the South. A lot of Southerners were as irritated with them as Northerners were, especially when they had to fight a war to defend their “peculiar institution”.
LikeLike
Maybe someone could write a script for an “In Treatment” show in which the lead character is not a shrink, but a New School minister. He could go through several sessions with his parishioners, seeking to help them discern Christ in the heart. Instead of Gabriel Byrne we could get Kirk Cameron to play the lead.
LikeLike
If you liked “In Treatment”, my wife and I are enjoying season one of “The Killing”. Michelle Forbes plays the mother of the girl who is killed. She’s Paul’s wife in “In Treatment”.
LikeLike
RS: …but it appears that what you have been saying is that as long as one is keeping the external things you are willing to think of that person as a converted person.
So are you; it’s just that you use a different set of external things, and then think of them as “internal.”
Without a Heart-O-Meter, which you have conceded that you do not possess, you must rely on words, facial expressions, gestures, and other actions to “read” the affections of others.
Those can be faked every bit as much as anything else.
RS: I am arguing that the outward keeping of the Law is no sign of salvation at all though without it one is certainly not a converted person at all.
Would you argue that an outward profession of faith is no sign of salvation at all?
LikeLike
Darryl,
The only reason I heard of you is because of your Escondido connections, provincial enough?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, accepting an outward profession and upright life is called exercising a judgment of charity, as in not upturning inward stones or uprooting wheat with chaff or slaying sheep with goats.
RS: It may be called that, but it does not turn out to be true love at all. It can be just allowing deceived people go on in their deception. Morality and religion are two ways (sometimes joined at the hip) that people are deceived.
Zrim: And I’m still not clear on how new lifers circumvent the deception of feigned affections any better than old lifers circumvent that of doctrine and life.
RS: An analogy (only an analogy) might be that of a doctor. A doctor can simply take the word of a patient and only look at things externally or s/he can do the tests to see what is going on internally. Indeed the tests may not show all that is going on, but at least they are more likely to show what is going on regarding the inward person than simply the word of the person or an external observance.
Zrim: Sounds like the Pharisaical arrogance of pietism.
RS: I would say your position sounds like sticking your head in the sand of externalism and ignoring the spiritual state of the souls of people. In fleeing from what you think of as the arrogance of pietism you have fallen into another trap and plead ignorance. However, God works in the hearts of people and grants them life, so one should look where that life dwells. God can also restrain people from external sin and turn them over to hardened and proud hearts of their external morality and rituals. Eternal life consists in knowing God and fellowshipping with God, it is not found in religious morality or rituals. If God dwells in the hearts of His people, why wouldn’t you look to where He dwells rather than to external acts and rituals alone?
LikeLike
RS: Your side appears to be willing to accept those who make a profession and lead outwardly moral lives as true believers in virtually all cases. My side says that people like that are easily deceived and need to be helped to see the nature of true regeneration and what it means to have eternal life. Indeed people can be deceived and are deceived, but my position is that my side is getting people into the deeper things of how people are deceived and so at least attempting to help them see their true state before God.
Such as which deeper things?
And why do you equate keeping God’s law with leading outwardly moral lives?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: …but it appears that what you have been saying is that as long as one is keeping the external things you are willing to think of that person as a converted person.
So are you; it’s just that you use a different set of external things, and then think of them as “internal.”
RS: No, I don’t think that is correct at all.
JRC: Without a Heart-O-Meter, which you have conceded that you do not possess, you must rely on words, facial expressions, gestures, and other actions to “read” the affections of others.
RS: Again, that is incorrect.
JRC: Those can be faked every bit as much as anything else.
RS: They can be faked but certainly not as easily as a person keeping the external moralites and rites of religion.
JRC quoting RS: I am arguing that the outward keeping of the Law is no sign of salvation at all though without it one is certainly not a converted person at all.
JRC: Would you argue that an outward profession of faith is no sign of salvation at all?
RS: Of course a person must profess faith, but the profession in and of itself is not a sign of salvation at all. I have seen numbers of people profess Christ (in person and on religious programs) and yet turn out not to have Christ at all.
LikeLike
Jeff, not to sound too high-fivey, but exactly.
Erik, we just finished season 2 of TK. Michelle Forbes is the big salad girl from Seinfeld.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Your side appears to be willing to accept those who make a profession and lead outwardly moral lives as true believers in virtually all cases. My side says that people like that are easily deceived and need to be helped to see the nature of true regeneration and what it means to have eternal life. Indeed people can be deceived and are deceived, but my position is that my side is getting people into the deeper things of how people are deceived and so at least attempting to help them see their true state before God.
JRC: Such as which deeper things?
RS: The issues of the heart.
JRC: And why do you equate keeping God’s law with leading outwardly moral lives?
RS: Again, you are quite correct in saying that an outward keeping of the law and outwardly moral lives is not really keeping God’s law. However, you appear to be willing to accept people’s outward profession of faith and outward keeping of the law as sufficient evidence of conversion. I am simply using the term as an outward keeping of the law as opposed to an inward spiritual keeping of the law much in line with Jesus’ “you have heard that it was said” and then “but I say to you.” Surely you can see the great danger of people making a profession of faith and then becoming moral and religious and thinking that their external actions and rites mean that they are believers. The moral man, the civil man, and the religious man are the most easily deceived.
LikeLike
But, Richard, even when a doctor looks internally he’s still limited in what he perceives, because he’s still a creature. The way new lifers speak it sounds as if creatures can see the way God sees. Human limitation is not the long suit, evidently.
LikeLike
RS: A doctor can simply take the word of a patient and only look at things externally or s/he can do the tests to see what is going on internally.
Doctors do (should) not perform tests that do not give useful information. Those tests that are administered need to be backed by studies, and they should have known false negative rates and known false positive rates. It is actually harmful and considered bad care to administer tests that do not meet these criteria.
In our case, Scripture warrants asking for and receiving a profession of faith (Acts 8, e.g. — consider both the case of Simon and the case of the eunuch) and examining outward actions (1 John, e.g.).
It does not warrant probing for affections. You have produced no command from Scripture or example in Scripture that warrants becoming an “affection inspector.”
What you have shown, correctly, is that the Spirit produces fruit such as love, joy, and peace in believers. What you infer, incorrectly, is that we are therefore warranted to perform tests to examine that fruit.
This is simply mistaken. It is our job to preach the Scripture, including the warnings against externalism. It is the Spirit’s job to use that Scripture to “divide joints and marrow.”
History has shown the folly of becoming affection inspectors. The Puritans collapsed under the weight of having to produce the right affections. They collapsed theologically (the New Divinity), and they collapsed ecclesiologically (the Halfway Covenant).
LikeLike
RS: Surely you can see the great danger of people making a profession of faith and then becoming moral and religious and thinking that their external actions and rites mean that they are believers.
Certainly I can. I just don’t see any added benefit to probing around in the “deeper things.”
I do see a benefit, on the other hand, of consistently preaching the full extent of the Law, including its claims on the heart, and the full extent of the Gospel.
In other words, I’m saying that you are alert to a real problem, but you have put forward an unScriptural solution to that problem. Preach the Word, brother. Administer the sacraments. Those are the means of grace. Introspection is not a means of grace.
LikeLike
Zrim: But, Richard, even when a doctor looks internally he’s still limited in what he perceives, because he’s still a creature. The way new lifers speak it sounds as if creatures can see the way God sees. Human limitation is not the long suit, evidently.
RS: Like I said, it was an analogy. The idea is that you cannot take what is going on with the outside as necessarily what is going on on the inside. You have to look deeper. In other words, if by the Spirit we are enabled to look at the heart in some way, it is God opening up a way to see the heart to see it in some way as He does. This is another point I keep trying to make and that is how the Spirit gives His people a spiritual understanding so that they can discern spiritual things and are not limited to external things.
By the way, I really like the term “new life.” It sounds like the new man in Scripture as opposed to the old man or old life.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Surely you can see the great danger of people making a profession of faith and then becoming moral and religious and thinking that their external actions and rites mean that they are believers.
JRC: Certainly I can. I just don’t see any added benefit to probing around in the “deeper things.”
RS: So you don’t see a benefit of doing what Paul commands and what John wrote his first epistle to tell us how to do. It is to examine ourselves and see if we have eternal life. Can we see from the outside if a person has eternal life or not? I don’t think so and John did not limit himself to external things either.
JRC: I do see a benefit, on the other hand, of consistently preaching the full extent of the Law, including its claims on the heart, and the full extent of the Gospel.
RS: But in that case you are preaching to the internal or spiritual things of the law and proclaiming a Gospel that reaches the heart and saves us from the non-love of God and from all the spiritual sins. So you are not limiting things to the externals.
JRC: In other words, I’m saying that you are alert to a real problem, but you have put forward an unScriptural solution to that problem. Preach the Word, brother. Administer the sacraments. Those are the means of grace. Introspection is not a means of grace.
RS: But again, we cannot examine ourselves apart from introspection to some degree. Sure enough there is a morbid introspection that goes too far, but surely some introspection is necessary to see beyond the external morality and rites. I understand that at times what you are interpreting me to mean would be going too far, but I fail to see how it is anything less than being faithful to Scripture to examine ourselves and to help people examine themselves to see if eternal life dwells in them as long as it is in accordance with the things that John sets out.
LikeLike
RS: In other words, if by the Spirit we are enabled to look at the heart in some way, it is God opening up a way to see the heart to see it in some way as He does. This is another point I keep trying to make and that is how the Spirit gives His people a spiritual understanding so that they can discern spiritual things and are not limited to external things.
OK, so spin out the exegetical case that the Spirit gives His people the ability to discern affections in others.
At this moment, I can’t see where you’re getting that, but I’m open to a well-made case.
LikeLike
RS: But in that case you are preaching to the internal or spiritual things of the law and proclaiming a Gospel that reaches the heart and saves us from the non-love of God and from all the spiritual sins. So you are not limiting things to the externals.
Now you believe at last!
The point is to hit the internals by God-ordained means instead of those other ones.
LikeLike
RS: But again, we cannot examine ourselves apart from introspection to some degree.
This is true. But first you need to settle on which point of view you want to take. Here, you argue that believers need to examine themselves. There, you argue that spiritual people have the ability to determine the work of the Spirit in others. And in between, you say that what you really mean is helping people to examine themselves.
Part of the issue is the rapid camera-switching from 1st person to 3rd person.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: A doctor can simply take the word of a patient and only look at things externally or s/he can do the tests to see what is going on internally.
JRC: Doctors do (should) not perform tests that do not give useful information. Those tests that are administered need to be backed by studies, and they should have known false negative rates and known false positive rates. It is actually harmful and considered bad care to administer tests that do not meet these criteria.
In our case, Scripture warrants asking for and receiving a profession of faith (Acts 8, e.g. — consider both the case of Simon and the case of the eunuch) and examining outward actions (1 John, e.g.).
It does not warrant probing for affections. You have produced no command from Scripture or example in Scripture that warrants becoming an “affection inspector.”
RS: What you are saying, then, is that Scripture leaves the most important part of man untouched and the elders have no way of helping people examine themselves in that area.
JRC: What you have shown, correctly, is that the Spirit produces fruit such as love, joy, and peace in believers. What you infer, incorrectly, is that we are therefore warranted to perform tests to examine that fruit.
RS: Again, what you are saying is that elders and others are not allowed to help people examine themselves to see if they have the Spirit or not. This seems to infer that the most important part of people is to be left alone by the most spiritual people and so leave them to themselves.
JRC: This is simply mistaken. It is our job to preach the Scripture, including the warnings against externalism. It is the Spirit’s job to use that Scripture to “divide joints and marrow.”
RS: But surely you are not saying that the elders are to teach the Word from the front and then simply leave the people alone other than teaching morality and discipline if they become openly immoral. If one can preach the Scripture, then how is it that one cannot actually speak to the people about applying the Scripture and counsel them on how to examine themselves and help them in this process?
JRC: History has shown the folly of becoming affection inspectors.
RS: History has also repeatedly shown the folly of limiting things to external morality and professions.
JRC: The Puritans collapsed under the weight of having to produce the right affections.
RS: That is incorrect. Right affections are not produced by a human being, but instead they are the fruit of the work of the Spirit in the soul of the one that has eternal life. So the true Puritans would never have tried to work up right affections on their own, or perhaps if they saw themselves doing so they would have repented. Right affections are by grace alone.
JRC: They collapsed theologically (the New Divinity), and they collapsed ecclesiologically (the Halfway Covenant).
RS: You might be getting things a bit backwards there, but the Puritans did not collapse in the New Divinity and the Halfway Covenant was trying to deal with things like communion and unbelieving parents. The New Divinity actually happened when men stepped away from the teachings of the Puritans and Edwards.
I John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son. 11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Introspection is not a means of grace.
I wish I could start a slow-clap, in the fashion of Patrick Dempsey’s speech urging “cools and nerds” to get along in Can’t Buy Me Love. Honestly, this is an important insight.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: In other words, if by the Spirit we are enabled to look at the heart in some way, it is God opening up a way to see the heart to see it in some way as He does. This is another point I keep trying to make and that is how the Spirit gives His people a spiritual understanding so that they can discern spiritual things and are not limited to external things.
JRC: OK, so spin out the exegetical case that the Spirit gives His people the ability to discern affections in others.
At this moment, I can’t see where you’re getting that, but I’m open to a well-made case.
RS: Elders are to watch out for the souls of the people and not just their morality and religous rites. Now that is not an exegetical case, but then as far as I can tell no one has given an exegetical case to show that we must have a modern version of an exegetical case to show things.
However, what we have are repeated warnings about being deceived and about how elders and/or ministers are to watch over the flock. In Ephesians 4 we have instructions on how the church is to operate and how it is to be built up. In Ephesians 6 we have the teaching on spiritual warfare. This general thought leaves us with two options. Either elders are to help people to be built up, in spirtual deceptions and in the spiritual war or they are to leave them to their own devices. Either elders are to help people examine themselves to see if they have eternal life or they should leave them to their own devices and deceptive hearts.
The affections (as such) refer to the inward workings of the heart. When Scripture puts so much emphasis on the heart, I would argue that the work of elders should include the most important part of human beings. People are deceived in their hearts and they sin far more in their hearts than in the external lives. Salvation includes if not primarily refers to a changed heart and so if we are to help people in a spiritual sense we must deal with the hearts of people. I would argue that it is spiritual malpractice not to do so.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: But again, we cannot examine ourselves apart from introspection to some degree.
JRC: This is true. But first you need to settle on which point of view you want to take. Here, you argue that believers need to examine themselves. There, you argue that spiritual people have the ability to determine the work of the Spirit in others. And in between, you say that what you really mean is helping people to examine themselves.
Part of the issue is the rapid camera-switching from 1st person to 3rd person.
RS: Not so rapid actually, but so be it. As I have said (in my mind repeatedly), believers are commanded to examine themselves. However, babes are not able to do this very well at all. So the more spiritual (mature in the faith) should teach people how to examine themselves. It is true that those who are more mature can help people examine themelves because of a greater spiritual insight. As the mature are to help the less mature, so this should happen because the heart is the most important part. If we leave this undone, we are not dealing with the most important part.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall quoting Jeff, Introspection is not a means of grace.
JP: I wish I could start a slow-clap, in the fashion of Patrick Dempsey’s speech urging “cools and nerds” to get along in Can’t Buy Me Love. Honestly, this is an important insight.
RS: Actually, it may not be depending on what one means. When an elder is using the Scripture and prayer (means of grace) to help a person see the most important part of his soul (the heart), perhaps introspection is a means of grace and a very important means of grace. If the Word just resides on the outer man and never “reaches” the inner man, that is actually a harmful thing.
LikeLike
Oh no we’re doing divination again, at OL of all places. I hate divination. It gets all up in the Holy Spirit’s business with my conscience and my recourse by adoption to the only mediator between myself and God; Jesus Christ. Evanjellyfish and RC’s do divination, the RC’s at least have a whole sacramental system to go by when they do it, the evanjellyfish just have Benny Hinn’s of different gradations. Confessional protestants are supposed to know better.
LikeLike
Zrim – Erik, we just finished season 2 of TK. Michelle Forbes is the big salad girl from Seinfeld.
I first encountered her during my ill-fated attempt to watch “True Blood”, then saw her in “In Treatment”, then “Kalifornia”, and finally “The Killing”. She’ll probably turn up next on “Teletubbies” or something. She’s kind of like Alanis Morissette on the radio in the Mid-90s (or Darryl Hart on theological podcasts).
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: OK, so spin out the exegetical case that the Spirit gives His people the ability to discern affections in others.
At this moment, I can’t see where you’re getting that, but I’m open to a well-made case.
RS: Note carefully the verses below. The way of life is quite narrow and few find it. The way that leads to death is quite broad. One issue is that all those on the broad road think that they are actually on the narrow road and on the way to life. Spiritual men should help people see the road they are on because of the deceiver and the fact that our own hearts deceive us.
Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Matthew 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
Luke 13:23 And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
LikeLike
I’ve actually seen very little of “Seinfeld” but after eight seasons of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” I just don’t think it would work for me now.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: OK, so spin out the exegetical case that the Spirit gives His people the ability to discern affections in others.
RS: The heart is the most important part of the person (see verse below). It is from the heart that all the sins of the body flow, but it is also the heart that is the seat of many sins that don’t necessarily show themselvs outwardly (like pride, envy, deception). The more mature should help others examine their own hearts or they will be in a battle that will overwhelm them. If the older women in the church are to help the younger with basic issues of life, how much more should the more spiritual help the young in the faith (or those deceived) examine their hearts.
Proverbs 4:23 Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life.
Ephesians 4:18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
Mark 7:18 And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 “All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.”
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: OK, so spin out the exegetical case that the Spirit gives His people the ability to discern affections in others.
RS: The preaching of the Word is utterly vital. But we must remember that seeing and hearing the Word in some ways depends on the condition of the heart (parable of the sower). So if we truly want the Word to have a deeper effect in the souls, we should be careful that the seed is planted and watered. I would argue that since the evil one does snatch it away, it is important to keep planting in different ways and to plough up the fallow ground. Part of helping people hear preaching to the heart is to help them learn how their heart responds and how it is so deceitful.
Mat 13:3 “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 “In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE; 15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL, WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES, HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’ 16 “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.
LikeLike
sean Oh no we’re doing divination again, at OL of all places. I hate divination. It gets all up in the Holy Spirit’s business with my conscience and my recourse by adoption to the only mediator between myself and God; Jesus Christ. Evanjellyfish and RC’s do divination, the RC’s at least have a whole sacramental system to go by when they do it, the evanjellyfish just have Benny Hinn’s of different gradations. Confessional protestants are supposed to know better.
RS: A nice job of dissing the importance of the heart in Christianity. It is not divination and it is as far from Benny Hinn and modern evangelicalism as one can get.
LikeLike
Who’s dissing? Scripture posits the question, “who can know it?” It’s a rhetorical question aimed at pointing to an impossibility for humans(spirit inspired or otherwise) and is aimed at positing the unique position and power of God. But apparently you want to argue that the Edwardsian puritans mapped out what scripture says only God can know. Otherwise known as divination. Confessional protestants are against granting to man what only God can do. Benny Hinn’s and RC’s and Jim Jones are all variations on a theme.
LikeLike
RS: What you are saying, then, is that Scripture leaves the most important part of man untouched and the elders have no way of helping people examine themselves in that area.
JRC: so are you suggesting that the word of God is not the sword of the Spirit?
I mean, your argument seems to be “if not introspection, then no help at all. The preaching of the Word doesn’t touch the important stuff.”
RS: But surely you are not saying that the elders are to teach the Word from the front and then simply leave the people alone other than teaching morality and discipline if they become openly immoral. If one can preach the Scripture, then how is it that one cannot actually speak to the people about applying the Scripture and counsel them on how to examine themselves and help them in this process?
No one said anything about preaching from the pulpit only. That’s a fiction. No one said anything about not teaching people to apply the Word.
Where are you getting this impression?
LikeLike
RS: then as far as I can tell no one has given an exegetical case to show that we must have a modern version of an exegetical case to show things.
“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience…”
The teaching about introspection must pass a strict scrutiny test.
LikeLike
So summarizing your Scriptural support, you show three true things.
First, that many are deceived about the state of their hearts. This is very true, for the reason that we all agree to: “The heart of man is desperately wicked; who may know it?”
Second, that out of the heart, sin flows.
Third, that the hardness of men’s hearts keeps them from hearing the word.
I agree with all those.
You then go from there to argue that the elder’s job (the most important part?) is to work with those under their care to help them see the state of their hearts and … repent? You don’t say exactly, but I guess that can be reasonably inferred.
All of this makes sense IF the kingdom of God is viewed as a spiritual engineering project: Observe the problem, identify the root cause(s), fix them.
But it isn’t. More below.
Here’s what Paul tells Timothy to do:
— 2 Tim 4.
That’s how the care for souls happens. Does reproving, rebuking, and exhorting include a certain amount of exhortation to introspect? Yes, especially on the occasion of sin. We elders don’t treat sin as behavioral problem, but as a failure to love. The response to sin is not to “Stop It!”, but to repent, with all that repentance entails.
Is there a separate command to encourage introspection? No. The introspection is incidental.
LikeLike
So why not encourage introspection? Here are two images to help the understanding.
First, the heart is desparately wicked. It is vast and deep. Why do I love Bach’s A minor violin concerto? Who knows? We are also very bad judges of it. Think about Phebe Bartlett and her inability to distinguish felt guilt from actual sin (“But you have permission to eat the pears!” “Waaah!”).
So we might think of the heart as a deep, twisted, water-filled cavern in which light only dimly penetrates. It is actually perilous to go diving on a lark; we really need the Spirit Himself, using the Word, to take us when and where He will.
Not only so, but our hearts have an Inception-like feature about them: when we start to observe ourselves, we create a new layer, a meta-layer of hopes and desires and opportunity for sin. So I introspect: Am I humble? And the Pharisee says, “I thank thee, God, that I am not like this tax-collector…”
So while introspection is needed, especially on the occasion of sin, it is not a thing to be pursued for its own sake. Rather, we should allow the Spirit to use the Word in His own time to bring that about.
—
Second image. Most music teaching happens by metaphor. A singer is produces sound by pushing air out of the diaphragm at high pressure, forcing the sinuses and other spaces to resonate. But very rarely is singing taught by asking the singer to focus on the diaphragm and the resonant spaces. That kind of technical thinking is counterproductive.
Instead, the singer is given metaphors to work off of: “Breathe all the way down into your legs. Let the sound spin out of the top of your forehead.” Stuff like that that is literal nonsense, but provides excellent imagery to acheive the desired result.
Likewise here, the believer needs to have subjective possession of an objective faith. It does not help him to engage in subjective introspection to see whether or not his faith is genuine. He needs instead to be thinking about, focused on, the work that Christ has done on his behalf.
That’s why the sacraments are what they are. There isn’t a sacrament of introspection. There’s a sacrament that seals God’s cleansing of us, and a sacrament that seals God’s forgiveness of us.
We need to take the large arc of our ministry from the structure that God has given.
LikeLike
The idea is that you cannot take what is going on with the outside as necessarily what is going on on the inside. You have to look deeper. In other words, if by the Spirit we are enabled to look at the heart in some way, it is God opening up a way to see the heart to see it in some way as He does. This is another point I keep trying to make and that is how the Spirit gives His people a spiritual understanding so that they can discern spiritual things and are not limited to external things.
Richard, even Paul who had every reason to think he could discern spiritual things and wasn’t limited to external things on his death bed requested books. But not before he opposed the super-apostles in Corinth who thought they had some spiritual connection that others didn’t. When I read you, I hear a somewhat moderated version of super-apostleship and Keswickian higher lifery. Old lifery doesn’t disagree that the Spirit testifies with ours to discern spiritual things, but it is very much opposed to the unmediated aspect you assert about external things. We hold that God is a God of means and uses those means to communicate spiritual realities. Even spiritual man is indeed limited to physical means to discern that which is spiritual. An important implication of this is that spiritual people can be quite wrong (think Peter). While there may be a polite concession that man is totally depraved, what never comes through in your brand of new lifery is that the spiritual man is limited in his knowledge and ability and can mis-read things very badly. In fact, the opposite comes through.
LikeLike
Erik, I know who killed Rosie. But not because I’m super-spiritual.
LikeLike
Zrim,
If you tell me you’ll be joining her. I don’t have a good guess at this point, but I imagine it’s someone surprising. I love shows like this.
LikeLike
sean: Who’s dissing? Scripture posits the question, “who can know it?” It’s a rhetorical question aimed at pointing to an impossibility for humans(spirit inspired or otherwise) and is aimed at positing the unique position and power of God. But apparently you want to argue that the Edwardsian puritans mapped out what scripture says only God can know. Otherwise known as divination. Confessional protestants are against granting to man what only God can do. Benny Hinn’s and RC’s and Jim Jones are all variations on a theme.
RS: The heart of the issue (originally, but keeps devolving) had to do with conversion. The question had to do with whether it is satisfactory for a child to be obedient and a good child (pious child in some way) to be told that s/he must be converted. I argued that they needed a new heart and that many people deceive themselves through good behavior and religion. So “who can know it” may not be the best question in this context. The question is whether God has revealed it.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: What you are saying, then, is that Scripture leaves the most important part of man untouched and the elders have no way of helping people examine themselves in that area.
JRC: so are you suggesting that the word of God is not the sword of the Spirit?
I mean, your argument seems to be “if not introspection, then no help at all. The preaching of the Word doesn’t touch the important stuff.”
RS: Of course the Word of God is the sword of the Spirit, but your argument just above (implied) seems to lead us to the conclusion that in preaching or teaching we can just throw something out there and regardless of what we do the Spirit does what He pleases. While that is somewhat true, I would argue that preaching and the preacher should be honed instruments with honed messages so that the properly honed sword (honed by the Spirit) will do its work. I am saying that preaching and teaching should go after the heart.
Old comment RS: But surely you are not saying that the elders are to teach the Word from the front and then simply leave the people alone other than teaching morality and discipline if they become openly immoral. If one can preach the Scripture, then how is it that one cannot actually speak to the people about applying the Scripture and counsel them on how to examine themselves and help them in this process?
JRC: No one said anything about preaching from the pulpit only. That’s a fiction. No one said anything about not teaching people to apply the Word.
Where are you getting this impression?
RS: The repetitive Word and sacrament in public worship just on Sunday, meaning preaching and the sacrament.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: then as far as I can tell no one has given an exegetical case to show that we must have a modern version of an exegetical case to show things.
“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience…”
The teaching about introspection must pass a strict scrutiny test.
RS: Yes, but Paul’s command to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us is the correct answer to the test. The teaching of the importance of the heart is also a correct answer to the test. If doctrine is important (and it is), then we must teach doctrine. If the life or conduct of a person is important, then we must teach about that. If the heart is the real issue behind doctrine and conduct, then we must teach to the heart as well. If the heart is where love flows from and we must love the truth in doctrine and life, then we must teach to the heart.
LikeLike
Richard, it still seems terribly relevant. As in, revealed it to whom? God, the Holy Spirit and conscience. It’s this liberty of conscience which God has procured for me through the death of His Son and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which you keep threatening to encroach upon by your ‘pastoral help’. I object as should anyone else. The admonition from Jesus is to leave the tares alone ‘lest you pull up the wheat as well. You keep wanting to practice a gift that hasn’t been granted to us, Holy Spirit inspired or elsewise.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: So summarizing your Scriptural support, you show three true things.
First, that many are deceived about the state of their hearts. This is very true, for the reason that we all agree to: “The heart of man is desperately wicked; who may know it?”
Second, that out of the heart, sin flows.
Third, that the hardness of men’s hearts keeps them from hearing the word.
I agree with all those.
You then go from there to argue that the elder’s job (the most important part?) is to work with those under their care to help them see the state of their hearts and … repent? You don’t say exactly, but I guess that can be reasonably inferred. All of this makes sense IF the kingdom of God is viewed as a spiritual engineering project: Observe the problem, identify the root cause(s), fix them.
But it isn’t. More below. Here’s what Paul tells Timothy to do:
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
— 2 Tim 4.
That’s how the care for souls happens. Does reproving, rebuking, and exhorting include a certain amount of exhortation to introspect? Yes, especially on the occasion of sin. We elders don’t treat sin as behavioral problem, but as a failure to love. The response to sin is not to “Stop It!”, but to repent, with all that repentance entails.
RS: So what does repentance entail? If it is just behavior, then love is a behavior as well. If sin is a failure to love, then where does that love come from? It comes from the heart. Where does love come from in the ultimate sense? It comes from God. Does God share His love with hard hearts or humble hearts? The answer is obvious. So the real issue is the heart once again. Then the Mark 7 passage is so clear about where the sin comes from and that is the heart. So if a person truly deals with sin and with love (both), they must get to the heart or they are doing nothing more than behavior modification. The command to reprove, rebuke, and exhort with complete patience and teaching sounds like the command to Timothy to spend time with these people dealing with their hearts. One reason he was to do these things was that people would find teachers to suit their own passions. So do we leave them to their passions or teach them about the passions and the issues of the heart?
JRC: Is there a separate command to encourage introspection? No. The introspection is incidental.
RS: I would argue that introspection is not incidental (though introspection is not morbid introspection and perhaps examining the heart may be a better choice of words). It is absolutely necessary to do what needs to be done. If I tell person A to take a vehicle and drive to a location 500 miles away, I may not instruct them to keep air in the tires and gas in the tank, but in telling them to drive to that location those things are necessary to carry out the instruction.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: So why not encourage introspection? Here are two images to help the understanding.
First, the heart is desparately wicked. It is vast and deep. Why do I love Bach’s A minor violin concerto? Who knows? We are also very bad judges of it. Think about Phebe Bartlett and her inability to distinguish felt guilt from actual sin (“But you have permission to eat the pears!” “Waaah!”).
RS: Now it seems that you are judging her heart.
JRC: So we might think of the heart as a deep, twisted, water-filled cavern in which light only dimly penetrates. It is actually perilous to go diving on a lark; we really need the Spirit Himself, using the Word, to take us when and where He will.
Not only so, but our hearts have an Inception-like feature about them: when we start to observe ourselves, we create a new layer, a meta-layer of hopes and desires and opportunity for sin. So I introspect: Am I humble? And the Pharisee says, “I thank thee, God, that I am not like this tax-collector…”
So while introspection is needed, especially on the occasion of sin, it is not a thing to be pursued for its own sake. Rather, we should allow the Spirit to use the Word in His own time to bring that about.
RS: But a true searching of the heart is using the Scripture. Was David wrong in crying out for God to search his heart? Wouldn’t a love for God mean that we would want to see the hidden things in our hearts that are against Him? How does a preacher know that it is the timing of the Spirit when he stands up to preach? Since it is in the hands of the Spirit to truly search a heart, it is in His hands to do so as He pleases even when people say they desire it.
Psa 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
24 And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way.
LikeLike
JRC: Second image. Most music teaching happens by metaphor. A singer is produces sound by pushing air out of the diaphragm at high pressure, forcing the sinuses and other spaces to resonate. But very rarely is singing taught by asking the singer to focus on the diaphragm and the resonant spaces. That kind of technical thinking is counterproductive.
Instead, the singer is given metaphors to work off of: “Breathe all the way down into your legs. Let the sound spin out of the top of your forehead.” Stuff like that that is literal nonsense, but provides excellent imagery to acheive the desired result.
Likewise here, the believer needs to have subjective possession of an objective faith. It does not help him to engage in subjective introspection to see whether or not his faith is genuine. He needs instead to be thinking about, focused on, the work that Christ has done on his behalf.
RS: For what it is worth, I have never said (or at least intended to say) that a person needs to examine himself to see if he has faith. What I have said is in the line of Paul and John when they tell us that we are to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us (Paul) and if eternal life (John) is in us. One can examine himself all he pleases and study the work of Christ all he pleases but the real issue is whether Christ and eternal life is in him or her.
JRC: That’s why the sacraments are what they are. There isn’t a sacrament of introspection. There’s a sacrament that seals God’s cleansing of us, and a sacrament that seals God’s forgiveness of us.
RS: But of course we are told to examine ourselves before taking the scrament.
JRC: We need to take the large arc of our ministry from the structure that God has given.
RS: Indeed we do, but since the heart is constantly set out before us and that in conversion man receives a new heart and is a spiritual being now, we should preach and teach toward that. The unbeliever has no spiritual life and does not understand the things of the Spirit and of the heart. The believing person is a spiritual person and needs to understand the work of the Spirit in his or her heart.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, even Paul who had every reason to think he could discern spiritual things and wasn’t limited to external things on his death bed requested books.
RS: I love books and have a few thousand (my wife would say several, but through gritted teeth). The two things are not opposed to each other.
Zrim: But not before he opposed the super-apostles in Corinth who thought they had some spiritual connection that others didn’t. When I read you, I hear a somewhat moderated version of super-apostleship and Keswickian higher lifery.
RS: In that case you are hearing things or perhaps are listening to other voices. Do these type of things happen to you often?
Zrim: Old lifery doesn’t disagree that the Spirit testifies with ours to discern spiritual things, but it is very much opposed to the unmediated aspect you assert about external things. We hold that God is a God of means and uses those means to communicate spiritual realities.
RS: But I am not talking about unmediated things. I am speaking of using Scripture, prayer, meditation, and teaching of Scripture.
Zrim: Even spiritual man is indeed limited to physical means to discern that which is spiritual.
RS: That is simply incorrect. The Spirit is not means of a physical nature.
Zrim: An important implication of this is that spiritual people can be quite wrong (think Peter). While there may be a polite concession that man is totally depraved, what never comes through in your brand of new lifery is that the spiritual man is limited in his knowledge and ability and can mis-read things very badly. In fact, the opposite comes through.
RS: Then not only are you hearing things above, you are hearing things here as well. I have frequently asserted that men are totally depraved before conversion and are still unable to do one thing apart from Christ after conversion. Then I have asserted that men are to be searching and examining their hearts because the heart is so depraved. Of course man can misread things badly, but that is why he must be given to the Scritpures, prayer, meditation and having others with more experience help him.
Jer 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?
10 “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, it still seems terribly relevant. As in, revealed it to whom? God, the Holy Spirit and conscience. It’s this liberty of conscience which God has procured for me through the death of His Son and the gift of the Holy Spirit, which you keep threatening to encroach upon by your ‘pastoral help’.
RS: If a person needs to be converted, he needs to be converted in the area of the heart as well. Conversion was the main topic. If you want to keep your liberty of conscience, then of course have at it. But if you are more interested in seeking the Lord for a pure heart, then perhaps we would be more like David who cried out to God to show him his heart.
Sean: I object as should anyone else. The admonition from Jesus is to leave the tares alone ‘lest you pull up the wheat as well. You keep wanting to practice a gift that hasn’t been granted to us, Holy Spirit inspired or elsewise.
RS: When Jesus said to leave the tares alone he said that the field was the world. But again, we are commanded to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength. If that command is of any interest to you, I would argue that an examination of the heart is necessary for God to show you hidden sins. But again, the conversation started off with regarding conversion. People need new hearts and not just religious lives and decent doctrine.
LikeLike
If we had no good Old School P&R church in our area my wife and I might be able to stand a New School Presbyterian/Reformed Baptist Church, but they would need to tolerate a certain amount of eye rolling from us.
LikeLike
RS, I can only summarize at this point. Your reasoning is identical to the revivalist’s: God needs help. If we don’t root around in the affections, recognition of sin in the heart won’t happen. This is identical to the revivalist who reasons that unless he provokes religious fervor, God will not bring people to repentance and faith.
You and I aren’t smart enough to act as tour guides to the heart. We have warrant to go there when there is occasion of sin, but no more. Other than that, we need to preach the Word and let the Spirit do His job.
There is a reason that the Confession talks in this way: “Sanctification is a work of God’s grace.”
LikeLike
Richard, I think I’ll stickwith the Holy Spirit. And I reject your dichotomy of having liberty of conscience but a disinterest in seeking the Lord with a pure heart. Again that dead confession is a help here.
II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]
Calvin on tares and wheat;
“In order to reap the advantage of this parable, it is necessary to ascertain the object which Christ had in view. Some think that, to guard a mixed multitude against satisfying themselves with an outward profession of the Gospel, 209 he told them, that in his own field bad seed is often mixed with the good, but that a day is coming, when the tares shall be separated from the wheat. 210 They accordingly connect this parable with the one immediately preceding, as if the design of both had been the same. For my own part, I take a different view. He speaks of a separation, in order to prevent the minds of the godly from giving way to uneasiness or despondency, when they perceive a confused mixture of the good along with the bad. Although Christ has cleansed the Church with his own blood, that it may be without spot or blemish, yet hitherto he suffers it to be polluted by many stains. I speak not of the remaining infirmities of the flesh, to which every believer is liable, even after that he has been renewed by the Holy Spirit. But as soon as Christ has gathered a small flock for himself, many hypocrites mingle with it, persons of immoral lives creep in, nay, many wicked men insinuate themselves; in consequence of which, numerous stains pollute that holy assembly, which Christ has separated for himself. Many persons, too, look upon it as exceedingly absurd, that ungodly, or profane or unprincipled men should be cherished within the bosom of the Church. Add to this, that very many, under the pretense of zeal, are excessively displeased, when every thing is not conducted to their wish, and, because absolute purity is nowhere to be found, withdraw from the Church in a disorderly manner, or subvert and destroy it by unreasonable severity.
In my opinion, the design of the parable is simply this: So long as the pilgrimage of the Church in this world continues, bad men and hypocrites will mingle in it with those who are good and upright, that the children of God may be armed with patience and, in the midst of offenses which are fitted to disturb them, may preserve unbroken steadfastness of faith. It is an appropriate comparison, when the Lord calls the Church his field, for believers are the seed of it; and though Christ afterwards adds that the field is the world, yet he undoubtedly intended to apply this designation, in a peculiar manner, to the Church, about which he had commenced the discourse. But as he was about to drive his plough through every country of the world, so as to cultivate fields, and scatter the seed of life, throughout the whole world, he has employed a synecdoche, to make the world denote what more strictly belonged only to a part of it.”
LikeLike
I trust the preaching of the Law and Gospel and the use of the sacraments to do their intended work in the lives (hearts) of the elect. It’s certainly o.k. for a minister or elder to take a member out to coffee from time to time to converse about what is going on in their lives, but this shouldn’t be a prying or overbearing kind of thing. Ministers and elders above all need to trust in the ordinary means of grace.
If we focus to much on the subjective we become like fundamentalists and evangelicals who feel the need to walk the aisle again and again. Rest in Christ and His righteousness.
LikeLike
The Confessions are helpful in this way. They teach the gospel as well as the law, even giving practical applications of how the law should apply to our lives. One who studies them along with Scripture should see gradual maturity over time if they belong to Christ. It’s a long process, though.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, I can only summarize at this point. Your reasoning is identical to the revivalist’s: God needs help. If we don’t root around in the affections, recognition of sin in the heart won’t happen. This is identical to the revivalist who reasons that unless he provokes religious fervor, God will not bring people to repentance and faith.
RS: No, it is not that God needs help, but that He uses means. There is a reason that God has preachers and teachers and there is a reason that they are to preach and teach in certain ways. Remember, it is the NT which says that people will fall on their faces being convicted of their sin.
JRC: You and I aren’t smart enough to act as tour guides to the heart. We have warrant to go there when there is occasion of sin, but no more. Other than that, we need to preach the Word and let the Spirit do His job.
RS: That is why we are to use the Scriptures. You would brand one version of “preach the Word and let the Spirit do His job” as hyper-calvinistic. So why is it okay in your version?
JRC: There is a reason that the Confession talks in this way: “Sanctification is a work of God’s grace.”
RS: Indeed it is, but it also says that justification is by grace and we still think we need to preach the details of that. If you look at Paul’s teaching below, part of what it means to preach Christ crucified is not to persuade people with words or wisdom, but in a demonstration of the Spirit and of power. In other words, we show in the preaching of Christ crucified how the Spirit works. If we avoid that, then perhaps we are not preaching Christ crucified as Paul says he did. The work of the Spirit is to convict of sin. So are we to show how the Spirit does that or simply say He will do it without means?
II Cor 2: 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
LikeLike
sean: Richard, I think I’ll stickwith the Holy Spirit. And I reject your dichotomy of having liberty of conscience but a disinterest in seeking the Lord with a pure heart. Again that dead confession is a help here.
RS: I have said nothing that is against the Holy Spirit, but instead am simply using the means that the Spirit uses.
Sean: II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]
RS: Which says nothing against what I have been contending for. A man (or woman) can hold to a confession from the youth and be a very moral and religious person and still be in need of conversion. But again, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Can one have a pure heart without repenting from the heart?
LikeLike
Sean: Calvin on tares and wheat;
“In order to reap the advantage of this parable, it is necessary to ascertain the object which Christ had in view. Some think that, to guard a mixed multitude against satisfying themselves with an outward profession of the Gospel, 209 he told them, that in his own field bad seed is often mixed with the good, but that a day is coming, when the tares shall be separated from the wheat. 210 They accordingly connect this parable with the one immediately preceding, as if the design of both had been the same. For my own part, I take a different view. He speaks of a separation, in order to prevent the minds of the godly from giving way to uneasiness or despondency, when they perceive a confused mixture of the good along with the bad. Although Christ has cleansed the Church with his own blood, that it may be without spot or blemish, yet hitherto he suffers it to be polluted by many stains. I speak not of the remaining infirmities of the flesh, to which every believer is liable, even after that he has been renewed by the Holy Spirit. But as soon as Christ has gathered a small flock for himself, many hypocrites mingle with it, persons of immoral lives creep in, nay, many wicked men insinuate themselves; in consequence of which, numerous stains pollute that holy assembly, which Christ has separated for himself. Many persons, too, look upon it as exceedingly absurd, that ungodly, or profane or unprincipled men should be cherished within the bosom of the Church. Add to this, that very many, under the pretense of zeal, are excessively displeased, when every thing is not conducted to their wish, and, because absolute purity is nowhere to be found, withdraw from the Church in a disorderly manner, or subvert and destroy it by unreasonable severity.
Sean: In my opinion, the design of the parable is simply this: So long as the pilgrimage of the Church in this world continues, bad men and hypocrites will mingle in it with those who are good and upright, that the children of God may be armed with patience and, in the midst of offenses which are fitted to disturb them, may preserve unbroken steadfastness of faith. It is an appropriate comparison, when the Lord calls the Church his field, for believers are the seed of it; and though Christ afterwards adds that the field is the world, yet he undoubtedly intended to apply this designation, in a peculiar manner, to the Church, about which he had commenced the discourse. But as he was about to drive his plough through every country of the world, so as to cultivate fields, and scatter the seed of life, throughout the whole world, he has employed a synecdoche, to make the world denote what more strictly belonged only to a part of it.”
RS: The interpretation of Jesus is given to us by Jesus. He said that the field is the world. He did not say that the field is the Church or a church. But even so, if we are to have some degree of love for our neighbor and the Church of Christ we should take more care of those that think that they are part of the Church and are members of the one we belong to. We would do that of virtually any club we would want to belong to.
Mat 13:36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
LikeLike
What is the World Record?
LikeLike
Erik, Netflix took its sweet time loading season 2, so my frustrated wife finally did the revivalist thing and peered into the internet to find out the end and then told me. A few days later, providence laughed and finally loaded season 2. I’ll not ruin it for you but will say this much: there are clues but they are very subtle and only the most spiritual can likely discern them (though since the most spiritual don’t sully themselves with the carnality of TV it’s sort of a wash). And while the last episode unravels a lot, the one guilty is a bit of a sucker punch.
LikeLike
Richard that wasn’t my opinion, it was Calvin’s. Regardless, in this vein you’re no different from either the enthusiasts or the RC’s in that you want to add to scriptural prescription or substitute for scriptural prescription in the name of an earnest piety or zeal. Problem is, your just a man and God’s delineating of roles and determination of applicability displaces your earnestness. It’s the old adage of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Which in the light of scripture aren’t so good. Like touching the ark to keep it from hitting the ground. Your sincerity is no substitute for God’s direction and way.
LikeLike
Kent we aren’t even close. Nevertheless, I’ve picked out a bullet with my name on it.
LikeLike
Zrim,
Now I’m really curious. I’m not getting to bed as early as usual since we’ve been watching an episode a night, but its been worth it.
Tell your wife that patience is a fruit of the spirit.
LikeLike
I’ve liked Mireille Enos since “Big Love”. She plays two sisters. That is a series most Old Lifers should probably get under their belts. Lots of sociology & psychology of religion there.
LikeLike
Erik, you can take the girl out of semi-revivalism, but…
LikeLike
RS: No, it is not that God needs help, but that He uses means.
OK, this is sensible. And would you further agree that Word and sacrament and prayer are means of grace, but introspection is not?
LikeLike
sean: Richard that wasn’t my opinion, it was Calvin’s.
RS: Yes, I thought so, but I thought you quoted his opinion because you were in agreement with it. In the light of what you said below, Calvin also was just a man. When Jesus interpreted His parable and said that the field was the world, I will take what Jesus said over Calvin.
Sean: Regardless, in this vein you’re no different from either the enthusiasts or the RC’s in that you want to add to scriptural prescription or substitute for scriptural prescription in the name of an earnest piety or zeal.
RS: An interesting interpretation, but again you have to deal with the Scriptures that speak of the heart being so vital. I am simply saying that the heart should be dealt with. But back to the context of the present discussion, I would not say I am an enthusiasts for saying that for a person to be truly converted they must have a changed heart. External morality and religion are not necessarily indicative of a new heart, but rather in the Bible and in history have been used to cover unconverted hearts.
Sean: Problem is, your just a man and God’s delineating of roles and determination of applicability displaces your earnestness. It’s the old adage of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. Which in the light of scripture aren’t so good. Like touching the ark to keep it from hitting the ground. Your sincerity is no substitute for God’s direction and way.
RS: True enough, but one can also be earnest and sincere while in God’s direction and way. If we line the Scriptures up side by side with your side being on the external morality and profession side along with the sacraments and my side listing the importance of the heart, I am certain that my side would have several times as many passages of Scripture. It could be that your own sincerity in your version of things is no substitute for God’s way either. I would also argue that my side is closer to watching the heart with all diligence.
Proverbs 4:23 Watch over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life.
Hebrews 12:15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled;
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: No, it is not that God needs help, but that He uses means.
JRC: OK, this is sensible. And would you further agree that Word and sacrament and prayer are means of grace, but introspection is not?
RS: “Introspection” as such is simply a way of applying the Word and prayer. It is also commanded before one takes the Supper. It is not a means in and of itself, but a way that the means of grace are applied. For example, preaching is not a means in and of itself but instead it is in preaching the Word that preaching becomes a means of grace. In my view it is also only in connection with preaching the Word that the sacraments are a means of grace. One can also think of “introspection” (the connotation is not such a good one) as a way of meditating on the Word and in that sense it can be thought of as a means of grace. But in and of itself, then it is not a means of grace.
I might also add that the purpose of “introspection” is in seeking the Lord to open eyes to sin so that one can repent of sin and seek the Lord out of a pure heart. But again, back to the original context, a person must repent from the heart and be turned in the heart to be saved. In light of the need for the heart to be changed and for elders to be watching over the hearts of the people, what do you think of the Hebrews 12 passage listed below?
Matthew 18:3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Heb 12:14 Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one comes short of the grace of God; that no root of bitterness springing up causes trouble, and by it many be defiled; 16 that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
LikeLike
RS: RS: An interesting interpretation, but again you have to deal with the Scriptures that speak of the heart being so vital.
We have dealt with it. The only person in room who’s talking about externalism is you.
What we don’t do is to “deal with the heart” in the manner that you choose, which is without warrant from Scripture. Instead, we advocate using the God-given means of grace in the manner set forth in Scripture.
It’s time to put away your charges of “promoting externalism.” It’s all in your head.
LikeLike
Sean, me doing my shocked face, then it turns into sadness.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: An interesting interpretation, but again you have to deal with the Scriptures that speak of the heart being so vital.
JRC: We have dealt with it. The only person in room who’s talking about externalism is you.
RS: No, you have not really dealt with it. The issue was originally about conversion and that is still what I am trying to talk about primarily. You still say that as long as a person makes a profession of faith and leads a moral and religious life, you will consider that person converted. That is externalism (at least a form of it) whether you like it or not
JRC: What we don’t do is to “deal with the heart” in the manner that you choose, which is without warrant from Scripture. Instead, we advocate using the God-given means of grace in the manner set forth in Scripture.
RS: But of course it has warrant from Scripture. There are wolves out there and the elders are to guard against the wolves. There are deceptions out there, and the elders are to guard against those. The heart is the vital part of man and even the most important part. Apart from a direct dealing with that, it is not really dealing with it.
JRC: It’s time to put away your charges of “promoting externalism.” It’s all in your head.
RS: You can continue to say that it is all in my head, but as long as advocates of Word and Sacrament continue to say that a person should be considered a believer as long as the person meets some external criteria, externalism (of sorts) is there whether you agree that it is or not.
Matthew 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
RS: Matthew 5:3 tells us that the only ones that have the kingdom or are in the kingdom are those who are poor in spirit. Your position seems to accept the word of a person that s/he is poor in spirit as long as the person answers “yes” to the question. I would argue that if you are to take that verse seriously, and deal with it as Jesus dealt with people in asking probing questions, you could never know with any warrant at all whether that person was poor in spirit or not.
Mat 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
RS: It would seem to me that if anyone took Matthew 7:13-14 very seriously at all they would be talking to people about their hearts. Richard Baxter said that he was shocked to find out what people did and then did not hear from his sermons. He considered going to the people and questioning them about the sermons and their own hearts and indispensable part of the ministry. How can a minister know if the people that he will answer to God for understand what he is preaching if he does not go out to them and ask them about what they hear and the state of their souls?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: What we don’t do is to “deal with the heart” in the manner that you choose, which is without warrant from Scripture. Instead, we advocate using the God-given means of grace in the manner set forth in Scripture.
It’s time to put away your charges of “promoting externalism.” It’s all in your head.
RS: John Gerstner told a story one time about hearing his father-in-law talking with a member of his congregation. The member told his father-in-law that he would be saved by being good or keeping the law. Gerstner remembers hearing that and he could not believe it. He has preached (he thought) so clearly on the doctrine of depravity and justification by faith alone.
I can only say that in some ways I have had the same type of experience. I have asked people many times what they have heard me say and they have not always responded with any degree of accuracy. I have come to the conclusion that if elders are to answer to God for the souls of the people in their congregation they must go to them and deal with them in a personal manner.
Consider the passage from Acts 20 below. Are you so sure the people in your congregation are really getting it?
Acts 20:28 “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29 “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
31 “Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.
LikeLike
“Introspection” as such is simply a way of applying the Word and prayer. It is also commanded before one takes the Supper…
Richard, your understanding of examination is what at least partly explains the unfortunate reality of infrequency, especially in Reformed communions particularly influenced by experimental Calvinism. After all, who could really maintain the sort of inward dive and interior grooming semi-revivalism demands week after week? It only makes sense to break it up and takes breathers in between the mini-Lenten season that comes during the graven week of preparation (or Communion Season, as the case may be).
But older notions of examination have nothing in common with new life inspectionism. They are instead simple albeit temperate calls to recognize abiding human sinfulness and frailty. But more than that, they emphasize the grace and gospel that lies entirely outside the sinful self that the ordinary and outward elements sign and seal inwardly. All of which stirs up not only a desire to frequently partake and a much more thankful disposition among the faithful, which is ironic given all the quest for glowing affections amongst the new lifers.
LikeLike
RS: You still say that as long as a person makes a profession of faith and leads a moral and religious life, you will consider that person converted.
Actually, no. You said that back on another thread. Zrim corrected you. You ignored him and kept rolling — and have been ever since.
The correct way of putting it is: When a person makes a profession of faith that appears genuine (we examine the person), and is willing to make membership vows, we accept that person as a believer. If he sins, we rebuke and expect repentance. If he does not repent, we discipline.
In between times, we preach the Word, both the parts that address the external behavior and the parts that address the heart.
RS: John Gerstner told a story one time about hearing his father-in-law talking with a member of his congregation. The member told his father-in-law that he would be saved by being good or keeping the law. Gerstner remembers hearing that and he could not believe it. He has preached (he thought) so clearly on the doctrine of depravity and justification by faith alone. … Are you so sure the people in your congregation are really getting it?
In my eldering experience, the New Side has a harder time getting it. They want to add experiences and emotions to by-grace-through-faith. I can’t say more, but the problem is very real.
But we’ve all had the experience you describe. One of our members tells the tale of coming to faith and calling his former SS teacher to ask him why he had never taught the Gospel before. The teacher sent him recordings of the classes and sure nuff….
RS: The heart is the vital part of man and even the most important part. Apart from a direct dealing with that, it is not really dealing with it.
This is your core presupposition, and it has no warrant from Scripture. In your mind, only introspection is a valid way of dealing with the heart. For you, the only way to get at the heart is to go over the top.
And because we don’t choose that route, you wrongly infer that we don’t care about the heart. In reality, we don’t choose that route because going over the top is not very successful.
You want to dismiss New Divinity as an abandonment of Edwards, but who led the charge? His son, and his disciple and biographer, Samuel Hopkins. If the Edwardsian method were somehow superior, one would expect better.
LikeLike
Richard, why does Philip admit Simon and the eunuch into the church without extensive introspection sessions?
LikeLike
Actually Richard we have talked about examination. What you have argued at various points is heart evaluation to determine ‘authenticity’ and a preparationism in conversion that, in your estimation, is more apt to get the job done, mechanical vs. organic. But all you’ve done is set up additional obstacles and tests that violates the notion of of not breaking a bruised reed-Phebe Bartlett and in an attempt to ferret out spurious faith you, against the warning of Jesus Himself, are willing to risk pulling up the wheat for the sake of the tares, when love demands you tolerate the tares for the sake of the wheat. Love demands not ferreting out but toleration. IOW, the work of the Holy Spirit can not be manipulated and the determination from scripture is that you do more harm than good in your attempts to secure a more sure profession.
LikeLike
Has anyone defined “the heart” in this debate?
As finite men can we ever fully know if another man is converted, saved, or elect? And if we think we know, are we assured that they will be in the same state next week, next year, or 20 years from now?
LikeLike
I know in our URC we have the Lord’s Supper monthly and the week before an exhortation is read from the pulpit. This is one of the reasons one of our elders opposes more frequency. How do you have the exhortation if the Supper is every week? I guess you could give the exhortation each Sunday, but then there’s no time for it to sink in.
LikeLike
Zrim quoting: “Introspection” as such is simply a way of applying the Word and prayer. It is also commanded before one takes the Supper…
Zrim: Richard, your understanding of examination is what at least partly explains the unfortunate reality of infrequency, especially in Reformed communions particularly influenced by experimental Calvinism.
RS: You didn’t really respond to the point that you quoted. But on to the next, what is my understanding of examination? Are you talking about conversion, church membership, or perhaps something to do with communion? In other words, if you confuse the three you just may be confused on one.
Zrim: After all, who could really maintain the sort of inward dive and interior grooming semi-revivalism demands week after week? It only makes sense to break it up and takes breathers in between the mini-Lenten season that comes during the graven week of preparation (or Communion Season, as the case may be).
RS: What sort of inward dive and interior grooming do you think are demanded?
Zrim: But older notions of examination have nothing in common with new life inspectionism. They are instead simple albeit temperate calls to recognize abiding human sinfulness and frailty.
RS: How temperate was Jesus in His call against sin? Did Jesus command us to be temperate against sin or to be radical against it?
Matthew 5:25 “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
Zrim: But more than that, they emphasize the grace and gospel that lies entirely outside the sinful self that the ordinary and outward elements sign and seal inwardly.
RS: Did Jesus ignore grace and the gospel in His diving to the depths of the heart? The Gospel of the New Covenant includes a promise that God will give a new heart and the Spirit will make His temple in the soul. The Gospel does not lie entirely outside the human soul. In fact, in Colossians 1:27 Paul spoke of the glory and mystery of the Gospel that had been hidden from ages before as being Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Zrim: All of which stirs up not only a desire to frequently partake and a much more thankful disposition among the faithful, which is ironic given all the quest for glowing affections amongst the new lifers.
RS: Who has been asserting the great need for a continual season of glowing affections? I think you have brought that one is from Finney the Pelagian.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Richard, why does Philip admit Simon and the eunuch into the church without extensive introspection sessions?
RS: 1. I am not sure why you are speaking of extensive introspection sessions. 2. We don’t know exactly what Philip did or did not do in admitting Simon into the church. 3. There may be an assumption on your part here that being admitted into the church during that time was more or less the same as during this time.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: You still say that as long as a person makes a profession of faith and leads a moral and religious life, you will consider that person converted.
JRC: Actually, no. You said that back on another thread. Zrim corrected you. You ignored him and kept rolling — and have been ever since.
RS: So far I have seen (understood) nothing that has really gone against that point.
JRC: The correct way of putting it is: When a person makes a profession of faith that appears genuine (we examine the person), and is willing to make membership vows, we accept that person as a believer. If he sins, we rebuke and expect repentance. If he does not repent, we discipline.
RS: But if there is only an examination of the outward man (since you argue that there shouldn’t be any real work regarding the heart) then basically the person makes a profession and leads a good moral life and all is fine. Again, if your practice is what you say, then that is what it boils down to despite your protestations to the contrary.
JRC: In between times, we preach the Word, both the parts that address the external behavior and the parts that address the heart.
RS: And you are certain that the person is in church, is listening, and understands this. Interesting.
LikeLike
JRC quoting RS: John Gerstner told a story one time about hearing his father-in-law talking with a member of his congregation. The member told his father-in-law that he would be saved by being good or keeping the law. Gerstner remembers hearing that and he could not believe it. He has preached (he thought) so clearly on the doctrine of depravity and justification by faith alone. … Are you so sure the people in your congregation are really getting it?
JRC: In my eldering experience, the New Side has a harder time getting it. They want to add experiences and emotions to by-grace-through-faith. I can’t say more, but the problem is very real.
RS: There are other explanations of your explanation.
JRC: But we’ve all had the experience you describe. One of our members tells the tale of coming to faith and calling his former SS teacher to ask him why he had never taught the Gospel before. The teacher sent him recordings of the classes and sure nuff…
RS: Okay, so you know that people are hearing and not understanding. Now if you would realize that there are many more out there and perhaps more could be done. God deserves to have His glory declared.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’m not following.How is giving the exhortation more frequently a hinderance to it sinking in? Wouldn’t the opposite be true knowing you’d be receiving the supper every sunday? And what about withholding the means of grace as being detrimental? As in the lord’s supper is the visible word.
LikeLike
JRC: RS: The heart is the vital part of man and even the most important part. Apart from a direct dealing with that, it is not really dealing with it.
JRC: This is your core presupposition, and it has no warrant from Scripture. In your mind, only introspection is a valid way of dealing with the heart. For you, the only way to get at the heart is to go over the top.
RS: No, the way to get to the heart in an appropriate way is to go through the mind and with Scripture. I mentioned that earlier, but you ignored it and kept rolling on.
JRC: And because we don’t choose that route, you wrongly infer that we don’t care about the heart. In reality, we don’t choose that route because going over the top is not very successful.
RS: I am speaking of a priority of the heart in Christianity and not going over the top, but instead of going through the top (the mind). The issue is not about what is successful or not, but what is the biblical priority of the human soul.
JRC: You want to dismiss New Divinity as an abandonment of Edwards, but who led the charge? His son, and his disciple and biographer, Samuel Hopkins. If the Edwardsian method were somehow superior, one would expect better.
RS: Samuel Hopkins as not as far off as perhaps you have heard, nor was Joseph Bellamy. I have read several people that say Bellamy did not preach substitutionary atonement, but I have books where he wrote about substitutionary atonement. “The New Divinity was a movement in theological thought which had pervasive influence in parts of the United States in the 1830’s. While diverse elements went into its composition, its leading ideas were a revision of teaching on the fallen condition of man, the nature of the atonement and the extent to which man is dependent upon the Holy Spirit for regeneration.” There are differing opinions on his son, but will you charge the Hodges with what happened with Princeton?
The New Divinity was a movement that went further and further from the truth. You cannot blame the men who were teaching things in the 1830’s on Edwards. You cannot blame Pelagianism and Finney on Edwards unless you are also willing to blame Augustine for Pelagius. By the way, some lovers of the Southern Presbyterian writers thought Hodge was a rationalist of sorts. Should we blame Paul for the defections of the churches before he left the earth and then within 20-30 years of his death? The hostility toward Edwards is simply amazing to me and it is also interesting the blame that people want to cast on him. I tend to think that people just read others on Edwards rather than read Edwards with care for themselves.
LikeLike
sean: Actually Richard we have talked about examination. What you have argued at various points is heart evaluation to determine ‘authenticity’ and a preparationism in conversion that, in your estimation, is more apt to get the job done, mechanical vs. organic.
RS: The starting point of this particular conversation was on conversion. When one mixes the other in it is mixing things up.
Sean: But all you’ve done is set up additional obstacles and tests that violates the notion of of not breaking a bruised reed-Phebe Bartlett
RS: It is hard to imagine that anyone would really think of Phebe Bartlett as a bruised reed in reading that story. I thought you allowed for the Spirit to work as He pleased?
Sean: and in an attempt to ferret out spurious faith you, against the warning of Jesus Himself, are willing to risk pulling up the wheat for the sake of the tares, when love demands you tolerate the tares for the sake of the wheat.
RS: No, it is not against the warning of Jesus, but against the misinterpretation of Jesus. He specifically said that the field was the world while your interpretation wants Him to mean the church. As you read on you in other parables of the kingdom He is talking about the last judgment.
Sean: Love demands not ferreting out but toleration.
RS: Love demands that one do what is best for the soul. The issue in this discussion is not about ferreting out, but true conversion.
Sean: IOW, the work of the Holy Spirit can not be manipulated and the determination from scripture is that you do more harm than good in your attempts to secure a more sure profession.
RS: Of course the work of the Holy Spirit cannot be manipulated. So why are you assuming or let others assume that people are converted by external observations when Scripture gives us many things to help people determine their conversions? John wrote a whole epistle on the issue and yet this seems to have no bearing on the issue. Jesus warned us over and over about false conversions and being deceived and that appears to be of little consequence to some. Remember the parable of the Sower or the soils? Remember the teaching of the narrow gate and the narrow road? Many are on that broad road and think that they are on the narrow one. Relax, I am told, just take their profession and go on. I just don’t see that as biblical at all.
The issue is not a more secure profession, but is the person converted or not? My position is the same that 2 Corinthians 13:5 gives: “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?” Your position appears to be something less.
LikeLike
Richard, your understanding of examination is less reflective and more introspective. You want to enlist Luther, but you sound like Melanchthon who brooded over his inward state, which seems like the natural result of inward fixation instead of careful reflection. But Luther chided him for it and exhorted him to focus outward to Christ.
LikeLike
Erik, doesn’t the “sinking in” premise correspond to introspectionism? In fact, not giving an inordinate amount of time might do wonders to prevent the inward diving and encourage a more prudent and far less dangerous reflection.
LikeLike
RS: No, the way to get to the heart in an appropriate way is to go through the mind and with Scripture. I mentioned that earlier, but you ignored it and kept rolling on.
I didn’t ignore you. I just pointed out that you don’t have direct access to the mind. You can look at words and deeds only.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: No, the way to get to the heart in an appropriate way is to go through the mind and with Scripture. I mentioned that earlier, but you ignored it and kept rolling on.
JRC: I didn’t ignore you. I just pointed out that you don’t have direct access to the mind. You can look at words and deeds only.
RS: I was simply quoting you (more or less) when you said that about me regarding a comment by Zrim. I thought it might even make you smile.
LikeLike
Sean,
I suppose the idea is that you don’t have a week to reflect on the exhortation.
If we had weekly communion our services would be at the 1:45 mark or so for length and some of our members would look like this (:40 in)
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, your understanding of examination is less reflective and more introspective.
RS: Less reflective? Where in the world do you come up with that?
Zrim: You want to enlist Luther, but you sound like Melanchthon who brooded over his inward state, which seems like the natural result of inward fixation instead of careful reflection.
RS: Yes, I do want to enlist Luther and am not talking about brooding over things.
Zrim: But Luther chided him for it and exhorted him to focus outward to Christ.
RS: Perhaps so, but still if Christ is in a person then the work of Christ by His Spirit is in and on the heart as well. When one truly reflects on that, they see the hand of God and His work of the new creation in themselves. Indeed some who are melancholy go too far, but that does not mean that the whole practice is wrong. Luther himself was rather melancholy at times too. Here is Luther in Bondage of the Will: “God has surely promised His grace to the humbled; that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves.”
LikeLike
Zrim,
We’re pacing ourselves.
Some introspection is not a bad thing. I often take note of what a jackass I can be.
LikeLike
Pretty much any good debate is good because you have people at one extreme or the other and the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I don’t care if the debate is between liberals & conservatives, revivalists & confessionalists, or theonomists and whatever non-theonomists are. Those who are the most extreme one way or the other are usually the loudest and most prolific participants. For 80% of people the answers are found somewhere in the middle.
LikeLike
Just like most other things there is a theological bell curve.
LikeLike
Erik,
I’m still not tracking. If you’re getting the exhortation every week wouldn’t it become part of the reflection on an on-going basis. I’m not saying I buy into a need for walking the labyrinth of my heart, I’d get lost quick, but even on that score it would seem like weekly practice would be more in tune with knowing how and being better at it. Infrequency strikes me a bit as Lording it over another. When is special, special enough and who’s making that determination, and what is the criteria they are using for that determination and how do they know and on what grounds are you mediating the means of grace to me. It gets back to somebody else’s subjective evaluation of my heart and sincerity and binding my conscience to their whim(satisfactions) rather than to what’s prescribed. Why not once a quarter. Once a year would be uber-special. How about once every 5 years, we could take a whole two weeks off from work and really do it up right. Not railing at you, just the thought behind the practice of ‘letting it sink in”.
LikeLike
This is why we call the OPC (and I’ll add the URC) the best church around…if you can stand it. They are out on the end of the bell curve. If you find yourself within an OPC or a URC and you are out on the edge of that congregation, too, you might need to make sure you are not some kind of tool.
LikeLike
Sean,
Practically speaking there is no more reason for monthly than the fact that that’s what the elders voted for and there has been no majority vote to change it. There is definitely a political aspect to a consistory or session. It’s huge in P&R churches, especially small ones with only 2-4 elders.
LikeLike
RS, I noted the reference. At the moment, I find myself irritated by the obstinacy and under the weather, so I couldn’t smile.
Let me try a little harder. 🙂
There, that’s better.
I actually don’t have antipathy towards Edwards. In fact, I was bashed rather heavily here a while back for defending Edwards. And I defended him for a simple reason: Edwards was part of my pathway *out* of emotionalistic Christianity and towards a more grounded faith in Christ.
You seem to be taking him in quite the opposite direction.
Here’s what Edwards says about religious affections:
Gracious and holy affections have their exercise and fruit in Christian practice.—I mean, they have that influence and power upon him who is the subject of them, that they cause that a practice, which is universally conformed to, and directed by Christian rules, should be the practice and business of his life.
This implies three things: 1. That his behavior or practice in the world be universally conformed to, and directed by Christian rules. 2. That he makes a business of such a holy practice above all things; that it be a business which he is chiefly engaged in, and devoted to, and pursues with highest earnestness and diligence: so that he may be said to make this practice of religion eminently his work and business. And 3. That he persists in it to the end of life: so that it may be said, not only to be his business at certain seasons, the business of Sabbath days, or certain extraordinary times, or the business of a month, or a year, or of seven years, or his business under certain circumstances; but the business of his life; it being that business which he perseveres in through all changes, and under all trials, as long as he lives.
The necessity of each of these, in all true Christians, is most clearly and fully taught in the word of God. — Rel Affect 3.12
But you say, “No, No, No — looking at behavior is externalism.”
Nonsense. Looking at behavior is a way of validating or confirming the genuineness of affections. “By your fruits you shall know them.” This is a Scriptural, confessional way of thinking, and you disparage it. Bah, I say.
Again with Edwards:
In these words, the apostle represents the state of the minds of the Christians he wrote to, under the persecutions they were then the subjects of. These persecutions are what he has respect to, in the two preceding verses, when he speaks of the trial of their faith, and of their being in heaviness through manifold temptations.
Such trials are of threefold benefit to true religion. Hereby the truth of it is manifested, and it appears to be indeed true religion; they, above all other things, have a tendency to distinguish between true religion and false, and to cause the difference between them evidently to appear. Hence they are called by the name of trials, in the verse nextly preceding the text, and in innumerable other places; they try the faith and religion of professors, of what sort it is, as apparent gold is tried in the fire, and manifested, whether it be true gold or no. And the faith of true Christians being thus tried and proved to be true, is “found to praise, and honor, and glory,” as in that preceding verse.
And then, these trials are of further benefit to true religion; they not only manifest the truth of it, but they make its genuine beauty and amiableness remarkably to appear. — ibid 1.1
Edwards understood that our faith is tested by God, as He providentially brings trials into our lives.
You want to replace that kind of testing with your own lab tests, doing the work of God for Him. This is not Edwards, but a move towards the New Side excesses.
LikeLike
The biggest criticism I would have of weekly communion, at least in large churches, is the time element. I attend an LCMS church from time-to-time and find the preaching to be weak & the sermons short. Part of the reason, I think, is they have to get hundreds of people served communion, which takes 20-30 minutes per Sunday. If I have to choose I am going to pick a robust, lengthy sermon over weekly communion.
LikeLike
Erik:If you find yourself within an OPC or a URC and you are out on the edge of that congregation, too, you might need to make sure you are not some kind of tool.
Could not agree more. Thank you, Sir…
LikeLike
I guess Richard, Sean, and Jeff were not attending Pretty Good Friday services. I on the other hand made a trip to the urban oasis — Ann Arbor — and saw a dreadful movie, Stoker. No stars.
LikeLike
Well, I showed up but then I asked one too many questions I guess and they questioned my heart and I asked them; ‘what they knew about it ‘ and they said ‘we can tell’ and I said; ‘Oh well, I guess you have divine abilities and do you have golden spectacles as well?!’ And one of the six figured it out and said; ‘i’ve never heard anyone talk to a pastor that way’ and I said; ‘ you must be a southerner but hang around I can do better’ and he said; ‘ well I never’ and I said; ‘ that’s not my problem.’
LikeLike
Richard, yes, less reflective. If mental health is the analogy then old life self-examination is Dr. Melfi and new life introspection is second rate hypnotherapy. You know, reality versus sensationalism.
LikeLike
Erik, why have to choose? And if the Supper does what we confess it does—nourish and sustain those who are already born again (hello, Richard!) and ingrafted into his family: his church… and by the use of this holy sacrament we are moved to a fervent love (hello, Richard!) of God and our neighbors—then why deprive ourselves? You say time. How pragmatic. Where there’s will there’s a way. But, please, the time complaint is right up there with “it’s too Cath-o-lick.”
LikeLike
“When is special, special enough and who’s making that determination, and what is the criteria they are using for that determination and how do they know and on what grounds are you mediating the means of grace to me.”
Sean,
This is often a critique of monthly communion that in our circles is not very reflective of reality. Very few pastors I know, including myself, prefer monthly so as to keep the Supper “special.” It has more to do with the distinction between a primary and secondary means of grace, and how that distinction might show itself in frequency. Who makes that determination of frequency, according to the Westminster Directory of Worship, well, sessions do.
“It gets back to somebody else’s subjective evaluation of my heart and sincerity and binding my conscience to their whim(satisfactions) rather than to what’s prescribed.”
If the Scriptures prescribed weekly communion, this would be an accurate criticism, but since it does not, as the church historically has believed, then it is not.
“Why not once a quarter. Once a year would be uber-special. How about once every 5 years, we could take a whole two weeks off from work and really do it up right.”
This sounds like the same argumentation EP use against those who sing hymns. Once we allow man-made lyrics, what’s to stop churches from silly, un-biblical songs? Elders who are doing their jobs of course.
LikeLike
RS: I am speaking of a priority of the heart in Christianity and not going over the top, but instead of going through the top (the mind). The issue is not about what is successful or not, but what is the biblical priority of the human soul.
Thar’s not the issue between us. We’re already sold on the priority of the soul. All of those verses you posted that demonstrate the priority of the soul are just so much carrying coals to Newcastle.
What divides us is the question of what to do about the heart.
I say, Use the God-ordained means of grace and let God do what only He can do. Our part, His part.
You say, No, that’s not enough. If we don’t delve into “the deep things”, we’re being externalists.
That’s a problem.
LikeLike
But, Todd, I seem to recall you once wondering what’s to keep weekly from sliding into daily, as in the Mass. But as you say, elders.
LikeLike
Todd,
Thanks for the response. I don’t have as much problem with elders making a decision as I do their reasoning for it. If the decisions are sound it’s much easier to be submitted then when they are merely reflective of poor conclusions. The RPW binds both directions and if we’re going to leave significant circumstances at their discretion, they owe those under their care not merely their best but a decision process that places the liberty of conscience and mindfulness of their limitations in exercising spiritual authority at the forefront of their deliberations. It’s one thing to cite historical practice it’s quite another to propound appropriate introspection and affix a timeframe. We also no longer allow town councils to determine frequency either. I’m all for going to the session and making a case for a better practice.
LikeLike
D.G. – You were no doubt drawn by Mia Wasikowska’s performance in “In Treatment”.
LikeLike
Reformed people have bladders, sore butts, children who get hungry, and nursery workers in need of relief just like evangelicals do. Just sayin’.
LikeLike
I have an NL only fantasy baseball league drafting at 11:00 central this morning. 3 of 12 teams left. Let me know if you want in.
LikeLike
Zrim,
The context of my statement on daily, if I remember correctly, was when Jack Bradly, I believe, argued for weekly because “he needs more grace.” My point then was that if your need for a weekly practice is because you believe you receive more grace from God the more you partake of it, then the church might as well offer it daily to offer as much grace as possible to God’s people. That was not a critique of your reasoning for weekly, which was a bit different.
LikeLike
Todd, thanks. Yes, I suppose my point would be the need for regular–as opposed to more–grace.
LikeLike
Sean,
I agree. The why is usually as important as the conclusion itself, especially when members disagree. And I’ve been a cheerleader in your refutation of RS’ hyper-Calvinistic soul inspections to ensure our people are truly converted. If the choice was between weekly communion and a weekly examination of whether I really, honestly, truly, with all my affections, really, truly, sincerely evidence love for Jesus and a converted soul, I’d take weekly communion any day.
LikeLike
Erik, possibly (good catch).
LikeLike
That series is a showcase for good acting.
LikeLike
You and the wife need to check out “The Killing”.
LikeLike
Todd,
I also found weekly communion arguments repulsive when advanced by FV sympathizers, among whom I would certainly count Bradley, but embraced the position after reading RSC and Nevin. For those of us that don’t serve on sessions, it may not much matter anyway.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: But you say, “No, No, No — looking at behavior is externalism.”
Nonsense. Looking at behavior is a way of validating or confirming the genuineness of affections. “By your fruits you shall know them.” This is a Scriptural, confessional way of thinking, and you disparage it. Bah, I say.
RS: What I actually say is that looking at behavior only is externalism. Of course one has to observe behavior, but it is behavior alone that is externalism.
JRC: Edwards understood that our faith is tested by God, as He providentially brings trials into our lives.
You want to replace that kind of testing with your own lab tests, doing the work of God for Him. This is not Edwards, but a move towards the New Side excesses.
RS: Again you have drawn some way out conclusions. I am not saying that our faith is not tested by God at all and I certainly have no lab tests. But don’t you have people crying out to you for help in their trials? The questions they are driven to require a person to deal with their hearts and not just their external actions. Again, I am not arguing against extenal action. I am arguing against that as the only way.
Read the verses below and see the vital importance of the heart. If the Lord weighs the motives of the heart despite all that man does is clean in his own eyes, then people need to learn how to deal and judge their hearts. If all we do from human motives is of no profit, then the people need to learn how to judge their own motives and seek the Lord for love in their hearts. If the Scriptures do judge the intentions and motives of the heart, then every person in the churches has his or her intentions and motives before God each moment. They should learn about this and learn to deal with their own hearts. We learn that proper motives are necessary for true prayer, so for the people to pray they should learn to deal with their own hearts. Lab results? Ridiculous. Teaching people the true nature of the heart because God judges their hearts on the one hand but also gives grace that they may seek His glory in prayer and life? Now that is the real issue.
Proverbs 16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.
1 Corinthians 15:32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
James 4:3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures.
LikeLike
Todd: And I’ve been a cheerleader in your refutation of RS’ hyper-Calvinistic soul inspections to ensure our people are truly converted.
RS: Nonsense 1. I am not a true hyper-Calvinist. Nonsense 2. no soul inspection can ensure that people are truly converted.
Todd: If the choice was between weekly communion and a weekly examination of whether I really, honestly, truly, with all my affections, really, truly, sincerely evidence love for Jesus and a converted soul, I’d take weekly communion any day.
RS: In other words, following your argument on down to its logical conclusion, you would rather deceive your soul weekly rather than deal with the truth of the state of your soul. But of course your statement above is not my position at all, but don’t let that stop you from making a point.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, yes, less reflective. If mental health is the analogy then old life self-examination is Dr. Melfi and new life introspection is second rate hypnotherapy. You know, reality versus sensationalism.
RS: But your statement above is more sensationalism than truth. Mental health is not the analogy. The state of the soul is a vital part of biblical Christianity.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: I am speaking of a priority of the heart in Christianity and not going over the top, but instead of going through the top (the mind). The issue is not about what is successful or not, but what is the biblical priority of the human soul.
JRC: Thar’s not the issue between us. We’re already sold on the priority of the soul. All of those verses you posted that demonstrate the priority of the soul are just so much carrying coals to Newcastle.
RS: So far I don’t see that your position really has a priority on the inner man or soul.
JRC: What divides us is the question of what to do about the heart.
I say, Use the God-ordained means of grace and let God do what only He can do. Our part, His part.
RS: Which sounds like hyper-Calvinism to me.
JRC: You say, No, that’s not enough. If we don’t delve into “the deep things”, we’re being externalists. That’s a problem.
RS: It is a problem if you don’t delve into the spiritual things and just leave them laying around on the outside. I have said (a few if not several times) that people taking the Scriptures and dealing with their own hearts of having elders or more mature people help them deal with their own hearts is a means of grace. How can a way of applying the Scriptures to the soul not be a means of grace?
Jeff, do you believe that a person can know the doctrine of justification by faith alone and not be converted? The devil does. Do you believe that a person can believe that the Bible teaches the doctrine of justification by faith alone and not be converted? The devil does. Do you believe that a person can believe that the doctrine of justification is true and is the heart of the gospel by which a person must believe to be saved? The devil does. So what is the difference between people who believe the doctrine of justification by faith alone and those who are actually justified by faith alone? Is it really just external behavior?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: But you say, “No, No, No — looking at behavior is externalism.”
JRC: Nonsense. Looking at behavior is a way of validating or confirming the genuineness of affections. “By your fruits you shall know them.” This is a Scriptural, confessional way of thinking, and you disparage it. Bah, I say
RS: Looking at behavior is A way, but not a sufficient way of confirming the genuiness of affections. Speaking of the ways of Scripture, nothing we do without a broken and contrited spirit (broken heart) is acceptable. Jesus came to the brokenhearted and God dwells on high, but also with the lowly and contrite in spirit. The Pharisee wondering around looking gloomy and neglecting their appearance in order to look like he had been fasting and as such had an outward look, but Jesus said to annoint your head wash your face so that men will not know that you have been fasting. The outward appearance and the outward morality can only go so far.
Psalm 34:18 The LORD is near to the brokenhearted And saves those who are crushed in spirit.
LikeLike
RS: Nonsense 1. I am not a true hyper-Calvinist.
TB: Whenever I ask you to show where you disagree with hyper-Calvinism you decline.
RS: no soul inspection can ensure that people are truly converted.
TB: I think you are assuming I mean “secure” – “ensure” has the meaning you have been arguing for.
Out of curiosity, who gave you the authority to look into other men’s souls? And what kind of questions do you ask to help them discern true conversion?
LikeLike
todd quoting RS: Nonsense 1. I am not a true hyper-Calvinist.
TB: Whenever I ask you to show where you disagree with hyper-Calvinism you decline.
RS: You not reading it is a different thing than my declining. You have set six things out that define a hyper-Calvinist which are taken from Phil Johson’s take on the issue. He, of course, is a big fan of Spurgeon. On the other hand, Spurgeon was not a very consistent Calvinist. According to Spurgeon’s position, Calvin might have been a hyper-Calvinist. So one problem in the discussion is that I don’t think you are really dealing with true hyper-Calvinism.
A true sign of hyper-Calvinism is that the “obligations” of man are dropped very low to almost nill. Such a stress is put on the sovereignty of God that the sovereignty of God becomes something that does not work through means or secondary causes. A second sign is that a real hyper-Calvinist will not proclaim the Gospel to a person he does not think that God is dealing with.
Todd quoting RS: no soul inspection can ensure that people are truly converted.
TB: I think you are assuming I mean “secure” – “ensure” has the meaning you have been arguing for.
RS: Without getting into a battle over words, we can at least agree that we are to make our calling and election sure.
Todd: Out of curiosity, who gave you the authority to look into other men’s souls?
RS: I don’t think I am looking into the souls of other men. One question, however, is whether we can speak with other human beings and tell things about their souls.
Todd: And what kind of questions do you ask to help them discern true conversion?
RS: Do you love Christ? What does it mean to love Christ? Many people sought Christ in His time on earth and sought Him simply for free food and the things they could get. Do you love Christ for who He is or what He does for you? Why do you believe you really love Christ? What evidences is there in your life of this and what are the things that go on in your heart (in terms of things that revolt the person or move the person to adore) that make you think you love Christ in truth?
This is not looking into the souls of other men, but it is primarily based on using Scripture (though none are quoted in the above questions) as to what true conversion is and asking questions so that the person can see the truth about him or herself. This is not done in a mean way or some sort of interrogation technique, but is to be done with gentleness and true concern for the soul. But again, John wrote his Gospel so that people would believe. He wrote his first epistle so that people could know if they had eternal life dwelling in them. Applying those basic principles from his writings to help people seems to be something very good. Elders are to keep watch over people’s souls.
Jesus walked on the earth for three years and we have very few sermons of His, yet we have many of His interactions with people that usually consisted of telling parables and asking questions. This is not a knock on preaching by any stretch, but simply to note that if we look at the example of Jesus He interacted with people as His main way of teaching. If the asking questions is done as a way of spiritual teaching as opposed to some sore of interrogation (which is what people seem to think of when this is spoken of), I think it fits the pattern that Jesus left us.
LikeLike
RS: You have set six things out that define a hyper-Calvinist which are taken from Phil Johson’s take on the issue. He, of course, is a big fan of Spurgeon. On the other hand, Spurgeon was not a very consistent Calvinist. According to Spurgeon’s position, Calvin might have been a hyper-Calvinist. So one problem in the discussion is that I don’t think you are really dealing with true hyper-Calvinism.
TB: You are affirming HP theology as most Calvinists have defined it. I get that you do not agree with the designation of your position. If Spurgeon can be a Calvinist but an inconsistent one, I would say you are a HC but inconsistent in the one area you disagree with the worst of them. Do you agree with modern HP’s that the PCA and OPC are apostate denominations for allowing arminians into church membership?
RS: I don’t think I am looking into the souls of other men. One question, however, is whether we can speak with other human beings and tell things about their souls.
TB: You are missing the point of my question. You have been arguing of the duty of pastors in dealing with the soul, my question concerns who gave you the authority as a pastor to do this. And who asks *you* these types of questions to help you see the state of your soul?
RS: Do you love Christ? What does it mean to love Christ? Many people sought Christ in His time on earth and sought Him simply for free food and the things they could get. Do you love Christ for who He is or what He does for you? Why do you believe you really love Christ? What evidences is there in your life of this and what are the things that go on in your heart (in terms of things that revolt the person or move the person to adore) that make you think you love Christ in truth?
TB: Does loving Christ for saving us qualify in your book as legitimate evidence of regeneration? And what do you tell the parishioner if he tells you that right now he does not feel much love for Christ?
RS: Jesus walked on the earth for three years and we have very few sermons of His, yet we have many of His interactions with people that usually consisted of telling parables and asking questions. This is not a knock on preaching by any stretch, but simply to note that if we look at the example of Jesus He interacted with people as His main way of teaching.
TS: You seem to be under the impression that those who oppose your philosophy of ministry believe that preaching on Sunday mornings is all a person needs, that there is no one on one visitation to talk to members about their spiritual lives. I have not seen anyone suggest such a thing. We simply believe you burden God’s people beyond what Scripture requires with your view of conversion, and disagree with your rejection of the value of baptism and church membership in delineating who we treat as Christians, seeking instead the subjective discerning of affections as the marker of who is converted or not.
LikeLike
todd quoting RS: You have set six things out that define a hyper-Calvinist which are taken from Phil Johson’s take on the issue. He, of course, is a big fan of Spurgeon. On the other hand, Spurgeon was not a very consistent Calvinist. According to Spurgeon’s position, Calvin might have been a hyper-Calvinist. So one problem in the discussion is that I don’t think you are really dealing with true hyper-Calvinism.
TB: You are affirming HP theology as most Calvinists have defined it. I get that you do not agree with the designation of your position. If Spurgeon can be a Calvinist but an inconsistent one, I would say you are a HC but inconsistent in the one area you disagree with the worst of them.
RS: Read the sermon at http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm and get back to me.
Todd: Do you agree with modern HP’s that the PCA and OPC are apostate denominations for allowing arminians into church membership?
RS: I have answered this one before. I do not believe that they are apostate denominations because they allow “arminians” into church membership. If they allowed them to preach, that would be a different story.
LikeLike
Old comment RS: I don’t think I am looking into the souls of other men. One question, however, is whether we can speak with other human beings and tell things about their souls.
TB: You are missing the point of my question. You have been arguing of the duty of pastors in dealing with the soul, my question concerns who gave you the authority as a pastor to do this. And who asks *you* these types of questions to help you see the state of your soul?
RS: At the moment, the elders don’t see these things. But it would sure be nice to have someone to do this.
Old Comment RS: Do you love Christ? What does it mean to love Christ? Many people sought Christ in His time on earth and sought Him simply for free food and the things they could get. Do you love Christ for who He is or what He does for you? Why do you believe you really love Christ? What evidences is there in your life of this and what are the things that go on in your heart (in terms of things that revolt the person or move the person to adore) that make you think you love Christ in truth?
TB: Does loving Christ for saving us qualify in your book as legitimate evidence of regeneration?
RS: It depends on what you mean by your question.
Mat 5:46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
If we only “love” Christ for what we think He has done in that regard, then what are we doing that would be any different than any one else would do? But if a person loves God for who He is and desires Him for who He is, then the love of God has given that person a love for Himself. In that case the person loves Christ because Christ purchased the person and gives love to them.
Todd: And what do you tell the parishioner if he tells you that right now he does not feel much love for Christ?
RS: Love includes the affections but is not all there is to it. I would tell the person to look to the character of God in Christ and pray for God to give him or her love that can only come by the fruit of the Spirit and is given by grace alone.
LikeLike
Old comment RS: Jesus walked on the earth for three years and we have very few sermons of His, yet we have many of His interactions with people that usually consisted of telling parables and asking questions. This is not a knock on preaching by any stretch, but simply to note that if we look at the example of Jesus He interacted with people as His main way of teaching.
Todd: You seem to be under the impression that those who oppose your philosophy of ministry believe that preaching on Sunday mornings is all a person needs, that there is no one on one visitation to talk to members about their spiritual lives.
RS: I would not say that people oppose it, and I am also aware that in the midst of a discussion people tend to take sides and appear to believe something or not believe something because of the stress they put on one position. However, it does some across that way at times.
Todd: I have not seen anyone suggest such a thing. We simply believe you burden God’s people beyond what Scripture requires with your view of conversion,
RS: Which is that God must change the heart and give a person a new heart for the person to be converted. I still think that is the bibilcal view.
Todd: and disagree with your rejection of the value of baptism and church membership in delineating who we treat as Christians,
RS: Perhaps I don’t reject the value so much as I am saying that a person can be baptized and be a member of a church and not have a new heart in Christ Jesus.
Todd: seeking instead the subjective discerning of affections as the marker of who is converted or not.
RS: Or rather seeking the signs of an objective work of God in the soul of which the affections are simply one part of it. Perhaps it might be better to say the inclinations, loves, and desires of the soul rather than the affections. A new heart, however, is an absolute must and if there are no signs of the objective work of God in the soul then John wasted his time in his first epistle. A person with eternal life is the issue in I John and not whether the person says s/he believes. So the issue is helping the person look for evidences of eternal life in the soul rather than simply asking the person if s/he believes something to be true which the devil also believes is true.
LikeLike
Todd: You are affirming HP theology as most Calvinists have defined it. I get that you do not agree with the designation of your position. If Spurgeon can be a Calvinist but an inconsistent one, I would say you are a HC but inconsistent in the one area you disagree with the worst of them.
RS: Another page to read on the Spurgeon issue. http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=312
LikeLike
RS: At the moment, the elders don’t see these things. But it would sure be nice to have someone to do this.
TB: What are “these things?”
“If we only “love” Christ for what we think He has done in that regard, then what are we doing that would be any different than any one else would do? But if a person loves God for who He is and desires Him for who He is, then the love of God has given that person a love for Himself. In that case the person loves Christ because Christ purchased the person and gives love to them.”
TB: Matt 5:46 is not speaking of our love for God but for enemies. We love God because he first loved us. Again you are demanding more of people than God does – a dangerous thing to do.
RS: Which is that God must change the heart and give a person a new heart for the person to be converted. I still think that is the bibilcal view.
TB: Nobody here denies the need for a new heart for conversion. It makes me wonder if you are even trying to understand those who disagree with you, or are we all communicating that poorly.
RS: Perhaps I don’t reject the value so much as I am saying that a person can be baptized and be a member of a church and not have a new heart in Christ Jesus.
TB: Of course – why would anybody think differently? That is basic theology. That doesn’t prove your position of course.
RS: So the issue is helping the person look for evidences of eternal life in the soul rather than simply asking the person if s/he believes something to be true which the devil also believes is true.
TB: No, nobody simply asks for intellectual assent. It is hard to tell whether you actually believe this of us or not. The issue is how we treat a baptized church member and how his faith is nourished, and how not to break a bruised reed. Here we differ.
LikeLike
RS: Another page to read on the Spurgeon issue. http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=312
So you direct us to a page entitled “Pristine Grace” which promotes the denial of the free offer of the gospel, the classic distinction between Calvinists and HP’s, and then you deny that you are HP. Okay, if that makes you feel better. If you really do not like the designation I will not use it for you anymore, and we can interact on the issues.
LikeLike
todd quoting RS: Another page to read on the Spurgeon issue. http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=312
So you direct us to a page entitled “Pristine Grace” which promotes the denial of the free offer of the gospel, the classic distinction between Calvinists and HP’s, and then you deny that you are HP. Okay, if that makes you feel better. If you really do not like the designation I will not use it for you anymore, and we can interact on the issues.
RS: Well, what happened is that I used google in trying to find that article. I had read that article before and knew it was out there somewhere. But as to the free offer, the Puritan writers did not use that. They instructed the sinner that they needed a new heart and to seek regeneration from God. The last time you brought this up, though missing relies are easy to do, was that I tried to point out that the words or phraise “free offer” does not have the same meaning in our day as it used to. The word “offer” comes from the Latin and has the idea of proclamation. So the free proclamation of the Gospel is a different thing than telling people that Jesus is yours if only you will believe.
The hyper-Calvinist, on the other hand, will not even freely proclaim the Gospel to sinners because they think it is just for the elect. But not telling sinners that Christ is theirs if only they will believe us not really hyper-Calvinism (though Phil Johnson says it is), but saying those things is really practical Arminianism. Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be born again. While it is true that people must believe, part of the promise of the Gospel is that God will regenerate His elect by grace alone and give them the gift of faith. Faith must be seen as coming from the grace of God rather than what we come up with in order that God may respond to it. Following Luther, as long as we think we can contribute any shred of anything to our salvation, we are not ready to be saved.
WCF Ch 6 IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]
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]
Chapter XI Of Justification
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor 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,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]
WLC Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace?
A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified;[291] yet in as much as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son,[292] imputing his righteousness to them,[293] and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith,[294] which also is his gift,[295] their justification is to them of free grace.[296]
LikeLike
Todd quoting RS: “If we only “love” Christ for what we think He has done in that regard, then what are we doing that would be any different than any one else would do? But if a person loves God for who He is and desires Him for who He is, then the love of God has given that person a love for Himself. In that case the person loves Christ because Christ purchased the person and gives love to them.”
TB: Matt 5:46 is not speaking of our love for God but for enemies. We love God because he first loved us. Again you are demanding more of people than God does – a dangerous thing to do.
RS: I am not demanding more of people than God does. The issue in Matthew 5:46 is that people only loved others for the things that others did for them, which is really doing nothing more than loving self. Instead of loving others for what they do for you, the command is to love even their enemies which means love people for reasons other than for what they do for you.
My point was that if we only love God for the food He gives us, we are only loving ourselves rather than God for His beauty and glory. Instead of that we need a new heart by which the Spirit works love in them and so we love God not because He gives us things but because He gives us Himself and that includes pouring out His love in our hearts. In other words, the love a saved sinner has for God is actually a gift from God and as such God is the source of that love rather than the love of self being the souce.
Mat 5: 46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
LikeLike
Old comment RS: Which is that God must change the heart and give a person a new heart for the person to be converted. I still think that is the bibilcal view.
TB: Nobody here denies the need for a new heart for conversion. It makes me wonder if you are even trying to understand those who disagree with you, or are we all communicating that poorly.
RS: It is one thing to state the matter as a fact, but it is quite another to take the issue and start delving into it. This particular conversation started from a lecture given by Dr. Hart that was on Utube. In it, speaking of pious children who only went to church when young and did not get into all the external sin, he asked what they needed to repent of or what change they needed to make. I cannot remember the exact words. My point is that a person can do all of those things and still be an unconverted person. A person can be very religious and very outwardly free from sin and still be unconverted. It is one thing to state that a person needs to have a new heart to be converted, but when it comes to applying that to members of churches it is quite another.
Old Comment RS: Perhaps I don’t reject the value so much as I am saying that a person can be baptized and be a member of a church and not have a new heart in Christ Jesus.
TB: Of course – why would anybody think differently? That is basic theology. That doesn’t prove your position of course.
RS: Of course it does not prove my position, but how many really take it that seriously? I am told (here, by some) that we should consider church members as believers in a judgment of charity. Yet, on the other hand, the Bible and Westminster tells us that all people have deceptive hearts, they have the deceptive lusts, sin is deceptive, and the evil one tries to deceive. On top of that there are many wolves running around on the radio, TV, internet, and in many other places in their daily lives. The whole world and the worldly religion (most today) are lined up and around people and all are telling them something different than that a person must truly be converted and not just know about it. So it seems a little contradictory to me that I should consider church members with a judgment of charity as long as they make a profession of faith and are outwardly moral.
I might add that on a personal basis I have spoken to church members for many years, and that of all types of brands of church members. There are many, many people out there that attend conservative Presbyterian churches and yet on a practical level (when asked basic and simple questions in a non-threatening environment) espouse Pelagianism in reference to original sin and are basically clueless to the basics of regeneration, the imputed righteousness of Christ, and the new birth.
LikeLike
Old Comment RS: So the issue is helping the person look for evidences of eternal life in the soul rather than simply asking the person if s/he believes something to be true which the devil also believes is true.
TB: No, nobody simply asks for intellectual assent. It is hard to tell whether you actually believe this of us or not. The issue is how we treat a baptized church member and how his faith is nourished, and how not to break a bruised reed. Here we differ.
RS: But what is asked for beyond intellectual assent? A moral life? A religious commitment? People want to do what is in their own power, while some want it easier and some want it really hard. It is possible to be religious and moral in our own power. It is possible to make religious commitments in our own power. It is possible to make a profession of faith and take the sacrament in our own power. The quesion in this context, however, is whether the person lives in a power that is not his or her own.
I would argue that bruised reeds that are really bruised reeds need to be strengthened (yes, gently). But can it be that some that are thought to be bruised reeds are really unconverted? Could it be that some need to be strenghtened with a power that is not their own? I am not sure why you think that I advocate something that is against bruised reeds.
LikeLike
I am told (here, by some) that we should consider church members as believers in a judgment of charity. Yet, on the other hand, the Bible and Westminster tells us that all people have deceptive hearts, they have the deceptive lusts, sin is deceptive, and the evil one tries to deceive. On top of that there are many wolves running around on the radio, TV, internet, and in many other places in their daily lives. The whole world and the worldly religion (most today) are lined up and around people and all are telling them something different than that a person must truly be converted and not just know about it. So it seems a little contradictory to me that I should consider church members with a judgment of charity as long as they make a profession of faith and are outwardly moral.
Richard, if the analogy is now marriage your view is the husband who is discontent with his wife’s formal declaration of love and an outward life that demonstrates nothing but love (imperfect as it may be). In my book, that’s what called high maintenance and insecurity. It doesn’t seem healthy for any marriage to always be so suspect just because human beings are weak and sinful.
And so if the church is the wife and Christ her husband, your semi-revivalism seems only good for prompting the church to always second guess the Lord’s declaration of love, and that on the basis of her own inherent frailties as opposed to his testimony, which seems much more anthropocentric than Christo-centric.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if the analogy is now marriage your view is the husband who is discontent with his wife’s formal declaration of love and an outward life that demonstrates nothing but love (imperfect as it may be). In my book, that’s what called high maintenance and insecurity. It doesn’t seem healthy for any marriage to always be so suspect just because human beings are weak and sinful.
Bingo. RS, I continue to be amazed that you are so skeptical of what people DO and then blithely rely on what they SAY.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, if the analogy is now marriage your view is the husband who is discontent with his wife’s formal declaration of love and an outward life that demonstrates nothing but love (imperfect as it may be). In my book, that’s what called high maintenance and insecurity.
RS: But your statement here assumes externalism to be true. It assumes that regeneration (whether as an infant or as an adult) is true because one is baptized and it assumes that the outward morality demonstrates a new heart and a love for Christ. The assumption is problematic when we are warned by Christ that there are many who have ignored or couldn’t get in the narrow gate and have chosen the wide gate and the broad path.
Zrim: It doesn’t seem healthy for any marriage to always be so suspect just because human beings are weak and sinful.
RS: Jesus said that he who endures to the end will be saved. I am not so sure that it is being suspect as it is helpful to those who are enduring. It is not just that people need to be confident of a beginning, but they need to be growing.
Zrim: And so if the church is the wife and Christ her husband, your semi-revivalism seems only good for prompting the church to always second guess the Lord’s declaration of love, and that on the basis of her own inherent frailties as opposed to his testimony, which seems much more anthropocentric than Christo-centric.
RS: Your analogy is what is anthropocentric, not to mention quite unrealistic. It is not that the church is second guessing the Lord’s declaration of love to the elect, but the question has to do whether one is really part of the wife or not. When the love of Christ wanes and He is no longer the first love, one can and should ask if the person was ever truly converted or if they are true believers and need to seek the Lord to return to their first love. Indeed the Lord will keep His own, but He will also move in them to endure and persevere. But He uses means in His people to work endurance and perseverance in them. As people grow in their faith they go through many trials. At times the Lord withdraws from them (so to speak) in order to teach them to seek His face in a different way and for a pure reasons. When people are going through these hard times, they will question their salvation and many other things. It is good for them to have a period by which they can speak freely with another or others who have been through things like this and can be instructive and encouraging to them. Christ uses His people to build up His people in the faith during the hard and very hard times.
LikeLike
What do we make of the non-introspective, simple minded man who nonetheless trusts in Christ?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting Zrim: Richard, if the analogy is now marriage your view is the husband who is discontent with his wife’s formal declaration of love and an outward life that demonstrates nothing but love (imperfect as it may be). In my book, that’s what called high maintenance and insecurity. It doesn’t seem healthy for any marriage to always be so suspect just because human beings are weak and sinful.
Jeff Cagle: Bingo. RS, I continue to be amazed that you are so skeptical of what people DO and then blithely rely on what they SAY.
RS: But again, Zrim’s illustration depends on the externals of baptism and outward morality. You say “bingo” and wonder why I continue to think of you as at the least leaning toward externalism. One the one hand you accuse me of thinking I can read the hearts of people and on the other simply rely on what they say. You might also consider that when Jesus says that many are called, but few are chosen, most likely He meant that. Jesus was asked how many would be saved. His answer was very shocking, even more amazing that what you think of mine. He said for people to strive (agony) to enter at the narrow door for many will only seek to enter and will not be able. Why should it be amazing that people like me who think that there are many who attempt to enter without striving at the narrow door will not be able to enter? Why is it that it is amazing to you that I would doubt that many are converted when I don’t see many striving to enter but simply rely on baptism and external morality (or maybe a little inward) to enter? The words of Jesus given below should at least be taken very, very seriously.
Luke 13:23 And someone said to Him, “Lord, are there just a few who are being saved?” And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow door; for many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.
LikeLike
Although judging from Forrest’s statement about Jesus he may have been raised in the mainline as opposed to evangelicalism…
LikeLike
The third section of the Heidelberg (86-129) is relevant, but it is interesting that 114 speaks of even the holiest men “while in this life” having only a “small beginning of such obedience”. This tells me that, try as we might, when we examine ourselves, we will still find sin.
So does our assurance come through examining ourselves or looking to Christ in faith?
Until I find perfection in my lawkeeping I don’t find assurance in it.
LikeLike
Catholics reject imputation and the need for perfect lawkeeping, pointing to a good effort (mediated through the Bishop of Rome, of course).
If we point to “striving” as opposed to imputation, how are we any different?
Are the good works in the “gratitude” section after “guilt” and “grace”, or are they moved to be a part of the “grace” section?
This is perhaps the key question in Reformed theology.
LikeLike
Am I correct in assuming that love of God is a “work”? God’s love for me is gospel, but my love for Him (as evidenced by keeping His commandments) is law, is it not?
If love for God is not obedience, but is merely warm feelings (affections) where is the Scriptural evidence for that notion? Jesus seems to say that if we love Him we will keep his commandments, love our neighbor, etc. He doesn’t seem to say much about our feelings, affections, etc. toward him, does He?
LikeLike
Anonymous: So does our assurance come through examining ourselves or looking to Christ in faith?
RS: How does one look to Christ in faith? Where is He? What does it mean to look to Christ in faith? The point in examining ourselves, if we are to believe Paul, is to see if Christ is in us. The point is not to see if I am good enough, but has my heart been changed and is eternal life/Christ dwelling there and manifesting Himself.
Anon: Until I find perfection in my lawkeeping I don’t find assurance in it.
RS: Perfection is only found in what Christ has done, but the heart that has been changed has evidences of Christ in that heart. The unbeliever can keep the law in an outward manner and even in a forced way on the inside in a certain way, but the heart that Christ has purchased the Spirit changes it and dwells in it. The heart that Christ has purchased will reflect the life of Christ in some way. So assurance is found by having eternal life/Christ in the heart as opposed to some perfect keeping of the law on our part.
LikeLike
Anon: Catholics reject imputation and the need for perfect lawkeeping, pointing to a good effort (mediated through the Bishop of Rome, of course).
If we point to “striving” as opposed to imputation, how are we any different?
RS: One reason we must accept striving is because Jesus taught it quite plainly. However, striving does not mean that one is saved by it nor even that it is opposed to imputation at any point or in any way. As long as we are quite clear that there is nothing saving about the striving nor does it add any merit it is not opposed to imputation in any way. The soul that is saved will love, but is not saved by that love. One mark of a soul that will be saved or is saved is that it will strive in spiritual things as opposed to just put out a little effort here and there.
Anon: Are the good works in the “gratitude” section after “guilt” and “grace”, or are they moved to be a part of the “grace” section?
RS: Truly good works are by grace and come from a faith that works by love.
Anon: This is perhaps the key question in Reformed theology.
RS: Whatever else one says, no one can suffer enough to pay for one sin as all the satisfaction of the wrath of God is by Christ on the cross. No one can earn the slightest merit before Christ that will add to the righteousness of Christ imputed so that the sinner may enter the gates of glory.
LikeLike
Anon: : Am I correct in assuming that love of God is a “work”? God’s love for me is gospel, but my love for Him (as evidenced by keeping His commandments) is law, is it not?
RS: No, the love a believer has for God is given to the believer by God and is grace to the believer.
Anon: If love for God is not obedience, but is merely warm feelings (affections) where is the Scriptural evidence for that notion? Jesus seems to say that if we love Him we will keep his commandments, love our neighbor, etc. He doesn’t seem to say much about our feelings, affections, etc. toward him, does He?
RS: The Pharisees kept most of the outward commandments in a sense and yet they did not have love for God. The phrase “if we love Him we will” shows that love is something different than keeping the commandments, but in fact keeping the commandments is what love does. Note in Galatians on the fruit (singular) of the Spirit. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and so on. The concept is that true love has a true joy because there is one fruit of the Spirit. A true love involves desire and esteem and as such involves the affections. One writer spoke of the affections as the tempature of the thoughts. When we think of things with true desires, it shows us our hearts.
If we love our neighbor with outward action and we only do it out of regard to our own selves, then what is that we truly love? If we are to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength then that includes all the soul and that includes our desires, affections, inclinations, motives, and intents. Let us speak to spouses with no feelings and see if they think we have love for them. “You are only saying that or doing that because you think you have to” is most likely the response we would get. As Jesus gave John the words in the church in Revelation, you have left your first love. Be zealous therefore and repent. Can one be truly zealous without some heat in the soul?
LikeLike
Erik,
Until I find perfection in my lawkeeping I don’t find assurance in it.
Just to add to your point… even when that hypothetical perfection is attained, we still would have a mountain of damnable past sin to deal with…which is why we should always be looking to Christ for assurance. I don’t think that Richard is meaning to say that we should look away from Christ for assurance, but in practice his program can tend to this because it requires us to seek an objective assessment of highly subjective data (i.e. the workings of the human heart/affections).
RS,
I think that the point has been made that we can know, confidently even if not certainly, a tree by it’s fruit. This means that the church and her officers can make meaningful judgements about those who are members of the Kingdom and those who aren’t, historically this has been practiced amongst the Reformed as baptism, credible profession, and a lifestyle that lines up, however imperfectly, with the faith they confess. In the parable of the wheat and tares and the dragnet, even the angels are not certain who the elect are, and might confuse a weed for someone who is actually wheat (Mt. 13). Surely the angels who minister to us (something I’d really like to ask them about in glory) have a pretty good read on who is part of the Kingdom, and largely they’re probably accurate in their assessments, but if they cannot be certain, how much less can we be? Best to just stick to external evidence, and leave the secret things to God.
LikeLike
Erik, he goes to purgatory to get smart (no Maxwell Smart videos).
LikeLike
But your statement here assumes externalism to be true. It assumes that regeneration (whether as an infant or as an adult) is true because one is baptized and it assumes that the outward morality demonstrates a new heart and a love for Christ.
Richard, actually what old lifers believe isn’t baptismal regeneration. It is rather that children are marked by God as outward members of the covenant to be nurtured along in the Xn life with an expectation of the Spirit doing his inward work and an eye toward a credible profession of faith so that they may then be affirmed as inward members and able to partake of the Supper.
But my point is that what people say and do actually count for something. And, again, nobody here is trying to give cover to duplicity. You seem to assume we are. Beyond this uncharitable assumption, the logical outworking of your system breeds not a little uncertainty and shows little understanding for how human beings really work. In your world, husbands and wives can’t take into account years of professing and demonstrated love, they must always be wondering and worrying, perhaps only as confident as their last introspection session. To be honest, it sounds a lot like what adolescents do in their human relationships. Which makes the labels getting used indicative: new life for a juvenile piety, old life for an adult one. Aren’t we called to grow up in the faith, Richard, as in when I was a child I thought like one but then I put away childish ways?
LikeLike
Erik, forget purgatory. Maybe he should just go home TO GREENBOW, ALABAMA!
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, actually what old lifers believe isn’t baptismal regeneration. It is rather that children are marked by God as outward members of the covenant to be nurtured along in the Xn life with an expectation of the Spirit doing his inward work and an eye toward a credible profession of faith so that they may then be affirmed as inward members and able to partake of the Supper.
RS: Zrim, you just made my point. I am quite aware that those who have been writing (for the most part) don’t believe in a direct form of baptismal regeneration. But according to your own words, you believe that if you baptize them and nurture them properly you can expect the Spirit to do His work. John 1:12-13 is quite clear that the only reason God regenerates people is because of His own will. I know that you will say that you agree with that, but look how it comes out (at least to my eyes) in your words. While the Scripture tells us with great clarity that God hated Esau, you will just assume that children of believers who are baptized and nurtured will be regenerated. That is just a longer version of baptismal regeneration.
Zrim: But my point is that what people say and do actually count for something.
RS: Of which I certainly agree, but what they say and do is not an infallible statement of their new heart.
Zrim: And, again, nobody here is trying to give cover to duplicity. You seem to assume we are.
RS: No, I don’t assume that you are trying to do so.
Zrim: Beyond this uncharitable assumption, the logical outworking of your system breeds not a little uncertainty and shows little understanding for how human beings really work.
RS: But that is actually not correct. I take the doctrine of depravity quite seriously and I also take the doctrine of the devil’s work of deception quite seriously. Human beings are born dead in sins and trespasses and by nature are children of wrath. They can be the most religious of beings and still be dead and by nature children of wrath. They can be baptized and be very religious and still be dead and by nature children of wrath. There is nothing they can do to give themselves a new heart and there is nothing they can do to move God to give them one. The heart of man is quite deceitful and quite evil, but in that deception man wants to find some way he can control God just enough to do something so that God will save him or so that man can have one little island of righteousness that gives him hope.
Zrim: In your world, husbands and wives can’t take into account years of professing and demonstrated love, they must always be wondering and worrying, perhaps only as confident as their last introspection session.
RS: But your illustration is exactly backwards. The human relationship is supposed to reflect something of how God works, but instead you are trying to use fallen human relationships to show how God is supposed to operate.
Zrim: To be honest, it sounds a lot like what adolescents do in their human relationships. Which makes the labels getting used indicative: new life for a juvenile piety, old life for an adult one. Aren’t we called to grow up in the faith, Richard, as in when I was a child I thought like one but then I put away childish ways?
RS: You are to grow in faith, but how would you ever know? According to your stated methods, there is no way to really tell.
LikeLike
Anon: Until I find perfection in my lawkeeping I don’t find assurance in it.
Jed: Just to add to your point… even when that hypothetical perfection is attained, we still would have a mountain of damnable past sin to deal with…which is why we should always be looking to Christ for assurance. I don’t think that Richard is meaning to say that we should look away from Christ for assurance, but in practice his program can tend to this because it requires us to seek an objective assessment of highly subjective data (i.e. the workings of the human heart/affections).
RS: But again, it seems that you are not reading with understanding. Please, read slowly and carefully. You may not agree, but at least try for understanding what I am really saying. I don’t argue that you should look away from Christ, but instead look for Christ in the right place. My position is that I am giving the only objective assessment because it is using Scripture in looking to see if Christ is working in the human heart. Your position is really the subjective one because it is always you looking to see if you are looking to Christ. Again, my position is that when we examine ourselves (as the Bible commands) we are really looking to see if Christ is dwelling in us (in terms of salvation) or if we are growing in grace (in terms of sanctification). We have been given ways to do this from the Bible and we are to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us (which is looking to Christ) and if eternal life is in us (which there are signs and evidences of eternal life).
If you look for evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit, what will you look for? Where will you look for it? By the way, this is not meant in the charismatic sense. The human soul is the temple of the Holy Spirit. So we should look in the temple for the Spirit. What are the signs of the Holy Spirit? The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, and so on. So how are we to look for the fruit of the Spirit which only believers have if we don’t examine ourselves to some degree?
LikeLike
Zrim, that was good. I used the former part(adolescence) to describe worship yesterday and the latter part to explain baptism to to a baptist, and since I did it yesterday, you’re welcome. It’s interesting that both have to be used in response to Richard.
LikeLike
Jed: RS, I think that the point has been made that we can know, confidently even if not certainly, a tree by it’s fruit. This means that the church and her officers can make meaningful judgements about those who are members of the Kingdom and those who aren’t, historically this has been practiced amongst the Reformed as baptism, credible profession, and a lifestyle that lines up, however imperfectly, with the faith they confess. In the parable of the wheat and tares and the dragnet, even the angels are not certain who the elect are, and might confuse a weed for someone who is actually wheat (Mt. 13). Surely the angels who minister to us (something I’d really like to ask them about in glory) have a pretty good read on who is part of the Kingdom, and largely they’re probably accurate in their assessments, but if they cannot be certain, how much less can we be? Best to just stick to external evidence, and leave the secret things to God.
RS:
Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.
RS: You focus in the secret things, but that same text tells us that the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever. Why is that? That we may observe all the words of this law. If you keep focusing on the things that are hidden instead of the things that are revealed, you will not have much observation of the things that are revealed.
1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life–
2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us–
3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life
RS: Note how the book of I John started and then how it ended. In between are given the evidences of an abiding eternal life. What God reveals to us we need to take seriously. If God has given an entire book on how to know if a person has eternal life or not, then this thing is no longer hidden but has been revealed. So it is best to stick with the evidence that God has given and has revealed.
LikeLike
sean: Zrim, that was good. I used the former part(adolescence) to describe worship yesterday and the latter part to explain baptism to to a baptist, and since I did it yesterday, you’re welcome. It’s interesting that both have to be used in response to Richard.
RS: One would have thought you would have learned the first time. The external things can be the adolescent things. Oh well. As for baptism, remember the Regulative Principle.
I John 4:13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
LikeLike
Kent,
Your not-so-subtle jabs at a particular contributor are killing me!
LikeLike
RS: RS: Zrim, you just made my point. I am quite aware that those who have been writing (for the most part) don’t believe in a direct form of baptismal regeneration. But according to your own words, you believe that if you baptize them and nurture them properly you can expect the Spirit to do His work. John 1:12-13 is quite clear that the only reason God regenerates people is because of His own will. I know that you will say that you agree with that, but look how it comes out (at least to my eyes) in your words. While the Scripture tells us with great clarity that God hated Esau, you will just assume that children of believers who are baptized and nurtured will be regenerated. That is just a longer version of baptismal regeneration.
You just contradicted yourself twice in one paragraph.
On the one hand, you’re upset that we believe that if we nurture properly, the Spirit will do his work. (And, yes, I do believe that. That’s not externalism, that’s 1Cor. Paul plants, Apollos waters, God causes the growth)
Then in the very next sentence, you say truly that the only reason that God regenerates people is because of His own will.
Somehow you fail to see the obvious contradiction here. If God alone regenerates, there is no cause to be upset at people who do their jobs and let God alone regenerate. Esaus don’t become Jacobs by means of introspection.
Then, you come back and say that we believe that by baptizing and nurturing, all will be regenerated, which contradicts what you said in the first sentence. If we believe that the Spirit does the work, then we obviously don’t believe that baptism and nurturing do the work.
You’re confused. You don’t understand what it is you are attacking.
Start back at the beginning. Ask more, listen better, harangue less.
LikeLike
I don’t know Richard, I never put together your insistence on affections and a fickle teenager and how they ‘feel’ but it’s making sense. It also fits with the teenager being on the phone for 5 hours at a time and your sheer volume of responses. You interminable romantics and navel-gazers are never at a loss it seems. Is there a picture of Fabio on the front of your bible?
LikeLike
Richard, no, it’s not a longer form of baptismal regeneration. It’s an organic view on conversion, as opposed to a mechanical one.
Who is saying that what people say and do is infallible? I know you hate the term, but it’s a judgment of charity until any warrant arises to question such profession.
Old lifers also take human sin and the deceptive heart seriously. That’s why we’re skeptical of new lifers’ tendency to roam its chambers looking for sweet spots. But we are also quite aware that those who are baptized, catechized, and give credible professions of faith could also be hypocrites. It’s just that we’re perfectly content to let the Spirit reveal that in his own due time.
If you think my human analogies are backwards then you must also have problems with the human analogies strewn throughout the Bible.
LikeLike
Sean, speaking of adolescent piety and Baptists, I also understand it was Piper’s last sermon yesterday.
LikeLike
During Hart’s lecture he shares some quotes of people saying some flowery things about their conversion “experiences”. A course I listened to awhile back had a quote by an Edwards follower something along the lines of “I experienced God in a wave of liquid love.” The Bible, however, speaks of love for God in terms of deeds done toward God and our neighbor. Do you say that you love God and that God is in your heart? Don’t tell me about your “experience”, I should see that evidence in your life. Are you kind to people? Are you humble? Do you get up and go to work everyday (maybe to a job you don’t like) to feed your family? Do you honor your mother and father? Do you observe the Sabbath in a respectful way? Are you patient with others? This is how we see Christ in us and in others, not in some mystical way. Can a minister have a part in helping someone to recognize these things? Absolutely. Hopefully in his preaching and teaching ministry these things are made clear.
LikeLike
In my relatively short time in Reformed Churches I have met several people who were quite knowledgeable, but who were also quite prideful, disagreeable, and contrary. When they got “off” no one could correct them and the result was disaster. One guy was a deposed minister who had been married and divorced three times yet still saw himself as a victim. These truths we deal with as Reformed Christians are beautiful truths, but if we bend them or get out of balance with them we can be turned into some of the most pitiable creatures around.
LikeLike
Zrim, It’s ok. We’re apparently going to try to pick up the slack, more Driscoll than Piper. I had to walk out from just the sheer embarrassment of it all. That was a first. I came back. I’m considering a drive by on the multimedia ‘bird’s nest’. “I don’t know what happened I heard a pop and then saw smoke”
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Zrim, you just made my point. I am quite aware that those who have been writing (for the most part) don’t believe in a direct form of baptismal regeneration. But according to your own words, you believe that if you baptize them and nurture them properly you can expect the Spirit to do His work. John 1:12-13 is quite clear that the only reason God regenerates people is because of His own will. I know that you will say that you agree with that, but look how it comes out (at least to my eyes) in your words. While the Scripture tells us with great clarity that God hated Esau, you will just assume that children of believers who are baptized and nurtured will be regenerated. That is just a longer version of baptismal regeneration.
Jeff Cagle: You just contradicted yourself twice in one paragraph.
RS: No contradiction in fact, just in how you are reading it.
Jeff Cagle: On the one hand, you’re upset that we believe that if we nurture properly, the Spirit will do his work. (And, yes, I do believe that. That’s not externalism, that’s 1Cor. Paul plants, Apollos waters, God causes the growth)
RS: If you would listen to yourself in what you just wrote above surely you would be abashed. Are you saying that if you nurture properly the Spirit will regenerate and if you don’t do it properly the Spirit will not regenerate? I Corinthians 3 Paul was speaking of the things that caused division among the people. Some sided with Paul and some with Apollos. Paul was pointing out that it was God who caused the growth and not either of them. Nurture does not do something that the Spirit responds to and then causes regeneration or that would destroy justification by grace alone.
Jeff Cagle: Then in the very next sentence, you say truly that the only reason that God regenerates people is because of His own will.
RS: If you recall that was based on John 1:12-13 where it is said that the new birth is not of bloods (birth), not of the will of the flesh and not of the will of of man at all. So God cannot cause the new birth because of the nurture because those things are of the will of man.
Jeff Cagle: Somehow you fail to see the obvious contradiction here. If God alone regenerates, there is no cause to be upset at people who do their jobs and let God alone regenerate. Esaus don’t become Jacobs by means of introspection.
RS: The reason for disagreeing is that if people do their jobs they will be working at stripping people of all hope in all things but God alone. Paul thought he knew what it meant to covet, but then when he really found out he died to Paul. Of course no one can become regenerate by means of introspection, but it can demonstrate to some that they are elect and so comfort them. It can also show others that they have no hope in the religious things they were hoping in. People must have Christ in reality or they will perish and it is our duty and privilege to join in the spiritual warfare and destroy (be used as an instrument) their walls and things they have set up.
Jeff Cagle: Then, you come back and say that we believe that by baptizing and nurturing, all will be regenerated, which contradicts what you said in the first sentence. If we believe that the Spirit does the work, then we obviously don’t believe that baptism and nurturing do the work.
RS: But again, no contradiction on my part at all. If you believe that because you baptize and nurture that the Spirit then comes along and does the work, it is a back door to teaching baptismal regeneration or at least more or less the same thing. Those who teach a clear baptismal regeneration teach that it happens at the same time. It appears (not saying you actually believe that) that your position is that if one does these things it will happen at a later time.
Jeff Cagle: You’re confused. You don’t understand what it is you are attacking.
RS: But I did not contradict myself. Perhaps you don’t understand your real position.
Jeff Cagle: Start back at the beginning. Ask more, listen better, harangue less.
RS: No harangues, but if you are really saying (as you sure seemed to clearly say) that those who are baptized and nurtured properly will be regenerated by the Spirit, then you are teaching something that the Spirit regenerates on the basis of what man is doing or because man is doing it.
LikeLike
Sean, speaking of adolescent piety, Baptists, and Driscoll, I hear he’s agreed to box Warren:
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/166485-rick-warren-challenges-mark-driscoll-to-celebrity-boxing-match.html#.UVm_eHGGOT8.facebook
LikeLike
sean: I don’t know Richard, I never put together your insistence on affections and a fickle teenager and how they ‘feel’ but it’s making sense. It also fits with the teenager being on the phone for 5 hours at a time and your sheer volume of responses. You interminable romantics and navel-gazers are never at a loss it seems. Is there a picture of Fabio on the front of your bible?
RS: I am sorry that you don’t see that a converted heart must have some love and some joy along with a desire for God (some would see affections in those). It has always just seemed quite clear that people who have great desires and loves for the things of the world would then have at least some weak desires and loves for the things of God rather than just gutting them out and doing them out of a sheer gotta gotta do it. It has always just seemed so clear that the Great Commandment of God to love Him with all of the heart and all the soul would include all of our being which includes the affections.
We are told that the love of the world and the love of God cannot exist in the same person. Do we think of people who love the world as just going on and doing the things of the world without any desire or joy in it? No, they give themselves to the things of the world because they love the things of the world. So when the Bible says that believers have a new heart and they love God instead of the world, it just seemed so natural to think that a new heart meant that the desires, inclinations, and loves of the person had changed. In light of that, I guess I always thought of it as adolescent when people focused on the outside as adolescents tend to do rather than the more mature thinking that true beauty is on the inside.
I John 2:15 Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, no, it’s not a longer form of baptismal regeneration. It’s an organic view on conversion, as opposed to a mechanical one.
RS: But the view that the Spirit regenerates His elect as He pleases and according to grace alone is not mechanical, but instead is very personal.
Zrim: Who is saying that what people say and do is infallible? I know you hate the term, but it’s a judgment of charity until any warrant arises to question such profession.
RS: How is it charity just to assume that people are converted when Jesus said that few would be converted?
Zrim: Old lifers also take human sin and the deceptive heart seriously. That’s why we’re skeptical of new lifers’ tendency to roam its chambers looking for sweet spots.
RS: There is no roaming the chambers looking for sweet spots, but looking for the objective evidence of the living Christ who dwells in His people.
Zrim: But we are also quite aware that those who are baptized, catechized, and give credible professions of faith could also be hypocrites. It’s just that we’re perfectly content to let the Spirit reveal that in his own due time.
RS: When one applies that to evangelism, they are thought of as hyper-Calvinists. But I still wonder how it is that elders are supposed to watch over the souls of the people and yet they will just stand back.
Zrim: If you think my human analogies are backwards then you must also have problems with the human analogies strewn throughout the Bible.
RS: It is not that it is not good to think of or use human analogies, but it depends on whether God Himself is being judged according to our human analogy. It seemed as if your analogy depended on that.
LikeLike
Richard, don’t feel sorry for me. I didn’t marry any of my teenage girlfriends. Thank God for big favors.
Zrim,
Speaking of a drive by. April fools.
LikeLike
Sean might be a little irritable today. His Spurs lost at home to Miami with Lebron, & Wade on the bench. Ouch!
LikeLike
That’s what happens when the top teams from the cupcake West take on the East in the NBA.
LikeLike
Richard, what makes you think an organic view on conversion isn’t also personal? After all, old lifers are also 2kers who hold that salvation is personal (as opposed to social and political). And doing outwardly what we are called to do and letting the Spirit alone then work inwardly isn’t hyper-Calvinist—it’s paleo-Calvinist.
LikeLike
KMA, Charter and Kent. With all christian, non-romantic love and charity. They don’t pay me to ride the roller coaster.
LikeLike
RS: If you believe that because you baptize and nurture that the Spirit then comes along and does the work
Which I don’t. I repeat: you are confused.
LikeLike
The Spirit works where it wills.
Semi-Pelagians deny this. Arminians deny this. Reformed Semi-revivalists affirm this in theory, but then seem to deny it in practice. Reformed Confessionalists accept this and govern themselves & their families & churches accordingly.
LikeLike
To keep the fire burning, here is Hart’s second lecture. You’ll want to get tee-shirts from Calvin, Knox, and Ursinus Colleges after hearing it.
LikeLike
RS quoting Jeff Cagle: On the one hand, you’re upset that we believe that if we nurture properly, the Spirit will do his work. (And, yes, I do believe that).
RS responding to Jeff Cagle: If you believe that because you baptize and nurture that the Spirit then comes along and does the work
Jeff Cagle: Which I don’t. I repeat: you are confused.
RS: The context was on regeneration. It appeared to me that you were saying that if you baptize an infant and then nurture them properly, the Spirit would do His work (in the context, regeneration). You seemed to say that you said that you believed that. Then you come along and appear to deny that. Maybe I am confused, but it sure appears that what you say you believe at one point you are saying you don’t believe at another point.
LikeLike
Anonymous: The Spirit works where it wills.
Semi-Pelagians deny this. Arminians deny this. Reformed Semi-revivalists affirm this in theory, but then seem to deny it in practice. Reformed Confessionalists accept this and govern themselves & their families & churches accordingly.
RS: It would be more accurate to say that Reformed semi-revivalists affirm this in theory and practice while Reformed Confessionalists have a theory about how God regenerates according to their own theories.
LikeLike
RS, the point is not causation. The point is responsibility. We are responsible to baptize and nourish. We are not responsible to do the Spirit’s work. Again, the Scriptural model is 1 Cor.
LikeLike
Richard, I’ll see Jeff’s point about responsibility (over against causation) and raise your eyebrow by adding expectation. We don’t hold that baptism and nurture cause regeneration, but I’m confident in saying that confessional Reformed do maintain an expectation that God will indeed make his baptism effectual, and even work through covenantal nurture to convert the children of believers in due time. We understand that sometimes seeds don’t grow, but like most cultivators we have faith that in the ordinary course of things water and tending eventually yield fruit.
LikeLike
At what point can we dispense with the opera singer dude in the tux singing “God Bless America” during the 7th inning stretch and get back to singing “Take Me Out to the Ballgame”?
The Braves ball girls did look nice, however.
LikeLike
JRC: RS, I continue to be amazed that you are so skeptical of what people DO and then blithely rely on what they SAY.
RS: But again, Zrim’s illustration depends on the externals of baptism and outward morality. You say “bingo” and wonder why I continue to think of you as at the least leaning toward externalism. One the one hand you accuse me of thinking I can read the hearts of people and on the other simply rely on what they say.
Your examination questions depend on the external evidence of what people say. I recognize that you desire to examine the mind. But you are unable to fully admit that you cannot do this.
So yes: you do appear to claim the ability to “read hearts” through your questions; and yes, you are *in reality* relying on the words of others. You are claiming a Spiritual ability that is without warrant.
RS: You might also consider that when Jesus says that many are called, but few are chosen, most likely He meant that. Jesus was asked how many would be saved. His answer was very shocking, even more amazing that what you think of mine. He said for people to strive (agony) to enter at the narrow door for many will only seek to enter and will not be able. Why should it be amazing that people like me who think that there are many who attempt to enter without striving at the narrow door will not be able to enter? Why is it that it is amazing to you that I would doubt that many are converted when I don’t see many striving to enter but simply rely on baptism and external morality (or maybe a little inward) to enter? The words of Jesus given below should at least be taken very, very seriously.
And indeed they are, which is why we preach reliance on Christ and not baptism nor morality, whether internal or external.
Your criticism suggests that you want people to rely on their love for God as the instrument of justification.
If that’s not the case, then you might want to think more carefully about what we are saying about internal states and external evidence. Perhaps you’ve been mixing questions together.
If it *is* the case, I can refer you to Jason Stellman.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I’ll see Jeff’s point about responsibility (over against causation) and raise your eyebrow by adding expectation. We don’t hold that baptism and nurture cause regeneration, but I’m confident in saying that confessional Reformed do maintain an expectation that God will indeed make his baptism effectual, and even work through covenantal nurture to convert the children of believers in due time. We understand that sometimes seeds don’t grow, but like most cultivators we have faith that in the ordinary course of things water and tending eventually yield fruit.
RS:
Mat 13:3 And He spoke many things to them in parables, saying, “Behold, the sower went out to sow; 4 and as he sowed, some seeds fell beside the road, and the birds came and ate them up.
5 “Others fell on the rocky places, where they did not have much soil; and immediately they sprang up, because they had no depth of soil. 6 “But when the sun had risen, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away. 7 “Others fell among the thorns, and the thorns came up and choked them out. 8 “And others fell on the good soil and yielded a crop, some a hundredfold, some sixty, and some thirty. 9 “He who has ears, let him hear.”
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: But again, Zrim’s illustration depends on the externals of baptism and outward morality. You say “bingo” and wonder why I continue to think of you as at the least leaning toward externalism. One the one hand you accuse me of thinking I can read the hearts of people and on the other simply rely on what they say.
Jeff Cagle: Your examination questions depend on the external evidence of what people say. I recognize that you desire to examine the mind. But you are unable to fully admit that you cannot do this.
RS: Of course I cannot read minds and that not in the slightest. Yes, the so-called examination in a large part does depend on what people say. But that is not the same thing as waiting until someone falls into sin.
Jeff Cagle: So yes: you do appear to claim the ability to “read hearts” through your questions; and yes, you are *in reality* relying on the words of others. You are claiming a Spiritual ability that is without warrant.
RS: I don’t really claim an ability to read hearts, though I will yank a chain every now and then in a discussion when people claim that they can read hearts to the only degree necessary by a person’s external behavior. I will argue, however, that the Spirit of the living God does give discernment and wisdom in these matters and that is biblical. Try setting down to discuss the things of God with an unbeliever and then with a mature believer. There is a huge difference.
LikeLike
JEff Cgle quoting RS: You might also consider that when Jesus says that many are called, but few are chosen, most likely He meant that. Jesus was asked how many would be saved. His answer was very shocking, even more amazing that what you think of mine. He said for people to strive (agony) to enter at the narrow door for many will only seek to enter and will not be able. Why should it be amazing that people like me who think that there are many who attempt to enter without striving at the narrow door will not be able to enter? Why is it that it is amazing to you that I would doubt that many are converted when I don’t see many striving to enter but simply rely on baptism and external morality (or maybe a little inward) to enter? The words of Jesus given below should at least be taken very, very seriously.
Jeff Cagle: And indeed they are, which is why we preach reliance on Christ and not baptism nor morality, whether internal or external.
RS: Which leads people to rely on themselves to rely on Christ?
Jeff Cagle: Your criticism suggests that you want people to rely on their love for God as the instrument of justification.
RS: No, it does no such thing. For example, how does person A know that God loves him and does not love person B? Faith is the only instrument of justification and is part of the promise of the Gospel, but faith works by love. So how does one know that one has faith? It is not looking for faith itself as faith cannot truly be seen. So one looks for the evidences of faith or the things that go with faith. The person with true faith has Christ and so one looks for the work of Christ in the soul. The person with true faith has eternal life and so one looks for eternal life. The person with true faith has true love and does what s/he does with a degree of true love. So one looks for true love. When a person tries to gain assurance by looking for faith, at that point it is the person looking to himself to find faith which can only be seen by what it is united to (Christ), by the life in the soul (eternal life), and how faith works (love). This is why I say that your method is the one that is truly subjective and the method I am speaking of is the one that is truly objective.
Jeff Cagle: If that’s not the case, then you might want to think more carefully about what we are saying about internal states and external evidence. Perhaps you’ve been mixing questions together.
If it *is* the case, I can refer you to Jason Stellman.
RS: As I recall he came from your ranks. He looked to baptismm the Supper, and to external evidences for the certainty that his heart longed for. True assurance can only be found by looking for Christ where He has said He can be found.
LikeLike
RS: RS: Of course I cannot read minds and that not in the slightest. Yes, the so-called examination in a large part does depend on what people say.
OK, so this is a new and salutary point we’ve reached in the discussion. Thank you.
This is a good place to stop for the evening.
LikeLike
So RS, it would be helpful to establish clearly what question you are trying to answer with introspection.
Are you trying to answer the question, “Should I as an elder admit Alice into the church?”
Or the question, “How can Bob have assurance of his own salvation?”
Or, “How can Charlie grow in grace?”
Or something else?
LikeLike
Richard, I take it that your point in citing the parable of the sower is not to over-realize the goodness of familial soil. Right, but that’s why orthodox paedobaptists aren’t also paedocommunionists, because the in between of catechesis is what functions as the great moderator against such presumptions. Still, children set in the midst of Xn nurture are in a far better position to come to fruition than those that aren’t. Sort of like baby elephants in the midst of adult elephants having a better shot at becoming adult elephants than those coming up with kangaroos. Sure, there are exceptions to rules, but…
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: So RS, it would be helpful to establish clearly what question you are trying to answer with introspection.
Are you trying to answer the question, “Should I as an elder admit Alice into the church?”
RS: It would depend on the land one is in.
Jeff Cagle: Or the question, “How can Bob have assurance of his own salvation?”
Or, “How can Charlie grow in grace?”
Or something else?
RS: All three questions come up at one point or the other. The original question or point in this thread was the point of conversion. A few months ago it was on admittance to the Table. It seems like the other questions keep being brought in, but the focus on this thread was at the point of conversion. Dr. Hart gave a lecture and in that lecture he spoke of pious children. They went to church and were good kids, so what do they have to repent of and what do they need to be converted from? My point is that those good kids and religious kids could still be dead in their sins and trespasses and they could be refraining from outward evil and doing outward good from a heart that has not been changed and so there is not one bit of love for God doing them. Every single person needs to have a new heart and the change in heart is enormous regardless of the person, though the outward things may not be as obvious.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I take it that your point in citing the parable of the sower is not to over-realize the goodness of familial soil.
RS: More or less, yes.
Zrim: Right, but that’s why orthodox paedobaptists aren’t also paedocommunionists, because the in between of catechesis is what functions as the great moderator against such presumptions. Still, children set in the midst of Xn nurture are in a far better position to come to fruition than those that aren’t. Sort of like baby elephants in the midst of adult elephants having a better shot at becoming adult elephants than those coming up with kangaroos. Sure, there are exceptions to rules, but…
RS: The last illustration is problematic. First, elephants and kangaroos are not mentioned in the Bible and so are out of bounds for illustrations. Ordinarily I would let that one go without comment, but just to be sure you know and to avoid endless comments, that was an attempt at weighty humor. Second, children who are raised in utterly pagan situations can be the elect of God. Third, children raised with godly parents may not be the elect of God. I suppose that one can argue that God elects according to families, but John 1:12-13 and Romans 9 tell us that God is free in the matter.
Romans 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac;
11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
14 What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be!
15 For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”
16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
LikeLike
Richard, nobody here says that God elects according to families. All that is being said is that holy environs necessarily make for more fertile soil than unholy environs. As you note, elect may inhabit unholy families and non-elect holy ones, but you seem to be capitalizing on exceptions to rules. The flip side of this is to make much ado about the fact that spiritual sheep may be physically born of spiritual goats. Yeah, so?
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, nobody here says that God elects according to families. All that is being said is that holy environs necessarily make for more fertile soil than unholy environs.
RS: But note that you are saying (by implication) that holy environments make for more fertile soil for election than unholy environments. I am not saying that you will actually agree that is true, but I am saying that this is what your position will work itself out to.
Zrim: As you note, elect may inhabit unholy families and non-elect holy ones, but you seem to be capitalizing on exceptions to rules.
RS: I don’t intend to do so (captitalize on exceptions to rules) but simply trying to point out that God is sovereign and He is gracious to whom He will be gracious.
Zrim: The flip side of this is to make much ado about the fact that spiritual sheep may be physically born of spiritual goats. Yeah, so?
RS: But again, God saves to the praise of the glory of His grace and not because someone was raised in one environment over another. In my mind, at least I think so, I am not denigrating the importance of teaching children the things of God, but simply pointing out that God is free to elect those whom He will. It must be so in order that grace will always be grace rather than one work making grace no longer to be grace. If we add a reason other than grace that God elects sinners, whether it be from the person or the parents, that is an assault on the freedom of God in election.
LikeLike
At 32:00 of lecture 2 Hart says that we only know in glory (in heaven) if the work of the Spirit in the preaching of the Word & the administration of the sacraments.
Contrast this with the Roman Catholic, the revivalist, and the megachurcher (who equates large numbers with the work of the Spirit).
LikeLike
Let’s try that again:
At 32:00 of lecture 2 Hart says that we only know in glory (in heaven) if the work of the Spirit in the preaching of the Word & the administration of the sacraments has been effectual.
Contrast this with the Roman Catholic, the revivalist, and the megachurcher (who equates large numbers with the work of the Spirit).
LikeLike
We speak of the “ordinary means of grace” — how God ordinarily works to save people. These are things like the Preaching of the Word in Christian Churches to Christian families (and visitors). This does not mean that God does not and can not save people in extraordinary ways as well.
I drive my car to work most days, but this does not mean that I could not ride a horse or take a helicopter. I am wise to focus on keeping my car running in spite of the availability of these other extraordinary possibilities.
LikeLike
In the revivalist church do we have pastors and elders frequently re-walking the aisle or is it only the alcoholic or the guy with the bad marriage like in my Baptist church as a teenager?
LikeLike
Anon: At 32:00 of lecture 2 Hart says that we only know in glory (in heaven) if the work of the Spirit in the preaching of the Word & the administration of the sacraments has been effectual.
Contrast this with the Roman Catholic, the revivalist, and the megachurcher (who equates large numbers with the work of the Spirit).
RS: We could also contrast this with Scripture. But to contrast this with the Roman Catholic, there is no real contrast as such. This was on of the things that was set out in Trent and the Calvin argued with. Rome says you cannot have real assurance and Calvin said you could. The Bible also says you can know now.
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Romans 8:15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!” 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
Galatians 4:6 Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”
LikeLike
In lecture three Hart talks about these churchly means of grace, the keys of the kingdom, church discipline, elder visitation — having a high view of the church.
LikeLike
Is our model for the Christian life one of highs and lows, lots of drama, lots of turmoil, falling away, rededication, tears, etc?
Or is it a long, slow progression toward maturity by the grace of God through faithful church membership and attendance, hearing the Word preached, reading the word, teaching it to our children, prayer, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, fellowship, family visitation, Sunday School…
LikeLike
Richard, this may be where your hyper slip is showing. You want to preserve the sovereignty of God to do as he pleases. But old-fashioned Calvinists have no qualms with this. You say you don’t want to denigrate the importance of teaching children the things of God, but preserving God’s sovereign grace is more important and so vital to you that you are in point of fact running roughshod over the place of covenantal nurture. The irony is how you seem to think God’s sovereignty is preserved by your white-knuckling it to this extent.
You talk about what the older position works itself out to, namely presumptive regeneration or presuming upon salvation. In extraordinary cases perhaps. But have you consider that yours works itself out to treating children of believers like little pagans? Thankfully credo-baptists don’t usually treat their children the way their system demands. Marky Mark won’t like this, but this is why credo-baptism is a function of hyper-Calvinism in that withholding the covenant sign and seal from those unable to understand or otherwise evidence faith is a way of preserving God’s absolute sovereignty in election. But paedobaptists have never denied that—we’re the ones who articulated it in Dort. In a word, you’re trying way too hard.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, this may be where your hyper slip is showing.
RS: Interesting comment. If I stand strong on the God’s sovereign right to elect those whom He pleases I am thought of as having my hyper slip show. I have a book where a man claims that what is thought of as hyper-Calvinism is really just plain Calvinism and the modern Calvinist are really neo-Calvinists. I might have to give that some more thought.
Zrim: You want to preserve the sovereignty of God to do as he pleases. But old-fashioned Calvinists have no qualms with this. You say you don’t want to denigrate the importance of teaching children the things of God, but preserving God’s sovereign grace is more important and so vital to you that you are in point of fact running roughshod over the place of covenantal nurture.
RS: Another interesting comment. I am simply trying to communicate that all children must be regenerated and receive a new heart by grace. Covenantal nurtue, which is not set out in the Bible, cannot replace the grace of God in giving new hearts. I guess it seems to me that people are putting things like covenantal nurture in places where it should not be, and those places are in election and regenerating grace.
Zrim: The irony is how you seem to think God’s sovereignty is preserved by your white-knuckling it to this extent.
RS: Nothing can preserve God’s sovereignty since it needs no preservation. It cannot change since God cannot change. But again, before the twins were born, before they had done anything good or bad, and before they were nurtured, God had made His choice.
Romans 9:10 And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; 11 for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, 12 it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”
13 Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”
Zrim: You talk about what the older position works itself out to, namely presumptive regeneration or presuming upon salvation. In extraordinary cases perhaps. But have you consider that yours works itself out to treating children of believers like little pagans?
RS: I understand that Hodge and Murray did not like this idea. However, every single child is born dead in sins and trespasses and are by nature children of wrath. Each child is born a child of the devil. You may not like what they are, but they are what they are. How should we treat the children of pagans? We should teach them about God and of His Gospel. I am not sure of a middle ground in this issue. Children are either unregenerate or they are regenerate. You either presume that they are regenerate or you do not. So it does appear as if your position is on presumptive regeneration but I still think Romans 9 certainly does not support that at all.
Zrim: Thankfully credo-baptists don’t usually treat their children the way their system demands.
RS: You mean that they won’t love them and teach them about God and the Gospel?
Zrim: Marky Mark won’t like this, but this is why credo-baptism is a function of hyper-Calvinism in that withholding the covenant sign and seal from those unable to understand or otherwise evidence faith is a way of preserving God’s absolute sovereignty in election.
RS: In other words, you would rather presume that the parents are believers and that the children will be believers rather than wait to see if God regenerates them or not. If that is hyper-Calvinism to you, then perhaps I should embrace the term. All those in the New Covenant are regenerated because the Father sent the Son for the elect and only the elect. We can only know the elect when they are regenerated and have eternal life dwelling in them.
Zrim: But paedobaptists have never denied that—we’re the ones who articulated it in Dort. In a word, you’re trying way too hard.
RS: And here I thought you were trying way too hard in the matter of election. It seems as if nurturing basically amounts to working hard so my children can be elect. I know you won’t like that either, but this is why some see paedobaptism as a function of Arminianism because it presumes to put the sign of the covenant on those and presume that they are elect. In other words, it can be seen as one way to elect your own children rather than waiting (as Arminians do) for the children to elect themselves. The old Arminian (closer to Pelagian) way was this: 1) God votes for you 2) The devil votes against you. 3) that leaves you with the deciding vote. But now it is this: 1) God votes for you 2) The devil votes against you. 3) Parental nurture is the deciding vote. By the way, that is not meant to be nasty but to draw a contrast between the two positions.
LikeLike
Anon: Is our model for the Christian life one of highs and lows, lots of drama, lots of turmoil, tears, etc?
RS: That sure sounds like the life of Jesus.
LikeLike
RS: RS: All three questions come up at one point or the other. The original question or point in this thread was the point of conversion.
Pick one. Are we talking church membership, assurance, or spiritual growth?
LikeLike
In going through the Westminster Shorter Catechism the Q&A’s on the Sabbath have been challenging to me (having grown up in Methodist & Baptist churches — although the Baptist church did have an evening service). Observing the Sabbath (Lord’s Day) needs to be a part of a “churchly piety” and the two services with some rest in between is a big part of that. Now if I can only convince the wife…
It may be a case of needing to lead humbly by example and hoping she comes along eventually.
LikeLike
It’s dishonest to quote someone inaccurately:
Original quote: Is our model for the Christian life one of highs and lows, lots of drama, lots of turmoil, falling away, rededication, tears, etc?
Reproduced quote: Is our model for the Christian life one of highs and lows, lots of drama, lots of turmoil, tears, etc?
Since you have taken an oath not to refer to me you should probably keep that. Say all you want, but don’t refer to my comments directly, please.
LikeLike
You can state your positions affirmatively without referring to anything I’ve said. If I say the sky is green you can say it’s blue without referring to me and people can judge the truth for themselves. This way its sharing opinions without making it a personal argument, which was the point of the agreement.
We have two referees I can call on if needed.
LikeLike
Richard, on the one hand you don’t want to denigrate teaching children the things of God, which assumes a place for covenantal nurture. On the other, you assert that such nurture “is not set out in the Bible,” which seems to suggest covenantal nurture is extra-biblical and to be rejected. So which is it?
I am not talking about your attempt to preserve God’s sovereignty per se (as if), rather how your system theoretically seeks to preserve it at all costs.
You say, “Children are either unregenerate or they are regenerate” and use that as a way to impugn PBs as slouching toward presumptive regeneration. But phooey. That’s simply a false dichotomy. Children of believers are in a unique position, such that there is such a person as unregenerate but holy (just as there are those who are regenerate but unholy). So we understand that people, holy or not are conceived in sin and born under wrath. But some of those are also born holy, as in set apart. And this is what runs all the way through your comments, the inability to see more than two possibilities, as in there being those who are unregenerate but holy, regenerate and holy, unregenerate and unholy, regenerate but unholy.
LikeLike
Zrim re RS: rather how your system theoretically seeks to preserve it at all costs….
Not actually, but we’re not anywhere near seeing that point yet.
LikeLike
In lecture 4 Hart talks about The Lord’s Day, worship, and potential problems with the “church calendar”. He confesses to once toying with lent (gasp!).
LikeLike
After over 350 comments, I hope that Richard will affirm how deeply passionate Erik, Zrim, and Jeff are about the faith and how it relates to their Christian walk. I don’t think I know of too many charismatics that would debate this passionately or at this length about any subject. 😉
Sorry for the digression…
LikeLike
This Oregon church had Hart, Fesko, and Trueman lecture in a relatively short period of time and I don’t even think they are formally a P&R church. I wonder what their story is.
LikeLike
Joel,
Comment more. Please! Ha, ha.
LikeLike
Jeff, what I mean is that Richard’s hyper-Calvinism is so concerned for God’s sovereignty that it makes little to no room for human responsibility. But Calvinism is about both, without trying to solve the paradox one way or another.
Joel, you must have not been around for the 2k posts at Green Baggins–several posts at over 1k each.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I’ve certainly seen them, though comment sections under blogs are horrible to wade through.
LikeLike
Zrim: Joel, you must have not been around for the 2k posts at Green Baggins–several posts at over 1k each.
Where are those likely lads these days?
LikeLike
Since this was all about fixing the PCA, does anyone know when they’re going to release the determination that the presbytery of the pacific northwest has a bunch of FVer’s in it, and that that’s a bad thing.
LikeLike
Erik,
Is our model for the Christian life one of highs and lows, lots of drama, lots of turmoil, falling away, rededication, tears, etc?
Sans the falling away and rededication bit, this is an apt description of parenting. The tears flow particularly hard when you awake at 4 AM to find your 2 year old has done his best Picasso imitation out of his own poo on the carpet.
I don’t know if any of you have looked up Samuel L. Jackson’s reading “Go the F&$! to Sleep” on YouTube, but it expresses the haggardly desperation that most parents of small children feel on a daily basis.
** There is profuse use of the queen of all curse words, but for readers of this blog, I doubt many of you will be offended… but for those of you that might be, be forewarned.
LikeLike
Zrim: And this is what runs all the way through your comments, the inability to see more than two possibilities, as in there being those who are unregenerate but holy, regenerate and holy, unregenerate and unholy, regenerate but unholy.
TB: Richard, Zrim’s point is really the key here; it is the difference between a Reformed and Baptist ecclesiology. Since these are centuries old debates I’m not sure what use it is to debate them again here. We understand where you are coming from because most of us have been there and moved to a reformed ecclesiology, where the visible church matters as to who we call Christians and how they are nourished and protected. Yet when I read your posts I do not see a clear understanding of a Presbyterian (or European Reformed) ecclesiology; maybe you have not really been exposed to it personally?
On a practical level, a reformed ecclesiology, opposed to a baptist ecclesiology, binds us to treat our baptized church members as believers, just as it requires us to treat those outside or ex-communicated from the visible church as unbelievers, no matter what they claim for themselves, all the while not knowing ultimately whether either one is truly regenerate. Note that “treat” is not the same as “presume,” though there may be some overlap there. In other words, baptism and church membership matter in how we think about one another, and these are not swallowed up by the doctrine of election.
A reformed ecclesiology, among other things, protects the people of God from over-bearing ministers who would cause God’s children to doubt their salvation. So we assume the best of our brothers and sisters in the church, as the writer to the Hebrews does even as some were tempted to fall away (Heb 6:9 – “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation.”).
We only seek church discipline when their actions that clearly violate the Word of God demonstrate something wrong with their hearts, and even then we assume regeneration until a persistent refusal to repent, and even then we treat them as believers until ex-communication, and even then we do not pretend to ultimately know their hearts! We are bound by God’s Word to speak to them as believers while still in the church. Even in the midst of persistent fornication, Paul appeals to the fornicators in the Corinthian church that as those united to Christ – for that reason they must stop (I Cor 6:15 – “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!”).
It’s not that we do not deal with matters of the heart opposed to only outward actions, but we do as appealing to Christians, and as those careful that we, as well as those we minister to, are rather poor interpreters of the heart (most apostates I have known and ex-communicated would have told you at one time of love for Christ and his gospel in their hearts, and many of the most faithful Christians I have known feel very little in their hearts but turmoil and doubt.)
And a reformed ecclesiology, while ultimately recognizing only two types of people eternally, elect and non-elect, also recognizes there is a category in both testaments of covenant people; those God has placed his name upon, confirmed in baptism (NC), and granted special responsibilities and privileges concerning the covenant of grace.
A baptist system is too often prone to ecclesiology abuse and tyranny, for as sincere as your intentions may be in confirming genuine conversion in others though an examination of their affections, it still amounts to the minister attempting to interpret subjective emotions as evidence of conversion.Thus Christians, depending on their personalities, physical health (which greatly affects the soul), weaknesses, etc…will often either be filled with despair, because maybe they are emotionally struggling and not seeing any evidence in their affections of conversion, or very stoic and don’t feel much of anything, or prideful and insincere, because they will, in seeking to please the minister, do or say whatever it takes to be accepted as a genuine believer by him.
In other words, while the Holy Spirit has the ability to read hearts and convict his people of inward sins, especially as they hear the Word preached each week, you do not, and thus stray into very dangerous waters. Like I said, many of us have been under ministers who were, of course, always convinced of their own spiritually, but always pushing us to show the proper “fervor,” and we burned out of such subjective pressure dependent upon the personal beliefs and temperament of the minister, and thus we found relief in a truly reformed view of the church.
As I said, while we certainly accept the professions of faith of our baptist brethren, the divide between baptism and reformed on matters of ecclesiology are very deep, as this debate reveals.
My favorite Puritan, Richard Sibbes, has some helpful quotes on all this:
“Measure not God’s love and favour by your own feeling. The sun shines as clearly in the darkest day as it does in the brightest. The difference is not in the sun, but in some clouds which hinder the manifestation of the light thereof.”
“Weakness with watchfulness will stand, when strength with too much confidence fails. Weakness, with acknowledgement of it, is the fittest seat and subject for God to perfect his strength in; for consciousness of our infirmities drives us out of ourselves to him in whom our strength lies.”
“We must remember that grace sometimes is so little as to be indiscernible to us. The Spirit sometimes has secret operations in is which we know not for the present, but Christ knows.”
“the Sacrament, it was ordained not for angels, but for men; and not for perfect men, but for weak men; and not for Christ, which is truth itself, to bind him, but because we are ready, by reason of our guilty and unbelieving hearts, to call truth itself into question.”
“Treasure the least degree of grace – … he who has the least measure is within the compass of God’s eternal favour. Though he is not a shining light, yet he is a smoking wick, which Christ’s tender care will not allow him to quench.”
LikeLike
Erik Charter: It’s dishonest to quote someone inaccurately:
Original quote: Is our model for the Christian life one of highs and lows, lots of drama, lots of turmoil, falling away, rededication, tears, etc?
Reproduced quote: Is our model for the Christian life one of highs and lows, lots of drama, lots of turmoil, tears, etc?
RS: In other words, I took out two items that you did say. All the things that I listed you did say. So I did not misquote you, I just didn’t use the whole quote.
Erik: Since you have taken an oath not to refer to me you should probably keep that. Say all you want, but don’t refer to my comments directly, please.
RS: You have spoken to my posts several times in the past and I have ignored that. This time around you have been speaking directly to my posts and I spoke to the things you spoke to. In other words, we had an agreement and your have broken it in the past and you broke it here. It is not a big deal to me if you want to refer to my posts, but if I respond back you shouldn’t complain.
LikeLike
Speaking of children (but not of poo), here’s a good discussion of the family-oriented church movement at Reformed Forum:
http://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc271/#comment-1418574
LikeLike
Go up to the top of the page after clicking on the link to hear the podcast.
LikeLike
I’ll defer to Sean and Mikkelmann, I guess.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, on the one hand you don’t want to denigrate teaching children the things of God, which assumes a place for covenantal nurture. On the other, you assert that such nurture “is not set out in the Bible,” which seems to suggest covenantal nurture is extra-biblical and to be rejected. So which is it?
RS: Teaching children is certainly biblical, the concept of New Covenant nurture and that giving them an advantage toward being elected/regenerated is not biblical.
Zrim: I am not talking about your attempt to preserve God’s sovereignty per se (as if), rather how your system theoretically seeks to preserve it at all costs.
RS: My “system” would say that we should always start with the character of God as the standard for all things. When our systems or pieces of the system stand against or contradict the basic nature of God, we can know that something is wrong.
Zrim: You say, “Children are either unregenerate or they are regenerate” and use that as a way to impugn PBs as slouching toward presumptive regeneration.
RS: The moment before a child becomes regenerate the child is unregenerate. The moment the child is regenerate the child is not regenerate. The moment before the child has life the child is still in death, but the moment the child has life the child is no longer dead. I am simply saying that there is no in between. It is one or the other. I am also saying that the child nor the parent can elect himself or make him or herself more likely to be elected. The reason that I stand on election is because it is only by standing strong on election can we stand with grace alone at all.
Zrim: But phooey.
RS: I tried finding that in my Greek lexicon as well as my theological dictionary, but I couldn’t find it.
Zrim: That’s simply a false dichotomy. Children of believers are in a unique position, such that there is such a person as unregenerate but holy (just as there are those who are regenerate but unholy). So we understand that people, holy or not are conceived in sin and born under wrath. But some of those are also born holy, as in set apart. And this is what runs all the way through your comments, the inability to see more than two possibilities, as in there being those who are unregenerate but holy, regenerate and holy, unregenerate and unholy, regenerate but unholy.
RS: I suppose you can fight your way through the contradictions of your own position, but it does seem self-evident. If children are born set apart, then they are either born set apart as regenerate or not set apart as regenerate. I know the passage of Scripture you are using, but until you see that you cannot use that text the way you are using it until you admit that the unbelieving spouse is holy in the same way that the child is. That will lead you, as it has some people, to say that unbelieving spouses are saved because they are united to believing spouses.
LikeLike
Todd – A reformed ecclesiology, among other things, protects the people of God from over-bearing ministers who would cause God’s children to doubt their salvation.
Amen, brother.
LikeLike
sean: Since this was all about fixing the PCA, does anyone know when they’re going to release the determination that the presbytery of the pacific northwest has a bunch of FVer’s in it,
RS: Sean, I cut off a few words of your quote, but I have quoted is exact and I have not added anything. Perhaps this is what you are looking for. http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-leithart-verdict/
LikeLike
Nice post, Todd. I am going to reproduce that in full on my blog.
LikeLike
Richard,
Don’t flatter yourself. I stopped reading 90% of your posts months ago. Who has that much time?
LikeLike
todd quoting Zrim: And this is what runs all the way through your comments, the inability to see more than two possibilities, as in there being those who are unregenerate but holy, regenerate and holy, unregenerate and unholy, regenerate but unholy.
TB: Richard, Zrim’s point is really the key here; it is the difference between a Reformed and Baptist ecclesiology. Since these are centuries old debates I’m not sure what use it is to debate them again here. We understand where you are coming from because most of us have been there and moved to a reformed ecclesiology, where the visible church matters as to who we call Christians and how they are nourished and protected. Yet when I read your posts I do not see a clear understanding of a Presbyterian (or European Reformed) ecclesiology; maybe you have not really been exposed to it personally?
RS: I have been heavily exposed to the English Puritans and a lot of them were Presbyterian and were the writers of the WCF. The Puritans did not always see things in the same way as the Dutch Calvinist did regarding the covenant.
Todd: On a practical level, a reformed ecclesiology, opposed to a baptist ecclesiology, binds us to treat our baptized church members as believers, just as it requires us to treat those outside or ex-communicated from the visible church as unbelievers, no matter what they claim for themselves, all the while not knowing ultimately whether either one is truly regenerate.
RS: Ouch. But if you are looking out for their souls and will answer to God in some way for them?
Todd: Note that “treat” is not the same as “presume,” though there may be some overlap there. In other words, baptism and church membership matter in how we think about one another, and these are not swallowed up by the doctrine of election.
RS: Trying to absorb.
Todd: A reformed ecclesiology, among other things, protects the people of God from over-bearing ministers who would cause God’s children to doubt their salvation.
RS: This is frightening to hear. One, it seems that you think that a minister who preached or taught in a way that would cause members to doubt their salvation is over-bearing. Two, that your ecclesiology would keep you from preaching and teaching in a way that might help unconverted people see that they are unconverted. The powerful and searching words of Jesus throughout the Gospels seem to be against this position.
Todd: So we assume the best of our brothers and sisters in the church, as the writer to the Hebrews does even as some were tempted to fall away (Heb 6:9 – “Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are convinced of better things in your case—the things that have to do with salvation.”).
RS: Yet in the verses just above the ones you quoted it appears that the case is differnt:
4 For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit,
5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
6 and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.
7 For ground that drinks the rain which often falls on it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God;
8 but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
LikeLike
Todd: We only seek church discipline when their actions that clearly violate the Word of God demonstrate something wrong with their hearts, and even then we assume regeneration until a persistent refusal to repent, and even then we treat them as believers until ex-communication, and even then we do not pretend to ultimately know their hearts! We are bound by God’s Word to speak to them as believers while still in the church. Even in the midst of persistent fornication, Paul appeals to the fornicators in the Corinthian church that as those united to Christ – for that reason they must stop (I Cor 6:15 – “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!”).
It’s not that we do not deal with matters of the heart opposed to only outward actions, but we do as appealing to Christians, and as those careful that we, as well as those we minister to, are rather poor interpreters of the heart (most apostates I have known and ex-communicated would have told you at one time of love for Christ and his gospel in their hearts, and many of the most faithful Christians I have known feel very little in their hearts but turmoil and doubt.)
RS: Which is actually quite consistent (referring to the last paragraph).
Todd: And a reformed ecclesiology, while ultimately recognizing only two types of people eternally, elect and non-elect, also recognizes there is a category in both testaments of covenant people; those God has placed his name upon, confirmed in baptism (NC), and granted special responsibilities and privileges concerning the covenant of grace.
RS: Okay, I understand that you see the New Covenant quite a bit differently, but still if the people are unregenerate or regenerate what special relation does that give those in the New Covenant (from your position)? If they are in the New Covenant, then they belong to Christ. If they are not in the New Covenant, and yet they are confirmed in baptism, where does that leave them?
LikeLike
Todd,
I’ve been around blogs long enough to know who you are, where you minister, and where you were trained. I plan to listen to some of your sermons soon. Your comments are consistently solid.
LikeLike
Todd: A baptist system is too often prone to ecclesiology abuse and tyranny, for as sincere as your intentions may be in confirming genuine conversion in others though an examination of their affections, it still amounts to the minister attempting to interpret subjective emotions as evidence of conversion. Thus Christians, depending on their personalities, physical health (which greatly affects the soul), weaknesses, etc…will often either be filled with despair, because maybe they are emotionally struggling and not seeing any evidence in their affections of conversion, or very stoic and don’t feel much of anything, or prideful and insincere, because they will, in seeking to please the minister, do or say whatever it takes to be accepted as a genuine believer by him.
RS: Very interesting paragraph. I will only say that all true Christians have evidence of conversion and when they are in trying times they need help to see those evidences. You seem to think of “an examination” as trying to disprove conversion, but in fact it is of great help to weak and struggling Christians.
Todd: In other words, while the Holy Spirit has the ability to read hearts and convict his people of inward sins, especially as they hear the Word preached each week, you do not, and thus stray into very dangerous waters.
RS: The Holy Spirit can also use His Word when ministers and non-minsters speak to people in small groups and even personal discussions.
Todd: Like I said, many of us have been under ministers who were, of course, always convinced of their own spiritually, but always pushing us to show the proper “fervor,” and we burned out of such subjective pressure dependent upon the personal beliefs and temperament of the minister, and thus we found relief in a truly reformed view of the church.
RS: True enough, but I am not speaking of fervor when I am speaking of discussions with people. The issue is whether Christ dwells in the person and, once again, most people with many struggles cannot see that and need help with that.
Todd: As I said, while we certainly accept the professions of faith of our baptist brethren, the divide between baptism and reformed on matters of ecclesiology are very deep, as this debate reveals.
RS: Yes, as deep as the waters needed for proper baptism. No need to argue, just smile.
LikeLike
My favorite Puritan, Richard Sibbes, has some helpful quotes on all this:
“Measure not God’s love and favour by your own feeling. The sun shines as clearly in the darkest day as it does in the brightest. The difference is not in the sun, but in some clouds which hinder the manifestation of the light thereof.”
RS: I would agree with that.
“Weakness with watchfulness will stand, when strength with too much confidence fails. Weakness, with acknowledgement of it, is the fittest seat and subject for God to perfect his strength in; for consciousness of our infirmities drives us out of ourselves to him in whom our strength lies.”
RS: I agree with this too. People in great weakness need to hear that they are in a position where God exerts His strength rather than continue in depression (of sorts) about their weakness.
“We must remember that grace sometimes is so little as to be indiscernible to us. The Spirit sometimes has secret operations in is which we know not for the present, but Christ knows.”
RS: I agree with this too, but at times people cannot see the grace that is evident to others and so need to hear about it.
“the Sacrament, it was ordained not for angels, but for men; and not for perfect men, but for weak men; and not for Christ, which is truth itself, to bind him, but because we are ready, by reason of our guilty and unbelieving hearts, to call truth itself into question.”
“Treasure the least degree of grace – … he who has the least measure is within the compass of God’s eternal favour. Though he is not a shining light, yet he is a smoking wick, which Christ’s tender care will not allow him to quench.”
RS: So why do you think a discussion (examination) would necessarily be something that would stamp on grace rather than help the person see the small measure of grace that s/he has?
LikeLike
Richard: In other words, I took out two items that you did say. All the things that I listed you did say. So I did not misquote you, I just didn’t use the whole quote.
Erik: This is a prime example of what you can’t be trusted and why I question the integrity of your whole presence here. “I just didn’t use the whole quote”. That’s laughable.
Try that line in court some time. When you take out parts of a statement you twist the meaning of the statement. That’s what people peddling questionable teaching do, though, so I don’t know why I’m surprised.
LikeLike
RS: Ouch. But if you are looking out for their souls and will answer to God in some way for them?
TB: Yes, our ministry, public and private, include the warnings in Scripture against hypocrisy. I hope I haven’t given the impression I do not give such warnings. But I can warn from the vantage point of assuming and treating one as a believer.
Todd: A reformed ecclesiology, among other things, protects the people of God from over-bearing ministers who would cause God’s children to doubt their salvation.
RS: This is frightening to hear. One, it seems that you think that a minister who preached or taught in a way that would cause members to doubt their salvation is over-bearing.
TB: No, that is not what I mean. If true hypocrites; i.e, false believers, doubt their salvation, that is a good thing. I said God’s children who are saved should not be made to doubt their salvation.
RS: Yet in the verses just above the ones you quoted it appears that the case is differnt:
TB: Of course, the baptist has to ask the question what he would be falling away from if the only two categories are elect and non-elect. The FV answer is that the non-elect covenant members are given a temporary forgiveness, which we reject. But if they have been set apart via baptism to believe the gospel, they are falling away from this calling. But even still, after the warning the author assumes that will not happen – what we call the judgment of charity.
RS: Okay, I understand that you see the New Covenant quite a bit differently, but still if the people are unregenerate or regenerate what special relation does that give those in the New Covenant (from your position)? If they are in the New Covenant, then they belong to Christ. If they are not in the New Covenant, and yet they are confirmed in baptism, where does that leave them?
The same place it left non-elect Israelites – with great privileges and responsibilities, even beyond those outside the church. Rom 9:4 “Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.”
RS: Very interesting paragraph. I will only say that all true Christians have evidence of conversion and when they are in trying times they need help to see those evidences. You seem to think of “an examination” as trying to disprove conversion, but in fact it is of great help to weak and struggling Christians.
TB: I appreciate this, though the difference (generalizing here) would be that while you point him to some evidence within himself of the effects of the gospel in his soul, we would point him outside himself to the gospel promises.
RS: The Holy Spirit can also use His Word when ministers and non-minsters speak to people in small groups and even personal discussions.
TB: yes, but this is still the preaching ministry on a personal level. The content is the same, just applied individually instead of corporately.
RS: So why do you think a discussion (examination) would necessarily be something that would stamp on grace rather than help the person see the small measure of grace that s/he has?
TB: It’s not that we fail to talk with members about their desires, but it cannot end there, because they are subjective and prone to deception. It ultimately is guesswork, for the preacher and the congregant to look for affections as evidences of grace. I would rather state the objective promises of God, and warn people of the danger of not believing them, if they have evidenced enough unrepentant sin to deserve such a warning.
LikeLike
If children are born set apart, then they are either born set apart as regenerate or not set apart as regenerate. I know the passage of Scripture you are using, but until you see that you cannot use that text the way you are using it until you admit that the unbelieving spouse is holy in the same way that the child is. That will lead you, as it has some people, to say that unbelieving spouses are saved because they are united to believing spouses.
Richard, I admit that the unbelieving wife/husband is made holy because the believing husband/wife (1 Cor 7). But if I’ve already been clear that while children of believers are inherently set apart (holy) but not necessarily regenerate then why would I have to say that the unbelieving spouse is inherently set apart (holy) but necessarily regenerate? Besides, how can an unbelieving anybody be innocent-by-association? Billy Graham may want to take shots at paedobaptism by saying that that God doesn’t have any grandchildren, but I’ll be the first to concede he doesn’t have any in-laws.
And just to add to Todd’s point about the deep differences between Baptist and Reformed ecclesiologies: the former believe that the church is wherever two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name, the latter where there is the pure preaching of the gospel, use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them, and practice church discipline for correcting faults. One is inherently experiential, the other inherently institutional.
LikeLike
TB: I appreciate this, though the difference (generalizing here) would be that while you point him to some evidence within himself of the effects of the gospel in his soul, we would point him outside himself to the gospel promises.
RS: The Gospel promises eternal life. The Gospel promises Christ in us the hope of glory. The Gospel promises a new heart. The Gospel promises indwelling love. The Gospel promises that the law will be written in their minds and hearts. Where can you point a person to that is outside of himself to see the Gospel promises fulfilled? In other words, there are the promises of the Gospel. But the promises of the Gospel to the elect of God are fulfilled in them. If we tell people to look outside of themselves, then they are the ones looking at historical facts alone. If we tell them to look to an objective work of God in their soul, then they are looking for what God has done in them.
Old Coment RS: So why do you think a discussion (examination) would necessarily be something that would stamp on grace rather than help the person see the small measure of grace that s/he has?
TB: It’s not that we fail to talk with members about their desires, but it cannot end there, because they are subjective and prone to deception.
RS: Are desires really that subjective? If God gives a person a new heart, that person has new desires. If Christ is the life of that person, then He is working His mind and His desires in them. Sure the desires fluctuate and can be very changing, but there is a core there that has changed.
TB: It ultimately is guesswork, for the preacher and the congregant to look for affections as evidences of grace.
RS: But surely the Word of God gives us more than just guesswork. The Scriptures speak clearly about the deeds of the flesh versus the fruit of the Spirit. Romans and I John also gives is a lot about love. Is a new heart really just guesswork?
TB: I would rather state the objective promises of God, and warn people of the danger of not believing them, if they have evidenced enough unrepentant sin to deserve such a warning.
RS: I guess I argue that the objective promises of God are what He will do in His people, so what He does in His people is a fulfillment of the objective promises and as such is an objective work. God promises eternal life. Do we believe the promise? But has He given me eternal life is my question, so how do I know that I have eternal life? Do I just simply believe that the promise is true (that God has promised eternal life) or do I see if God has worked eternal life in my soul by the evidences of His objective work that He provides in His Word?
1 John 2:25 This is the promise which He Himself made to us: eternal life.
1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
I John 4: 7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for [in] us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I admit that the unbelieving wife/husband is made holy because the believing husband/wife (1 Cor 7). But if I’ve already been clear that while children of believers are inherently set apart (holy) but not necessarily regenerate then why would I have to say that the unbelieving spouse is inherently set apart (holy) but necessarily regenerate? Besides, how can an unbelieving anybody be innocent-by-association? Billy Graham may want to take shots at paedobaptism by saying that that God doesn’t have any grandchildren, but I’ll be the first to concede he doesn’t have any in-laws.
RS: Not bad for such a dry person.
Zrim: And just to add to Todd’s point about the deep differences between Baptist and Reformed ecclesiologies: the former believe that the church is wherever two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name, the latter where there is the pure preaching of the gospel, use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them, and practice church discipline for correcting faults. One is inherently experiential, the other inherently institutional.
RS: I know that you may not believe this and if you saw this it might cause you deep distress, but there really are some confessional Baptists out there. There are still many differences, but the ones you just listed are more with the garden variety type of Baptists that perhaps are weeds rather than flowers (Tulips).
LikeLike
Erik,
Thanks
LikeLike
Erik, that was a dirty thing done to you there by deliberately tampering with your quote.
Not even a vikingtard would stoop so low as to pull that one.
LikeLike
TB: Richard, Zrim’s point is really the key here; it is the difference between a Reformed and Baptist ecclesiology. Since these are centuries old debates I’m not sure what use it is to debate them again here. We understand where you are coming from because most of us have been there and moved to a reformed ecclesiology, where the visible church matters as to who we call Christians and how they are nourished and protected. Yet when I read your posts I do not see a clear understanding of a Presbyterian (or European Reformed) ecclesiology; maybe you have not really been exposed to it personally?
Zrim: And just to add to Todd’s point about the deep differences between Baptist and Reformed ecclesiologies: the former believe that the church is wherever two or more are gathered in Jesus’ name, the latter where there is the pure preaching of the gospel, use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them, and practice church discipline for correcting faults. One is inherently experiential, the other inherently institutional.
RS: Todd and Zrim, thanks for continuing this (at least to this point). It has been enlightening. If I am understanding you correctly, your view of the Gospel and the attending issues is driven by ecclesiology and comes more from the Continental understanding of the Church. I have been approaching this from the English Puritan view of Presbyterianism (though as a Calvinistic Baptist). It appears that from your view the Gospel should be and is seen though ecclesiastical glasses, yet from the English Puritan view the Church is seen through a sovereign God and a Gospel of grace alone glasses. While you don’t deny that God is sovereign and that the Gospel is of grace alone, you see it through the lenses of a controlling ecclesiology. While the English Puritan view does not deny the importance of the Church and agrees with the marks of a church, it sees the Church and churches through the lenses of a controlling sovereign God and a corresponding sovereign grace of the Gospel. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
LikeLike
Richard, dry? I thought you were the teetotaler here. But I am aware of so-called confessional Baptists. It’s not distressing, it’s oxymoronic.
Still, your remark to Todd about the gospel being that which is wrought within sinners as opposed to that which is worked without them is telling. That is completely foreign to anything claiming Calvinist. And your ancestors told ours we didn’t go far enough in our reforms? Fubar.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, dry? I thought you were the teetotaler here.
RS: I had assumed that in terms of baptism just a little dab would do ya.
Zrim: But I am aware of so-called confessional Baptists. It’s not distressing, it’s oxymoronic.
RS: So Baptists cannot have confessions?
Zrim: Still, your remark to Todd about the gospel being that which is wrought within sinners as opposed to that which is worked without them is telling. That is completely foreign to anything claiming Calvinist.
RS: If you read the works of the English Puritans you would realize that it is at the heart of Calvinism. Christ purchased a people and then purchased the Spirit to apply all the blessings to them. What is the promise of eternal life by grace alone if that eternal life is not applied by grace? What is the promise of the forgiveness of sins if that forgiveness is not actually granted and the sinner brought back into fellowship of God? So the Gospel was purchased by Christ, but until it is applied how can anyone know that it is for them?
Zrim: And your ancestors told ours we didn’t go far enough in our reforms? Fubar.
RS: My ancestors spoke the truth. As in baptism so in the reforms. Just a little dab will do ya.
LikeLike
RS: Todd and Zrim, it appears that from your view the Gospel should be and is seen though ecclesiastical glasses, yet from the English Puritan view the Church is seen through a sovereign God and a Gospel of grace alone glasses. While you don’t deny that God is sovereign and that the Gospel is of grace alone, you see it through the lenses of a controlling ecclesiology.
TB: No, I would not say that. What you write above describes FV more than confessional Presbyterianism. In FV, the doctrine of election is subsumed under ecclesiology. Instead our ecclesiology puts limits on how we administer the covenant of grace; i.e, administering the keys to the kingdom. In other words, it is not God whose election is limited by ecclesiology, it is us who are limited by our ecclesiology in what we say about who might be elect and how they are treated.
LikeLike
RS, I didn’t get an answer, so we’ll take each in turn.
Let’s suppose that you are an elder examining someone for membership. Now what we in the PCA do (after new members’ classes and a screening by the pastor) is to examine the person in reference to his faith in Christ. In particular, we are aiming to gauge, within the ability to determine sincerity, their answers to these questions:
Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
And we ask these questions, which are actually membership vows, because we are convinced that salvation comes by grace through faith.
This, apparently, is not enough for you. You want to ask additional questions:
I have several issues with these questions as a test for membership.
(1) They suggest that we are justified by loving Christ.
You’ve denied this (which makes me glad), but I think you fail to realize that the difference between evidence-testing and causation is too subtle for most to get. I don’t think you grasp how these questions come across to ordinary folk.
And indeed, I’m not convinced that you are innocent of believing that love is justifying. If you believe that love is a prior condition to membership, then you might well believe that love is a prior condition to justification. After all, Roman Catholics believe exactly this. Why should you be any different?
(2) They suggest (as Edwards did) that love is not love unless it is disinterested.
But the Heidelberg Catechism and John line up against Edwards: We love because he first loved us.
So not only do you suggest to your potential new members that love is a prior condition to membership, but you also ask them to have a particular kind of love that is foreign to Scripture, and you disparage a love that is in fact holy: a love for Christ because of what He has done for us.
(3) They tempt the examinees into boasting, or deception, or both.
The best answer to your questions is, “I hardly love Christ at all. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; it would be foolish for me to declare my love for him. But He loves me, and gave Himself for me, and I cling to this one hope: that I am His and He is mine.”
This is a far better, more faithful answer than, “Why yes, I love Christ! Every morning I can’t wait to have my quiet time!! I am so excited to be off to Somalia to share the gospel with the lost in the 10-40 window!!!!”
There is no way that you can get a Yes answer from your examinees without tempting them into boasting about their works.
Asking people about their faith provides them with an opportunity to talk about the object of their faith. Asking people to examine their own love only provides them an opportunity to talk about themselves.
(By the way, “objective” means “focused on a particular object outside of the subject.”
“Subjective” means focused on the subject himself. Evidence acquired from self-examination is by definition subjective. This notion that love is an objective evidence of faith is mistaken. Love cannot be seen outside of the subject.)
(4) These questions do not provide any useful information about the faith of the examinees.
You say, but they tell us whether the faith is genuine or not by telling us whether the examinee has Spirit-created love in his heart. Surely that’s valuable.
But that isn’t what the questions actually tell you. What they tell you is a self-reported snapshot of what the examinee thinks love ought to be. If the examinee is not particularly in tune with the state of his heart, he will overestimate his love. If he is particularly scrupulously honest, he will downplay his own love.
Further, individuals vary widely in their ability to introspect. I have known many people who could not tell their motives at any given time. So already, your test gives spurious results because it is asking for a level of self-knowledge that most do not have — and the ones most likely to say Yes are the ones with the least self-knowledge.
In other words, the test questions are so poor as to give you no useful information. They provide too many false positives, too many false negatives, and are not really on point, since we aren’t justified by our love.
RS, you seem to be trying to improve on justification by faith alone by adding a work of love to it. I know that you say that this is not your goal, and I’d like to take that face value. But I’m not sure you’re entirely self-aware on this point. It seems to me that if you were crystal-clear on the fact that we are justified solely by being united to Christ in faith, and receiving his righteousness imputed to us as our federal head and apart from works of the law — If you get all that, then why are you asking prospective members to display their law-keeping as a test of membership?
Because that’s what love is: the fulfillment of the law.
Why aren’t you asking questions that get at their reliance upon Christ alone?
LikeLike
Zrim: …about the gospel being that which is wrought within sinners as opposed to that which is worked without them is telling. That is completely foreign to anything claiming Calvinist.
RS: If you read the works of the English Puritans you would realize that it is at the heart of Calvinism.
No indeed, you err greatly. If you had read Calvin, you would know about Osiander. And then you would understand the Confession when it says,
LikeLike
Jeff,
Thanks for your comments to Richard, while we might disagree over notions of Christian plumbing, the wisdom in your remarks are not lost on us here (and other corners of the blogosphere). I remember you posting a recollection of a conversation with your wife, and how she reminded you that you aren’t “the elder of the internet”, but your thoughtful and kind (much more than I can muster myself) comments have always been thought provoking, and even instructive.
You say:
“I hardly love Christ at all. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; it would be foolish for me to declare my love for him. But He loves me, and gave Himself for me, and I cling to this one hope: that I am His and He is mine.”
If there ever was a definitive turning point for me toward Reformed Christianity, even though it’s long term effects took years to take hold, it was the realization that I had no capability, even at my best to love God. In all of the youthful folly of a Moody Bible undergrad, who as the “youth group all star” had aspirations to go out into the world and “do big things for God” – the chief end of bible college education – the idea that I didn’t really love God came as somewhat of a shocking discovery to me. Of course my classmates, while never putting it so crassly, usually devolved into a try harder motif to resolve my crisis of conscience. It was a long journey of many years, and near constant display of how little I esteemed God, until I came into the fold of a Reformed congregation.
But, what is germane in my own experience to your remarks to Richard, is that when examining subjective sources, beyond the problem of false positives and negatives, we cannot in ourselves ever demonstrate adequate affections and love toward God to demonstrate that we love him enough to prove to anyone, our own consciences to say the least, that we love God as we ought, and that on these grounds we belong to him. The Westminster Standards speak of true, saving faith as receiving and resting upon Christ alone as the source and guarantor of our salvation, and his person and work are objective, clearly revealed in Scripture. Either we believe in his sufficiency to save, or we don’t.
Richard, I don’t think your motives are completely duplicitous here, but I think your emphasis on inward evidence for ones place in Christ does damage to the objective work he has accomplished on behalf of his people. Of course we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and open hearts before God, yet, what you seem to miss is that he has provided (ordinary) means by which we can go about this, and thereunto attain to reasonable assurance that we are Christ’s and he is ours. Your standards ultimately unravel in trying to make objective judgements about the subjectivities of the human heart, which is desperately sick and wicked above all else. We rest upon Christ, not the state of our own hearts for salvation. While you might not agree with the starkness of the contrast I present here, I think that your arguments ultimately lead us to looking to our own affections as being sufficient proof of our regeneration, and I think that the realities of indwelling sin actually, in God’s providence, keep us from trusting our own hearts and rather casting ourselves upon his mercies made known to us in Christ.
LikeLike
JRC quoting RS: If you read the works of the English Puritans you would realize that it is at the heart of Calvinism.
JRC: No indeed, you err greatly. If you had read Calvin, you would know about Osiander. And then you would understand the Confession when it says,
Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth:a 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; nor 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;
RS: Jeff, I don’t believe that anything I have written (in the proper context) is opposed to or contradicts the Confession on justification. God does not declare sinners just based on anything worked in them, but don’t forget the next paragraph in the Confession:
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]
What I have been saying about the work of Christ in the soul has to do with the things that are always with the true faith which has to do with all other saving graces. A true saving faith works by love. A person cannot know if s/he has faith by looking at faith, but by looking at the saving graces and love that go along with true faith.
LikeLike
Does the semi-revivalist look at this passage and scoff at it because it is talking about “mere externals”?:
1 Timothy 3
English Standard Version (ESV)
Qualifications for Overseers
3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer[a] must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,[b] sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.
Qualifications for Deacons
8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued,[c] not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 Their wives likewise must[d] be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
LikeLike
Jed,
If you were a ““youth group all star” you have earned at least as much merit as this guy:
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: But, what is germane in my own experience to your remarks to Richard, is that when examining subjective sources, beyond the problem of false positives and negatives, we cannot in ourselves ever demonstrate adequate affections and love toward God to demonstrate that we love him enough to prove to anyone, our own consciences to say the least, that we love God as we ought, and that on these grounds we belong to him.
RS: For what it is worth, I have never insisted that we can ever have adequate affections or things like that. But if there is true love as a mustard seed (since love comes from faith) then the person has had a true change of heart. If a person has received a new heart, then there must be some evidence of a new heart.
Jed: The Westminster Standards speak of true, saving faith as receiving and resting upon Christ alone as the source and guarantor of our salvation, and his person and work are objective, clearly revealed in Scripture. Either we believe in his sufficiency to save, or we don’t.
RS: But there is more to the Westminster Standards than that. It speaks of saving faith, which of course receives and rests upon Christ alone, as always being accompanied with other saving graces and of true love.
Jed Paschall: Richard, I don’t think your motives are completely duplicitous here, but I think your emphasis on inward evidence for ones place in Christ does damage to the objective work he has accomplished on behalf of his people.
RS: Even though Westminster says that those other graces and love always accompany saving faith?
Jed Paschall: Of course we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and open hearts before God, yet, what you seem to miss is that he has provided (ordinary) means by which we can go about this, and thereunto attain to reasonable assurance that we are Christ’s and he is ours.
RS: No, I have not missed those and do not ignore those. But I am saying that Westminster speaks of the other graces and love which always accompany true faith. That is how true faith is known.
Jed Paschall: Your standards ultimately unravel in trying to make objective judgements about the subjectivities of the human heart, which is desperately sick and wicked above all else. We rest upon Christ, not the state of our own hearts for salvation.
RS: As I have repeatedly said, if you look at it closely, you will see that your view really leaves you looking at things from the subjective way. You have to constantly wonder if you really believe those things and it is really the subjective self looking to faith to see if it has faith. The way I am setting out (I still think it is in accord with Westminster) is that we see faith by the other graces that must always accompany faith. We see Christ by His work in the heart that His Spirit works in us. It is not against Genesis 1 and 2 to say that we believe God created and we believe so by looking at His creation. So the new heart is being a new creature and it is His work.
Jed Paschall: While you might not agree with the starkness of the contrast I present here, I think that your arguments ultimately lead us to looking to our own affections as being sufficient proof of our regeneration, and I think that the realities of indwelling sin actually, in God’s providence, keep us from trusting our own hearts and rather casting ourselves upon his mercies made known to us in Christ.
RS: But the point is not to trust in our own hearts, but to trust what God has done in the hearts. The affections (such as love, desires and their intents, motives) are part of looking to see if we are new creatures in Christ. Ultimately, if you looked at it closely, I would think that you could see that our hearts are so deceptive that without looking at them to see if we are new creatures in Christ as Paul and John tell us to do, that same deceptive heart will never let you know if you believe or not. The affections that you seem to deny as having any interpretive ability for salvation can actually be what is guiding the person in determining if they believe or not.
LikeLike
Richard, thanks for the update.
Hey look the PCA is still broken. Oh well, they were batting an 0 fer at the presbytery level anyhow, at least we look uniform all the way up to the GA now. I have THE solution for the whole mess, start teaching strict justice in the edenic situation and watch everything else fall in line. In the meantime, I must be about the Lord’s work and taking out the multimedia system at church. “I don’t know, I was at home in my room reading a book”
LikeLike
Jed: thanks.
RS: As I have repeatedly said, if you look at it closely, you will see that your view really leaves you looking at things from the subjective way. You have to constantly wonder if you really believe those things and it is really the subjective self looking to faith to see if it has faith.
OK, so this is one point of misunderstanding. You would be correct: if we simply replaced “Do you really really love Jesus?” with “Do you really really believe?” then we would have identical evidence problems.
But actually it’s not quite that. When we examine faith we ask questions that prompt them to describe who Jesus is in relationship to their own need. In other words, it’s “outrospection.” You can see that in the membership vows.
So it’s not looking to faith to see if it has faith, but seeing whether the individual looks to Jesus (within of course the limitations of dialogue).
Are you familiar with Lewis’ flashlight analogy? When one looks at the beam of the flashlight, one sees very little. But looking along the beam, one sees what the flaslight illuminates.
So it is with faith. Looking at faith (or love) reveals very little. But someone who has genuine faith will clearly have Jesus in view. The object of faith is illuminated.
Now, a hypocrite or a “posessor of temporary faith” a la Matt 13 will give a false positive. But actually, that’s the point of the parable. Jesus is telling his disciples what to expect, not what to fix.
LikeLike
Richard, by confessional I don’t mean “having a confession.” I mean having a robust sense of the institutional church. Whatever the reasons, Baptist ecclesiology tends to be less formal and institutional and more informal and experiential.
But here is the kind of double speak that creates so much doubt about what you are saying:
First: “I don’t believe that anything I have written (in the proper context) is opposed to or contradicts the Confession on justification. God does not declare sinners just based on anything worked in them…”
Then: “But the point is not to trust in our own hearts, but to trust what God has done in the hearts. The affections (such as love, desires and their intents, motives) are part of looking to see if we are new creatures in Christ. Ultimately, if you looked at it closely, I would think that you could see that our hearts are so deceptive that without looking at them to see if we are new creatures in Christ as Paul and John tell us to do, that same deceptive heart will never let you know if you believe or not. The affections that you seem to deny as having any interpretive ability for salvation can actually be what is guiding the person in determining if they believe or not.”
So if God doesn’t justify based on anything worked within then why all the effort to examine what lies within? But it’s not as if human response and affection don’t help gauge things to some extent. I think it’s within an old life view to say that if a person frets over whether or not he belongs to Christ it is a good indication that he does, for who would fret who didn’t understand the depth of his sin and his subsequent need of Christ? So while the new lifer may be looking for true love, the old lifer is looking for humility. Todd has already pointed this out, but it bears repeating.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: Let’s suppose that you are an elder examining someone for membership. Now what we in the PCA do (after new members’ classes and a screening by the pastor) is to examine the person in reference to his faith in Christ. In particular, we are aiming to gauge, within the ability to determine sincerity, their answers to these questions:
RS: I have already read what you have written below, but the question is whether faith can be seen by a direct examination or by the graces that are with faith.
Jeff Cagle: Do you acknowledge yourselves to be sinners in the sight of God, justly deserving His displeasure, and without hope save in His sovereign mercy?
RS: Which is not the same thing as Westminster says.
WCF ch 6: IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good,[8] and wholly inclined to all evil,[9] do proceed all actual transgressions.[10]
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated;[11] and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.[12]
RS: I argue that it is not enough to simply agree or admit that one is a sinner, but that one oneself as wholly indisposed, disabled, and opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil. This is pretty much what Luther is getting at when he says a person must be thoroughly humbled before they are ready for salvation.
Jeff Cagle: 2. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and Savior of sinners, and do you receive and rest upon Him alone for salvation as He is offered in the Gospel?
RS: So you are asking them if they believe that they believe. Paul said to examine yourselves to see if Christ is in you. A person believes if Christ is in them, but a person does not believe (truly) if Christ is not in them.
WCF ch 11: IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit does, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]
RS: Notice that a person is not justified until the Spirit actually applies Christ unto them. Faith, being the instrument of justification, receives Christ. For there to be true faith there must be regeneration and then Christ. My position continues to be that there are signs of regeneration and signs or evidences of eternal life. Asking a person if s/he believes something will be seen (usually) as nothing more than an intellectual belief. True faith will also have true repentance (see below). According to Westminster true repentance includes grieving for and hating sin.
WCF 15: II. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God,[3] purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.[4]
III. Although repentance is not to be rested in, as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof,[5] which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ,[6] yet it is of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.[7]
Jeff Cagle: 3. Do you now resolve and promise, in humble reliance upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, that you will endeavor to live as becomes the followers of Christ?
And we ask these questions, which are actually membership vows, because we are convinced that salvation comes by grace through faith.
RS: Of course salvation (in all respects) comes by grace alone through faith alone. The Reformation was big on faith alone in order to safeguard grace alone. But that is one of the huge points here. There are saving graces that always accompany saving faith. So the point is to look for other saving graces as well as those other saving graces are how one is able to determine (not with absolute certainty) if a new heart is there or not.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: And we ask these questions, which are actually membership vows, because we are convinced that salvation comes by grace through faith.
This, apparently, is not enough for you. You want to ask additional questions:
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Do you love Christ? What does it mean to love Christ? Many people sought Christ in His time on earth and sought Him simply for free food and the things they could get. Do you love Christ for who He is or what He does for you? Why do you believe you really love Christ? What evidences is there in your life of this and what are the things that go on in your heart (in terms of things that revolt the person or move the person to adore) that make you think you love Christ in truth?
Jeff Cagle: I have several issues with these questions as a test for membership.
(1) They suggest that we are justified by loving Christ.
You’ve denied this (which makes me glad), but I think you fail to realize that the difference between evidence-testing and causation is too subtle for most to get. I don’t think you grasp how these questions come across to ordinary folk.
RS: I guess that is why they need to be explained. Love is a grace and can only come from people who are born of God and know God. One can believe certain things and can do all the externals of Christianity including the doctrine of justification by faith alone and not have true love.
Jeff Cagle: And indeed, I’m not convinced that you are innocent of believing that love is justifying. If you believe that love is a prior condition to membership, then you might well believe that love is a prior condition to justification. After all, Roman Catholics believe exactly this. Why should you be any different?
RS: I suppose there is no way to prove anything to you on this, but here goes again. Sinners are spritually dead before regeneration and have no true love at all. Souls that are regenerated by grace also have faith given to them by grace. The soul is declares just solely and only on the basis of its unity with Christ, which means that now that the soul is one with Christ all of the soul’s sin is counted as Christ’s and all of the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner. So God can “legally” declare that a sinner is just on the basis of Christ and of Christ alone. However, the soul is now spiritually alive and the Holy Spirit is now working the fruit (love is included in that) of the Spirit (as the Spirit of Christ) in that soul. Christ is the life of the soul.
So how are we to determine if a soul really believes, that is, is really united to Christ? The Bible never commands us to examine ourselves to see if we believe, but it does command us and tell us to examine ourselves to see if Christ is in us and if we have eternal life. Faith is what unites the soul to Christ and faith is what receives Christ. Faith is not known by faith but by what it recieves. The soul that is justified is not justified by what its belief, but by Christ Himself. So we look to see if Christ is in the soul. The evidences of the indwelling Christ are far greater than we can possibly come up with by looking to see if someone really believes things or not.
Jeff Cagle: (2) They suggest (as Edwards did) that love is not love unless it is disinterested.
But the Heidelberg Catechism and John line up against Edwards: We love because he first loved us.
RS: No, they do not line up against Edwards and the text of I John that you are quoting does not agree with your position. A disinterested love has to do with the absence (perhaps not perfect absence) of self-interest in the love. In other words, as in John 6:26, Jesus told the people that they sought Him not because they saw signs but because they wanted more free food (a bit of a paraphrase there). What Edwards meant be disinterested love is that we should love God for who He is rather than simply love Him because He gives us things.
Sure enough we only love God because He first loved us, but what does that mean? In the context of I John 4 (as well as the biblical teaching on unity with Christ) the only way a believer truly loves is if that believer has been born of God and knows God. I John 4 also speaks of the love of God as what takes away the sin of sinners (propitiation) and now the love of God may dwell in believers. So of course we only love God when He takes away our sin so that we can be united to Christ and dwells in us giving us love by grace.
Jeff Cagle: So not only do you suggest to your potential new members that love is a prior condition to membership, but you also ask them to have a particular kind of love that is foreign to Scripture, and you disparage a love that is in fact holy: a love for Christ because of what He has done for us.
RS: No, it is simply a question about true love as opposed to a love that any unregenerate person could have. If you took any unregenerate person in the world and God would give them many and vaired earthly blessings without any pain and discomfort, those people would swear that they loved God. But the love true believers have for God (because of a unity with Christ) is not based on the things that God gives them, but is a love for God that God gives them. When a person is united to Christ that person has the Spirit of Christ (fruit of the Spirit is love) and shares in the love that God has for the Son and the Son for the Father. It is not a love that only loves because it is given things, but it is a love that is given to the believer that is by grace alone and is only given to those who are united to Christ.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Do you love Christ? What does it mean to love Christ? Many people sought Christ in His time on earth and sought Him simply for free food and the things they could get. Do you love Christ for who He is or what He does for you? Why do you believe you really love Christ? What evidences is there in your life of this and what are the things that go on in your heart (in terms of things that revolt the person or move the person to adore) that make you think you love Christ in truth?
Jeff Cagle: I have several issues with these questions as a test for membership.
(3) They tempt the examinees into boasting, or deception, or both.
RS: An amazing response. Are you saying that a person could not have pride and boast that he believed in Christ alone?
Jeff Cagle: The best answer to your questions is, “I hardly love Christ at all. I sin daily in thought, word, and deed; it would be foolish for me to declare my love for him. But He loves me, and gave Himself for me, and I cling to this one hope: that I am His and He is mine.”
This is a far better, more faithful answer than, “Why yes, I love Christ! Every morning I can’t wait to have my quiet time!! I am so excited to be off to Somalia to share the gospel with the lost in the 10-40 window!!!!”
RS: Jeff, not only are your made up answers not to the point, they are just plain silly. Again, look at I John 4:7-8. Only those who are born of God and know God truly love. On the other hand, even the devil believes. So which is a better and more biblical approach to discerning or helping others to know if they have eternal life? The Bible does not give us steps to know if a person truly believes or not, but it does give us steps to know if we love and if we have eternal life. How does one cling to Christ? Do they cling to Christ out of their own self-strength? So we must ask the person what is meant by his clinging to Christ. How is it foolish to declare a love for Christ if that love is by His grace alone? It is no more foolish to declare a love for Christ than it is to declare a faith or belief in Christ. After all, Galatians instructs us that faith works by love.
Jeff Cagle: There is no way that you can get a Yes answer from your examinees without tempting them into boasting about their works.
RS: Of course there is. You are very mistaken (not a real knock) by the questions and answers you are raising if you think I would ever ask things like that. If the love I have for Christ is indeed by grace alone, then there is no boasting at all. Why is it that a person couldn’t be tempted to boast about his faith? A proud heart will boast in something regardless of what is asked. But in asking a person if they love Christ, the answer shows a lot about the person and does lead to other questions.
Jeff Cagle: Asking people about their faith provides them with an opportunity to talk about the object of their faith. Asking people to examine their own love only provides them an opportunity to talk about themselves.
RS: Jeff, that is truly sheer and utter nonsense (mistaken of course). Have you never heard of people talk and brag about their faith? I have heard that many times. Of course there are those who are proud of their humility and at the end will attribute it all to God. True love is a spiritual grace and can only come from the indwelling of God (yes, I John 4). What is wrong about boasting about Christ, His cross (by which He purchases the Spirit who works love in His people), and the love He gives His people? Christ is the only true and ultimate source of love as well as object of love. An examination of love enables one to get at the source and object of a person’s love, because as you know Jesus said that where a person’s treasure is there is their heart also. Jesus told us how to tell where a person’s heart is.
Jeff Cagle: (By the way, “objective” means “focused on a particular object outside of the subject.”
“Subjective” means focused on the subject himself. Evidence acquired from self-examination is by definition subjective. This notion that love is an objective evidence of faith is mistaken. Love cannot be seen outside of the subject.)
RS: I suppose if you control the defintions you control the argument. I will argue that a doctor can do surgery on my heart in an objective way and I can talk about the objective work of that doctor (though on my heart). In much the same way (analogically speaking) I would argue that in looking at my new spiritual heart I am looking at the objective work of the Creator. As I have said before, if you are looking at a person and his faith, then that is very subjective. The person is not looking apart from himself. If you are looking at the work of God in the soul and are looking at the things that He has created in the soul, works in the soul, and commands us to see if they are in the soul, they are at least more objective than looking to see if I believe something. Looking to see if a person believes is always looking at them to see what and if they believe and one never truly gets beyond their belief. But Scripture is quite clear that the world can know that people are the disciples of Christ by their love. Scripture is quite clear that only those who are born of God and know God truly love.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: Do you love Christ? What does it mean to love Christ? Many people sought Christ in His time on earth and sought Him simply for free food and the things they could get. Do you love Christ for who He is or what He does for you? Why do you believe you really love Christ? What evidences is there in your life of this and what are the things that go on in your heart (in terms of things that revolt the person or move the person to adore) that make you think you love Christ in truth?
Jeff Cagle: I have several issues with these questions as a test for membership.
(4) These questions do not provide any useful information about the faith of the examinees.
You say, but they tell us whether the faith is genuine or not by telling us whether the examinee has Spirit-created love in his heart. Surely that’s valuable.
But that isn’t what the questions actually tell you. What they tell you is a self-reported snapshot of what the examinee thinks love ought to be. If the examinee is not particularly in tune with the state of his heart, he will overestimate his love. If he is particularly scrupulously honest, he will downplay his own love.
RS: Which is why the interview is not set in stone. It is flexible and works with the questions and tries to get at what the person really believes and what the state of the heart really is. A person can also know most of the answers to a standard set of questions and downplay his own love.
Jeff Cagle: Further, individuals vary widely in their ability to introspect. I have known many people who could not tell their motives at any given time. So already, your test gives spurious results because it is asking for a level of self-knowledge that most do not have — and the ones most likely to say Yes are the ones with the least self-knowledge.
RS: But this is not a simple yes and/or no type of session. By asking questions (not grilling as such) one is helping people come to know their own hearts on the basis of Scripture.
Jeff Cagle: In other words, the test questions are so poor as to give you no useful information. They provide too many false positives, too many false negatives, and are not really on point, since we aren’t justified by our love.
RS: Of course one is not justified by their own love, but neither are they justified by their own faith. The questions you said that you asked are also questions too poor as to give any useful information if you just ask the questions and don’t go any deeper. A person that has been in church very long knows the right answers and can give the right answers without any change in heart at all. You might also want to consider the point that there is a huge difference between faith and the concept in the modern mind of what it means to believe. But again, the devil believes and hordes of people believe that they believe. It is possible to believe that all the right things are true, but no one is saved by believing that true things are true. One is only truly a child of God when that soul is regenerated, united to Christ, and the graces that God gives the soul are there.
I will ask you again. What is the difference between a person that has read Buchanan on justification, knows all the right answers, believes that they are true, and believes that a person is justified by faith alone and the person that is really justified through faith alone?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: RS, you seem to be trying to improve on justification by faith alone by adding a work of love to it. I know that you say that this is not your goal, and I’d like to take that face value. But I’m not sure you’re entirely self-aware on this point. It seems to me that if you were crystal-clear on the fact that we are justified solely by being united to Christ in faith, and receiving his righteousness imputed to us as our federal head and apart from works of the law — If you get all that, then why are you asking prospective members to display their law-keeping as a test of membership?
RS: Because one can ask about their doctrine of justification and they can have the right doctrine and still not have eternal life. One is not saved because they believe the doctrine of justification by faith alone is true. For example,
1 John 1:1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life–
2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us–
3 what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
RS: The purpose of proclaiming eternal life is (notice the text itself) SO THAT you too may have fellowship with God. Well, what is the purpose of God justifying sinners? What is God’s purpose of justifying sinners? So a person can know the doctrine of the thing in and of itself and completely miss the purpose of it all. God saves sinners to the praise of the glory of His grace as opposed to just so the sinner can know that justification by faith alone is true. Yes, it is true. But the soul that God justifies is changed in accordance with the purposes of God.
The devil believes that the Gospel is true, but the devil does not have a true heart to love God.
1 Corinthians 13:1 If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing
The children of the devil can be very religious and know the doctrines of Christianity inside and out, but not have a new heart. The childen of the devil (from v. 1 above) can be wonderful preachers and sound like the angels, but without love it is of no real good at all. The children of the devil can be great theologians and know the doctrine of justification inside and out along with all the other doctrines, but without love it is nothing. The children of the devil can have the faith to move mountains, but yet without love that is nothing. By the way, when you read that text are you so sure you want to just check and try to see if people have faith or belief? The children of the devil can give all that they have to feed the poor and yet without love (though they may have something called faith) there is no profit. The children of the devil can give their bodies in martyrdom and yet without love that is of not profit.
So why should one ask about love? Because it is the only thing there is that the devil cannot truly copy. He tries and has replaced true love with a pschologcal idea of it and false ideas of it, but according to Scritpure it is the one thing necessary above all. Of course a person is justified by grace alone through faith alone, but virutally anyone can profess a belief in that. The knowledge of the doctrine of justification can be known by any unbeliever, but only those who are born of God and know God have true love.
Jeff Cagle: Because that’s what love is: the fulfillment of the law.
Why aren’t you asking questions that get at their reliance upon Christ alone?
RS: Dwell for a while on Romans 8:3-4 along with God’s purpose in saving sinners. One is not saved because they rely on Christ, but one relies on Christ for all things because they are saved. But a true reliance on Christ and His grace in justification is also seen in a true reliance on Christ and His grace in sanctification. God condemns sin in the flesh so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us. The person that has been justified by grace lives a life by grace as well. What does a life of grace do? It lives a life of love which can only come from God on the basis of grace and fulfills the law of God which can only be fulfilled by the love which God works in the justified soul. The question, then, is not whether the person believes that he believes in justification, but has that person been truly justified by God and does that person have eternal life and love in him or her.
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,
4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, by confessional I don’t mean “having a confession.” I mean having a robust sense of the institutional church. Whatever the reasons, Baptist ecclesiology tends to be less formal and institutional and more informal and experiential.
RS: True, that tendency is there in most if not a vast majority of cases.
Zrim: But here is the kind of double speak that creates so much doubt about what you are saying:
First: “I don’t believe that anything I have written (in the proper context) is opposed to or contradicts the Confession on justification. God does not declare sinners just based on anything worked in them…”
RS: Note, this is specifically about justification. God does not declare sinners just based on anything worked in them, that is, by making them holy before He declares them just on the basis of Christ alone.
Zrim: Then: “But the point is not to trust in our own hearts, but to trust what God has done in the hearts. The affections (such as love, desires and their intents, motives) are part of looking to see if we are new creatures in Christ. Ultimately, if you looked at it closely, I would think that you could see that our hearts are so deceptive that without looking at them to see if we are new creatures in Christ as Paul and John tell us to do, that same deceptive heart will never let you know if you believe or not. The affections that you seem to deny as having any interpretive ability for salvation can actually be what is guiding the person in determining if they believe or not.”
So if God doesn’t justify based on anything worked within then why all the effort to examine what lies within?
RS: Because God does not limit Himself to justification, but instead also regenerates and dwells in the souls that are justified (regeneration precedes faith). As Westminster points out, faith is the alone instrument of justification, but it is ever accompanied with all other saving graces and and works by love. Since faith in and of itself cannot be seen, and people today look for belief instead of faith, we look for the other saving graces that always accompany saving faith.
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]
Zrim: But it’s not as if human response and affection don’t help gauge things to some extent. I think it’s within an old life view to say that if a person frets over whether or not he belongs to Christ it is a good indication that he does, for who would fret who didn’t understand the depth of his sin and his subsequent need of Christ? So while the new lifer may be looking for true love, the old lifer is looking for humility. Todd has already pointed this out, but it bears repeating.
RS: So how does one look for humility? Humility can be misunderstood and even faked, but true humility receives grace. In fact, if one thinks of the life of humility that would be Christ living in His people. But a person can fret over his lost condition if he is truly lost as well. The Phillipian jailer had some serious trembling going on just because he was unconverted. Now, if you will allow me to poke back, it appears that you say that are giving an old life view that fretting over salvation is a sign of salvation. Isn’t that an attempt to judge the salvation of others by their inner man?
LikeLike
Sean practicing jihadic guerilla warfare against his own denomination. I kind of like that.
LikeLike
It’s called getting out of Texas, Sean. We need to get you to the OPC in Rio Rancho, New Mexico (or Key West).
LikeLike
Zrim – Richard, by confessional I don’t mean “having a confession.” I mean having a robust sense of the institutional church. Whatever the reasons, Baptist ecclesiology tends to be less formal and institutional and more informal and experiential.
Erik – I hear about Baptists holding to the London Confession from time-to-time, but do they really use it in their churches? Teach it to their children? Confess it? Memorize it? Preach catechetical sermons using it? It seems like Biblicism and fundamentalism always trumps confessionalism whenever Baptists are involved.
LikeLike
What safeguards are in place to protect church members from the charismatic, heart-probing minister who has gone off the rails? Any similarities between him and the Roman Catholic Priest who hears sordid confessions in the confessional? Are elders privy to his counseling sessions? Does he counsel women alone? How do we avoid a Patrick Edouard situation from arising? He spent time counseling women alone on marital and heart issues and ended up having affairs with at least four of them. Edouard, his former church, his former elders, and the entire URC are now being sued by a high-powered trial attorney as a result.
LikeLike
Erik – I hear about Baptists holding to the London Confession from time-to-time, but do they really use it in their churches? Teach it to their children? Confess it? Memorize it? Preach catechetical sermons using it? It seems like Biblicism and fundamentalism always trumps confessionalism whenever Baptists are involved.
My prior dealings with Reformed Baptists was that they invoked the name of the LBCF but didn’t put much emphasis on the content of the Confession.
For membership, I would not have been taught the Confession nor been questioned about the contents during an interview. When I asked for a copy of the 1689 I was light-heartedly told “knock yourself out” showing me that actually reading the 1689 was rare. This wasn’t for me.
As opposed to joining the URC whereby I first underwent explicit teaching from the 3FU for membership classes, was expected to know the content and theology of the confessions, was interviewed by elders on specific sections of the 3FU, and one of our 2 sermons on Sundays is normally catechetical.
LikeLike
Not how biblicists love to quote short passages of scripture removed from the context of the Book and the Confessions. This is an example of question begging nearly every time it is tried.
LikeLike
Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
Let me give a little context, though a bit long.
Matthew 5:1 When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.
2 He opened His mouth and began to teach them, saying,
3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.
12 “Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.
14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden;
15 nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16 “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
21 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER ‘ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’
22 “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
23 “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you,
24 leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.
25 “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.
26 “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
30 “If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
31 “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’;
32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
33 “Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, ‘YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.’
34 “But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.
36 “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
37 “But let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes ‘ or ‘No, no’; anything beyond these is of evil.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’
39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 “Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’
44 “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
NAU Matthew 6:1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.
2 “So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
3 “But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
4 so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
5 “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
6 “But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
7 “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.
8 “So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
9 “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name.
10 ‘Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven.
11 ‘Give us this day our daily bread.
12 ‘And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13 ‘And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.’
14 “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15 “But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.
16 “Whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do, for they neglect their appearance so that they will be noticed by men when they are fasting. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.
17 “But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face
18 so that your fasting will not be noticed by men, but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
19 “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal.
20 “But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal;
21 for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
22 “The eye is the lamp of the body; so then if your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light.
23 “But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.
25 “For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?
26 “Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?
27 “And who of you by being worried can add a single hour to his life?
28 “And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin,
29 yet I say to you that not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these.
30 “But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more clothe you? You of little faith!
31 “Do not worry then, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear for clothing?’
32 “For the Gentiles eagerly seek all these things; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
33 “But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
34 “So do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.
NAU Matthew 7:1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
2 “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8 “For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
9 “Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?
10 “Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?
11 “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!
12 “In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.
14 “For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 “You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 “So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 “A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 “Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 “So then, you will know them by their fruits.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
22 “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’
23 “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25 “And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock.
26 “Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
27 “The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell– and great was its fall.”
28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching;
29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
LikeLike
Richard, no old lifer disagrees with you that salvation includes more than justification or with WCF about accompanying graces. We just wonder why new lifers think they are to be examined.
You hint at an answer when you say, “Since faith in and of itself cannot be seen, and people today look for belief instead of faith, we look for the other saving graces that always accompany saving faith.” It’s almost as if you are discontent with not being able to see something that is inherently invisible, so you set about LOOKING for something you can see (or think you can). This seems like the reversal of living by faith and not by sight. Why not be satisfied with the fact that there are saving graces and let them be without having to pry and sneak a peek?
How an unconverted soul can fret over his condemned condition is beyond me. If he is not converted he has no sense of his sin and its consequences. Re your poke, you are mistaking a way to actually provide comfort to doubting saints for undue judgment. Remember that we hold out a place for credible professions of faith (i.e. credo-communionism). And as I think Jeff has previously pointed out, those professions that are marked less by humility and more by exuberance tend to be less than credible.
LikeLike
Richard – “Do not judge (Confessional Reformed Churches) so that you will not be judged.”
Sounds fair to me!
LikeLike
Kent: My prior dealings with Reformed Baptists was that they invoked the name of the LBCF but didn’t put much emphasis on the content of the Confession.
For membership, I would not have been taught the Confession nor been questioned about the contents during an interview. When I asked for a copy of the 1689 I was light-heartedly told “knock yourself out” showing me that actually reading the 1689 was rare. This wasn’t for me.
RS: It may not be the best method to use one bad “experience” and make it a standard. There are many more confessional Reformed Baptists who teach the 1689 a lot and teach it to their children. Some are active in getting a copy of it to all those who visit their churches.
LikeLike
Refomed people say that faith can be seen. Look at the gratitude (third section) of the Heidelberg. Look at the qualifications for elders & deacons. The evidence is public, not private and internal. That’s why we look at people’s lives, give them the benefit of the doubt, and have checks, balances, and mutual accountability in the church to protect people from false teachers.
Will we be fooled occasionally? Of course, but that doesn’t change what the Bible and the Confessions clearly teach on the matter.
LikeLike
RS: It may not be the best method to use one bad “experience” and make it a standard. There are many more confessional Reformed Baptists who teach the 1689 a lot and teach it to their children. Some are active in getting a copy of it to all those who visit their churches.
I didn’t say it was bad, it was the way it was at 3 churches I visited when looking to join a Confessional Church. That’s what they are, so be it. Not for me.
The fact that a few Reformed Baptists churches take it seriously doesn’t defeat the statement that the vast majority don’t teach it or care deeply about content.
Doesn’t nearly every Baptist church hold forth some confession on its website? There is quite a colourful assortment of them over the years.
LikeLike
Erik & Kent, ecclesiastically and sacramentally speaking there are two kinds of P&R: those that lean Baptist and those that lean Lutheran. Consider how rarely traveling P&R consider a LCMS and assume more fidelity with Baptists. There was a time when it was the other way around…
LikeLike
Zrim: The agreement and excellent fellowship on display during the average WHI program, and the testimony of LCMS folk in my personal life, confirm that LCMS are most welcome in the wide tent of P&R worship to me. I just might not prefer to go there for worship if given a choice…
LikeLike
I know our pastor has visited LCMS churches while on the road and I have as well. I haven’t been to a baptistic church but once since I became fully Reformed (and that’s because my cousin was preaching). It drove me nuts. I visited an RCA when my nephew was getting baptized. They were baptizing and dedicating babies on the same stage. It drove me nuts. I’m a really poor visitor.
LikeLike
Well, there’s more to fix now. The news has broken today that Peter Leithart got off — his exoneration by presbytery has been upheld by the SJC. Jeff Meyers will get off, too. It’s not a stretch to say that Federal Vision teaching is now legal in the PCA.
LikeLike
Erik,
It’s just gets worse. The more you read, the grumpier you’ll get. You might want to try a dumbing down reading regimen; “How to be a better husband” or some such tripe, just so you won’t be forced to kill someone. Drinking 40% and better helps to numb it out and kill off brain cells which should help with the whole dumbing down process.
LikeLike
Or less to fix, depending on your perspective.
LikeLike
Erik, just sit there and go DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH for the 70 or so minutes the sermon drags on for, try to be amused by the pictures of the trip to the circus last week (that takes up 20 of the 70 minutes.)
Think of what you’ll most enjoy when you get out of there and get your table at Cracker Barrel.
LikeLike
Brad,
It looked to be a losing battle in the presbyterys anyway. I’m not sure what kind of communion you have when SJC is going to have to overturn and mandate a finding of guilt after every single FV acquittal. There’s a problem at the seminary that’s bleeding into the pulpit that’s infected the pews. But by golly we’re gonna be gospel-centered. Whatever that nebulous slogan means.
LikeLike
…………actually it’s gospel-centered and for the city, because rural america blows and the city needs centering around doing the gospel.
LikeLike
RS: One is not saved because they rely on Christ, but one relies on Christ for all things because they are saved.
You got some splainin to do, Ricky. Why should I even consider such an obvious heterodoxy?
LikeLike
Zrim: being excluded from communion is major strike against.
LikeLike
RS: One is not saved because they rely on Christ, but one relies on Christ for all things because they are saved.
TB: Someone’s HC slip is showing again
LikeLike
Jeff, sure, but the slim to no chance of hearing an introspective gospel and virtual guarantee of hearing an extrinsic gospel is a home run. Ok, ground rule double with all that closed table hooey.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: One is not saved because they rely on Christ, but one relies on Christ for all things because they are saved.
You got some splainin to do, Ricky. Why should I even consider such an obvious heterodoxy?
Todd quoting RS: One is not saved because they rely on Christ, but one relies on Christ for all things because they are saved.
TB: Someone’s HC slip is showing again
RS: Gentlemen, please read the Westminster on justification again (listed below). One is not saved BECAUSE they rely on Christ, which is to say, they are not saved BECAUSE they have faith. They have faith BECAUSE of Christ and they are saved BECAUSE of Christ. According to Westminster again (Catechisms), the Gospel includes looking for God to give His Spirit who works faith in us. So look at Westminster again. Look at what it says are the things that the soul is not saved by:
1. Not by infusing righteousness in them
2. Not for anything wrought in them
3. Not for anything done by them
4. Not by imputing faith itself
5. Not by THEIR act of believing
6. Not by any other evangelical obedience
Chapter XI Of Justification
I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor 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,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
RS: Justified sinners are saved for the sake of Christ alone. Faith in and of itself (or relying in and of itself) does not save the sinner, but Christ saves the sinner. Faith is the instrument through which grace is received and Christ is receieved.
Romans 4:16 For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
RS: The reason that sinners are said to be saved by faith is in order that it may be in accordance with grace. In other words, we are not to focus on the faith itself because the reason for faith is to point to grace. Think of it in terms of Ephesians 2:1-10. Sinners have to be made spiritually alive before they are spiritually alive and can have faith. Regeneration precedes faith. Life comes before faith as opposed to a spiritually dead person coming up with faith in order to be made alive.
To be blunt, if one is not careful (Jeffy), one can make faith out to be a work that God responds to by saving the person. Try talking to people sometime with that in mind. Are they trusting or believing in Christ and thinking that is why they are saved or are they thinking that they trust in Christ because God elected them and regenerated them in order that they might believe? A constant asking people if they believe the facts (while important in itself) is not the same thing as dealing with a person regarding the nature of true faith. So, to ask the question again, is it such obvious heterodoxy (according to Westminster) that a person is not saved BECAUSE HE BELIEVES? No, a person believes/has true faith because CHRIST purchased that for Him, purcharsed the Spirit for him, and then life and regeneration were given to that person. It is very much against Westminster to say that a person is saved BECAUSE he believes, because that is direcly against Westminster’s teaching on justification. Sinners are saved (true faith included) for the sake of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone, of BECAUSE of Christ alone.
LikeLike
Richard, the word you are looking for is “ground.” Faith is not the ground of our justification. It is, however, the instrumental cause of it.
So speaking of being careful, the word BECAUSE is not recommended here BECAUSE it is ambiguous. It is both true and false (in different senses) that we are saved because we rely on Christ alone. Denying both would be flat-out heterodoxy.
LikeLike
Kent,
70 minute sermon? I wish. No time for that what with the multimedia and singin’ them sweaty.
I do dig the drummer in the bullet proof cage, though.
LikeLike
Pagan megachurch service:
LikeLike
Richard,
You are just being obstinate here:
To be blunt, if one is not careful (Jeffy), one can make faith out to be a work that God responds to by saving the person.
I am pretty sure an elder in a Reformed church both knows and subscribes to the soteriology set forth in the Standards. Though after the SJC ruling, I suppose one could question this in some cases, but that is out of the purview of this conversation. The issue that is being debated here is not how God saves, and you are simply shifting the grounds of the debate by trying to score points on an issue nobody is arguing. What is being argued is how church officers, themselves being fallible can recognize someone as a believer – in which case the Reformed have historically understood this to be a credible profession of faith, and some sort of objective proof (fruit) that would validate such a profession. Do you disagree with this formulation? It sure seems so, but this is owing to your own prior theological commitments to some sort of interior attestation to true belief (love, affections, etc.). This subjective emphasis on the interior life as proof of the validity of one’s faith is neither how the Reformers, or the clergy in the age of confessional orthodoxy construed credible professions, and communicant church membership, nor is it construed as such by those presently who wish to remain faithful to this older mode of churchly Christianity.
To be fair to you, Reformed comunities after the decline of the orthodox period did begin to contemplate true belief along more interior, and psychological lines. Whether it was Edwards and his affections, or the Methodist (Calvinistic or Wesleyan) emphasis on conversion experience and holy living – many in the Reformed community, especially in the American colonies (later Republic) and Brittan began to tend to these models. Certainly they had their reasons for doing so, but these were undoubtedly influenced by the emphasis on human psychology and experience arising out of Enlightenment thought of the time. To argue that this is historically how the Reformed demarcated believers from unbelievers as it pertained to the visible church is anachronistic at best. So, one is left to decide whether or not Edwards, Whitfield, et. al. were offering necessary biblical developments – those of us who hold to historic Reformed Christianity are simply not convinced, and in fact many of us abandoned the very model you champion here for the reasons given by many here.
LikeLike
Erik: I do dig the drummer in the bullet proof cage, though.
Nothing like a 40ish drummer with a horrible comb-over, in his mid-life crisis, thinking he’s Bonzo 2.0 yet unable to keep a decent beat throughout. That heightens the worship experience.
LikeLike
Erik: 70 minute sermon? I wish. No time for that what with the multimedia and singin’ them sweaty.
But how many different ways can you yell at people to try harder and pull themselves up by their bootstraps in 70 minutes.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: I am pretty sure an elder in a Reformed church both knows and subscribes to the soteriology set forth in the Standards. Though after the SJC ruling, I suppose one could question this in some cases, but that is out of the purview of this conversation.
RS: Yes, I would question those things in our day.
JP: The issue that is being debated here is not how God saves, and you are simply shifting the grounds of the debate by trying to score points on an issue nobody is arguing.
RS: While it may appear to be that way, it is not. I am not trying to score points at all as I am not in a context or in a game where points are counted. The very nature of faith as opposed to a belief is a very impotant point in the discussion. We should be trying to discern true faith as opposed to a mere belief.
JP: What is being argued is how church officers, themselves being fallible can recognize someone as a believer – in which case the Reformed have historically understood this to be a credible profession of faith, and some sort of objective proof (fruit) that would validate such a profession. Do you disagree with this formulation?
RS: Indeed officers are fallible. But one issue is over what is a credible profession of faith.
JP: It sure seems so, but this is owing to your own prior theological commitments to some sort of interior attestation to true belief (love, affections, etc.). This subjective emphasis on the interior life as proof of the validity of one’s faith is neither how the Reformers, or the clergy in the age of confessional orthodoxy construed credible professions, and communicant church membership, nor is it construed as such by those presently who wish to remain faithful to this older mode of churchly Christianity.
RS: Trying to determine (by fallible men, yes) the nature of true faith has to go along the lines that Scripture gives us. Scripture does not give us ways to detemine if people have faith or not, but if they have love or eternal life. I John was written so that we can know if we have eternal life and love is part of that. So I am simply following Scripture in this matter. So far no one has given us a pattern from Scripture that tells us if a person has faith itself or not. As far as Reformed Clergy, Perkins and Ames and the following Puritans go back mighty close to the Reformation. If faith comes from a new heart, then why not look for the new heart rather than a belief which the evidences are not given in the Bible and as such is far more deceptive?
LikeLike
Heidelberg 61:
Question: Why sayest thou, that thou art righteous by faith only?
Answer: Not that I am acceptable to God, on account of the worthiness of my faith; but because only the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, is my righteousness before God; (a) and that I cannot receive and apply the same to myself any other way than by faith only. (b)
LikeLike
Jed,
Note that the churches you refer to in your second paragraph have pretty much died out or have been transformed beyond recognition today. Where are Edwards’ Congregationalist churches?
One can still experience an orthodox “reformed community” today in the URC, OPC, RCUS, etc., however.
LikeLike
What we see in the PCA is what happens when Reformed people also try to be beautiful people. We need to settle for being the Matt Foley’s of the American religious landscape. But boy are we good if you can stand us.
LikeLike
“Scripture does not give us ways to determine if people have faith or not, but if they have love or eternal life”
Ahem…
Belgic Confession Article 24: The Sanctification of Sinners
We believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a “new man,”^57 causing him to live the “new life”^58 and freeing him from the slavery of sin. Therefore, far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned. So then, it is impossible for this holy faith to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through love,”^59 which leads a man to do by himself the works that God has commanded in his Word.
These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by his grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification– for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works. Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good in the first place.
So then, we do good works, but nor for merit– for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who “works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure” ^60– thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do.’ “^61
Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works– but it is by his grace that he crowns his gifts.
Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.
So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.
^57 2 Cor. 5:17 ^58 Rom. 6:4 ^59 Gal. 5:6 ^60 Phil. 2:13 ^61 Luke 17:10
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: To be fair to you, Reformed comunities after the decline of the orthodox period did begin to contemplate true belief along more interior, and psychological lines. Whether it was Edwards and his affections, or the Methodist (Calvinistic or Wesleyan) emphasis on conversion experience and holy living – many in the Reformed community, especially in the American colonies (later Republic) and Brittan began to tend to these models. Certainly they had their reasons for doing so, but these were undoubtedly influenced by the emphasis on human psychology and experience arising out of Enlightenment thought of the time. To argue that this is historically how the Reformed demarcated believers from unbelievers as it pertained to the visible church is anachronistic at best. So, one is left to decide whether or not Edwards, Whitfield, et. al. were offering necessary biblical developments – those of us who hold to historic Reformed Christianity are simply not convinced, and in fact many of us abandoned the very model you champion here for the reasons given by many here.
RS: But of course the Reformed confessions themselves point us to the Scriptures as the primary way to wade through differences. But back to your point, it is not necessarily a good thing to think of those who regard faith as being primarily inward as simply psychological. It is primarily spiritual. The new birth is a spiritual birth and faith flows out of the spiritual birth. The creator of faith is the work of the Holy Spirit and His work also keeps those whom Christ purchased in the faith.
Canons of Dordt:
Article 12: The Assurance of Election
Assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word– such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.
RS: I am not sure where you place the Canons of Dordt in your timeline of weakening, but notice that it says about assurance. It is “by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and delight.” So the position I hold is in fact in accordance with Dordt. You might also check out a couple of selections from the Heidelberg below.
Heidelberg:
Question 90. What is the quickening of the new man?
Answer: It is a sincere joy of heart in God, through Christ, (a) and with love and delight to live according to the will of God in all good works.
Question 113. What does the tenth commandment require of us?
Answer: That even the smallest inclination or thought, contrary to any of God’s commandments, never rise in our hearts; but that at all times we hate all sin with our whole heart, and delight in all righteousness.
LikeLike
In episodes 2 & 3 of the Heidelcast Scott Clark talks about John Piper, The Federal Vision, Doug Wilson, and the Reformed view of the church always being a mixed body. Helpful stuff:
http://heidelblog.net/the-heidelcast/
LikeLike
Dordt quoted by RS: Assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word– such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.
Note a couple of items here:
(1) “not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things”
This is in sharp contrast to your claim to examine “the deeper things” above.
(2) “the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word– such as a true faith in Christ”
This puts paid to your claim that faith cannot be known.
—
But in any event, your quotes from Heidelberg are traveling a well-worn path: You put forward the true statement that love is a fruit of genuine faith; and that love is required of those who believe.
Then you expect us to connect the dots from there to an examination of love as a proof of genuine faith.
It’s not working. You’re missing the Scriptures that command us to examine the love of others.
LikeLike
Belgic quoted by Erik: Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.
So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.
Bump ++
LikeLike
Erik, we’d be Matt Foley without the motivational part.
LikeLike
“So the position I hold is in fact in accordance with Dordt”
Are you embracing infant baptism as well? Sweet.
It’s not enough to have an affinity for the words “joy” or “delight”, find a sentence in a theological document that uses those words, and say that system of doctrine agrees with you.
This is akin to quoting snippets of Scripture, which you also find joy and delight in doing.
LikeLike
The problem you have is that we have a time-tested theological system, complete with catechisms & confessions that are deeply rooted in Scripture, that you want to append later (18th & 19th century developments) to and claim you are in harmony with that system. It doesn’t work. America is a wonderful country where you have the freedom to practice your faith as you see fit. You can even go start your own brand new church. Maybe do that instead of tormenting people who already have their own church day after day after day. It’s pathological.
That goes for the Theonomist and the Federal Visionist as well. Become the new Bahnsen and start your own church. Have at it.
LikeLike
M&M, I don’t know about you but I’ve always found this pretty inspirational, in a Calvinist sort of way:
Now, you kids are probably saying to yourself, “I’m gonna go out and I’m gonna get the world by the tail, and wrap it around and put it in my pocket!” Well, I’m here to tell you that you’re probably going to find out, as you go out there, that you’re not going to amount to JACK SQUAT!”
LikeLike
I think I’m going to get on a Pentecostal site or a Democratic Party site and argue with them for months (years) on end about how I disagree with them. That would be fun. Maybe I’ll just save time and pull out my fingernails one by one to simulate the experience.
LikeLike
Was at a Chicago Bears home game back in the day and a visiting team fan, complete with jersey and toque to match, was sitting by himself, the only rep of said visiting team for many rows in that section.
He was fun at first, had witty comments and such, but his team fell behind and he got a bit upset and a bit drunk and starting acting in a way that was surly and rude. He had sharp rejoinders when nice people reminded him of where he was and how he was outnumbered, and that Bears fans love their team and have a fair sense of fan bias but enough is enough.
When he took a swing at someone he was quickly neutralized and then security arrived to remove him and the crowd serenaded his exit, something about the end of the digestive process.
LikeLike
It’s like the family-centered church folks who, because they can’t find any other family-centered Reformed churches in town, finally, after going through all of the other Reformed options, come to your church. Once they get there, rather than conclude that they just might be a little off base, they avoid Sunday School and start to try to convert other families on the sly.
Newsflash: If you can’t find anyplace to worship and you live in a place with over 50,000 people in the surrounding area, you just might be the problem.
LikeLike
Well Erik, though I’m smashingly good-looking(beautiful) on the internet in various dating profiles that are now no longer necessary, I’d like to think I’m smart too. It’s not my fault the PCA SJC wants to uphold a presbytery’s findings that clearly found Leithart to be obfuscating on such marginal theological concerns; such as Justification, covenant, baptism, the Lord’s supper, and the terms grace and faith. The presbytery asked him to clarify and he gave them answers that they ‘felt’ brought him into conformity with confessional standards without having to refute prior written statements and he promised to be good going forward. See! No problems here! Sometimes Justification, sanctification, covenant, the sacraments and soteriological language needs to be updated to bring us closer to RC’s who manage to hold to both Trent and Vat II understandings of salvation. It’s all ball bearings these days fellas! Now we should leave the FVers alone while they seek the peace and purity of the PCA to bring into into conformity with traditional RC’s and the formerly known as confederation of reformed(little r) Evangelical heading toward Rome churches.
LikeLike
Erik: Newsflash: If you can’t find anyplace to worship and you live in a place with over 50,000 people in the surrounding area, you just might be the problem
Very much so Erik, and any of us may find ourselves going through sloughs of despond in which this is too applicable. At that stage the prayers of those who love us is vital and someday we hopefully soon come back to our senses and suck it up and get back on the vine.
If one is off-base, it is best they know this down in their heart, and embrace it to a socially acceptable level…
LikeLike
Sean,
Texas is tough for Confessionally Reformed people. Maybe put feelers out and see if an OPC might be viable there. It’s a big city.
LikeLike
Erik,
Thanks. I’ve taken vows. My poor church. They didn’t know what they were taking on.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle Dordt quoted by RS: Assurance of this their eternal and unchangeable election to salvation is given to the chosen in due time, though by various stages and in differing measure. Such assurance comes not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things of God, but by noticing within themselves, with spiritual joy and holy delight, the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word– such as a true faith in Christ, a childlike fear of God, a godly sorrow for their sins, a hunger and thirst for righteousness, and so on.
Jeff Cagle: Note a couple of items here:
(1) “not by inquisitive searching into the hidden and deep things”
This is in sharp contrast to your claim to examine “the deeper things” above.
RS: No, it is in the context in Dordt of several heads on election. So there is no need to go into the deep and hidden things of God, but instead what He has revealed. But assurance comes by the things that are revealed and that is with spiritual joy and holy delight the unmistakable fruits of election. Then it goes on to give those things.
JEff Cagle: (2) “the unmistakable fruits of election pointed out in God’s Word– such as a true faith in Christ”
This puts paid to your claim that faith cannot be known.
RS: But notice it does not speak of looking for your faith itself. But again, even if it did mean that my claim is that Scripture does not give us the steps on how to look for faith in and of itself, but instead it does give steps on how to discern the saving graces that come with and/or from faith.
—
Jeff Cagle: But in any event, your quotes from Heidelberg are traveling a well-worn path: You put forward the true statement that love is a fruit of genuine faith; and that love is required of those who believe.
Then you expect us to connect the dots from there to an examination of love as a proof of genuine faith.
It’s not working. You’re missing the Scriptures that command us to examine the love of others.
RS: What is not working? The only point that I am working on at the moment (or at least trying to) is that external lives and works are not sufficient evidence in themselves of conversion.
However, Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.
Can an elder watch over the souls of others if he is only concerned for their external actions and will only take real notice if they fall into external sin? If action was taken for their souls before that maybe the external sin wouldn’t necessarily become external.
LikeLike
Sean,
You could try to win over your officers and move as a church. In the Central Classis of the URC we have had an entire CRC come over in the last 5 years or so. Not as common as it once was, but it still happens. If the PCA continues down the Federal Vision road and if officers can fully understand the issue it may start to happen there as well.
LikeLike
Can an elder watch over the souls of others if he is only concerned for their external actions and will only take real notice if they fall into external sin? If action was taken for their souls before that maybe the external sin wouldn’t necessarily become external.
Richard, so pre-emptive discipline? More hyper-o-sity. You sound worried that sinners might actually sin. That isn’t to trivialize sin, but a way to wonder if you really grasp what it means to be a sinful creature. But despite what you might think, old lifers have a category for exhortation and admonishment. We can recognize tendency and potential for sin, but we also esteem restraint and wisdom which makes a lot of space for mere stupidity, which is somewhere between righteousness and evil, which is where most people actually live. And we prefer to let the Holy Spirit work inwardly, while it seems like you’d rather leap-frog over those middle categories and edge him out. Some might even say that’s a way of trying to be wiser than God. Careful, friend, that tendency doesn’t end well. See?
LikeLike
Zrim quoting RS: Can an elder watch over the souls of others if he is only concerned for their external actions and will only take real notice if they fall into external sin? If action was taken for their souls before that maybe the external sin wouldn’t necessarily become external.
Richard, so pre-emptive discipline? More hyper-o-sity. You sound worried that sinners might actually sin. That isn’t to trivialize sin, but a way to wonder if you really grasp what it means to be a sinful creature.
RS:
Heidelberg: Question 88. Of how many parts does the true conversion of man consist?
Answer: Of two parts; of the mortification of the old, and the quickening of the new man. (a)
Question 89. What is the mortification of the old man?
Answer: It is a sincere sorrow of heart, that we have provoked God by our sins; and more and more to hate and flee from them. (a)
RS: It is not a good thing to trivialize sin if 89 is correct. It says that we should have a sincere sorrow of heart and more and more to hate and flee from them. My point in the part that you quoted of me is that if you hate sin and want to flee from sin and you were dealt with in that manner, it seems as if the sins that lead to discipline might be cut off before they reached that point.
Zrim: But despite what you might think, old lifers have a category for exhortation and admonishment. We can recognize tendency and potential for sin, but we also esteem restraint and wisdom which makes a lot of space for mere stupidity, which is somewhere between righteousness and evil, which is where most people actually live.
RS: There is a lot more sin of the heart than there is in the life, so the point is that people need guidance in that area.
Zrim: And we prefer to let the Holy Spirit work inwardly, while it seems like you’d rather leap-frog over those middle categories and edge him out.
RS: I am sure the Holy Spirit appreciates your concern in letting Him do that, but dare I remind you that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God.
Heidelberg: Question 109. Does God forbid in this commandment, only adultery, and such like gross sins? Answer: Since both our body and soul are temples of the holy Ghost, he commands us to preserve them pure and holy: therefore he forbids all unchaste actions, gestures, words, (a) thoughts, desires, (b) and whatever can entice men thereto. (c)
Question 113. What does the tenth commandment require of us?
Answer: That even the smallest inclination or thought, contrary to any of God’s commandments, never rise in our hearts; but that at all times we hate all sin with our whole heart, and delight in all righteousness.
RS: It just seems that if all of these things are sins of the heart and those things are far more numerous and deceptive to our souls that we should take some time dealing seriously with the inner man.
Zrim: Some might even say that’s a way of trying to be wiser than God. Careful, friend, that tendency doesn’t end well. See?
RS: I am not sure how it is a way to be wiser than God to try to deal with the heart which is the factory of all evil and idols rather than to wait around until they are expressed.
LikeLike
“I don’t know about you but I’ve always found this pretty inspirational,”
Point conceded, Zrim.
LikeLike
Erik,
That’s actually not out of the realm of possibility. Integrity and faith require you play out the string, but if this decision actually leads to, let’s say, a repudiation of the PCA’s statement against the theology of FV, or if for all practical purposes the PCA signs off on FV as not striking at the standards-per continued acquittals at the presbytery level with no recourse available for those who oppose. Then in good conscience as a church you could seek communion with another denomination. We will see. Church needs to be local first, and the particular PCA in which I’m a member has opposed FV at the presbytery level more than a few times now. As soon as something mysterious happens to the multimedia system to render it inoperable and with no money in the budget to fix it, then we’ll be really cooking with grease.
LikeLike
kent Was at a Chicago Bears home game back in the day and a visiting team fan, complete with jersey and toque to match, was sitting by himself, the only rep of said visiting team for many rows in that section.
He was fun at first, had witty comments and such, but his team fell behind and he got a bit upset and a bit drunk and starting acting in a way that was surly and rude. He had sharp rejoinders when nice people reminded him of where he was and how he was outnumbered, and that Bears fans love their team and have a fair sense of fan bias but enough is enough.
When he took a swing at someone he was quickly neutralized and then security arrived to remove him and the crowd serenaded his exit, something about the end of the digestive process.
RS: Back in the day there was a man named Aristotle who advanced logic. He wrote of how it is a logical fallacy to appeal to the majority as a basis for truth.
Back in the day there was a man named Noah. The whole world mocked and laughed at him, at least until the rain started.
Back in the day there were the prophets of God who were greatly outnumbered and abused as they spoke the Word of God.
Back in the day there was One named Jesus. The religious elite of the established religion mocked Him, made fun of Him, and eventually crucified. But He was Truth Himself.
Back in the day there were the apostles. They were mocked at because they were not part of the learned and did not agree with the established writings of the day in all parts.
Back in the day there was a man names Athanasius. At various points he was viewed as standing against the whole world for the truth against the Arians.
Back in the day there was a man named John Wycliffe, then John Hus, and then Martin Luther. How the religious world stood against them because they did not follow the writings and creeds of their religion. Hus was burned, Wycliffe barely escaped but after he died his bones were dug up and burned, and many attempts were made on the life of Luther. But these men stood for the Scriptures.
No, I am not a prophet nor a great religious leader of Reformer. But it is a logical fallacy to assert that something is true just because many others believe it. It is also not good to rest in anything other than the Word of God. But also, If you would consider the fact that many of the “confessional” groups are quite small groups, if you want to follow the more the people that believe it the better, then you should either be evangelical or even a practical atheist. The only real question has to do with what the Word of God teaches. The Confessions teach that as well.
LikeLike
There needed to be some dramatic background music with that post.
At some point if we don’t stop feeding the trolls (Richard and Doug) the joke is on us.
LikeLike
My ideal for this site is dialogue with other Confessional Presbyterian and Reformed men who share what they have been reading, what is going on in their churches, what they have been listening to, etc. That way it is something helpful and edifying. When it constantly devolves to a Theonomist and a Revivalist taking on all comers it becomes a bit of a waste of time. There are plenty of sites for the squirrels and nuts of the Reformed world. It’s not my site, though, so I am left with the choice of whether to participate or not. There are still enough good men here with constructive things to say, so I persist, but my patience is thinning with each passing week.
LikeLike
I know, a pretty highbrow complaint from a guy who would share a You Tube video of a guy lighting a fart if it would get a laugh, but even I have my limits.
LikeLike
You forgot Servetus in your list of martyrs. The fact that someone stands alone and says something novel in no way says anything about whether or not they are right.
LikeLike
Erik: When it constantly devolves to a Theonomist and a Revivalist taking on all comers it becomes a bit of a waste of time.
Remember when you thought the internet was going to be a great place for sharing like interests?
Hee hee heeeeeeeeeee….
LikeLike
Erik says: At some point if we don’t stop feeding the trolls (Richard and Doug) the joke is on us.
Ouch! So because I take issue with R2K , and express my dissent, does that make me a troll? What exactly is a troll?
BTW, I sent a copy of TICE yesterday by UPS you should receive a copy by Tuesday. But now that you just dubbed me a troll, I’m seething mad. Not really 😉
Hey Erik, if you see the truth of theonomy (in the coming weeks) will that make you a troll? FWIW, I don’t consider you a (label) just a brother in Christ who has a defective perspective. But I still love you in Christ!
LikeLike
Doug,
I don’t question your right to speak, just the lack of balance between the time spent discussing minority perspectives vs. majority perspectives. If I set up a site to discuss great film and it gets taken over my people who insist on discussing “Friday the 13th” movies 24/7/365 it kind of spoils the purpose of my site. I would think at some point out of sheer courtesy you would seek out a site for Theonomists and Richard would seek out a site for Revivalists where you could find like-minded people.
LikeLike
What happens is that people that I could benefit from having a conversation with are driven away because they don’t want to wade through all of the petty arguments over tangential issues in the Presbyterian & Reformed world.
LikeLike
@Erik, I am much more concerned with this perspective that the Mosaic Law was offered as a covenant of works. I find that perspective outrageous and completely unbiblical. I would prefer to debate that issue than theonomy, especially since no one at Old Life has read “Theonomy In Christian Ethics”. What DGH and other’s fight are ghosts of their own imagination.
LikeLike
But Erik,
Without Doug, our friendly representative theonomist, we might forget why we are 2K. And it might get a bit boring around here.
LikeLike
Todd, and don’t forget the joy we experience in others taking the view that ANY mention of even a slim component of the covenant at works by way of Sinai becomes (somehow) a claim that it is 100% of works, so that the “likely lads” can start heaving their invective all over again…
LikeLike
Erik, anybody that sees the truth of theonomy doesn’t need a site. We just pray the Lord’s prayer in faith, and fight the good fight of faith.. Theonomy is not so much a subject, as it is a presupposition. But if we fail to have a proper theonomic presupposition, it then causes a whole host of “theological” errors to spring up everywhere. So when I defend theonomy, it’s because of other issues, like Darryl’s classic outrage, “The Law Is Not Of Faith”.
That mindset needs to be shouted down, in the reformed church today, it is a real and present danger in the church, that causes all forms of confusion. imho.
LikeLike
Kent: Todd, and don’t forget the joy we experience in others taking the view that ANY mention of even a slim component of the covenant at works by way of Sinai becomes (somehow) a claim that it is 100% of works, so that the “likely lads” can start heaving their invective all over again…
Todd: And the entertainment of witnessing the dismay when we suggest this is not the age to seek to put idolaters and homosexuals to death. (This could get too fun – better get back to work.)
LikeLike
Todd says: Without Doug, our friendly representative theonomist, we might forget why we are 2K. And it might get a bit boring around here.
He’s right Erik! Plus, I love you guys and consider you my brothers in Christ. And if I’m wrong, then my folly will be seen for what it is. Until then, let me fight on! Just know that you should never get to cocky ,and look down on brothers who see things differently. That will be true for myself, when theonomy moves into the majority opinion of Christians. We should never roll our eyes, at our flummoxed brethren even when they are wrong.
FWIW, Todd, I especially enjoy our back and forth, and have learned much from our interaction
LikeLike
Kent wrote: Todd, and don’t forget the joy we experience in others taking the view that ANY mention of even a slim component of the covenant at works by way of Sinai becomes (somehow) a claim that it is 100% of works, so that the “likely lads” can start heaving their invective all over again…
Slim component of the covenant of works? LOL! LOL! LOL!
Whatever bro! Now I’m rolling my eyes at you,, just like I said you shouldn’t do to me, ouch!
LikeLike
Doug; “I am much more concerned with this perspective that the Mosaic Law was offered as a covenant of works. I find that perspective outrageous and completely unbiblical.”
Paul, and those who believe Paul including Darryl and all those R2Kers;
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith.
The Law and the Promise
15 To give a human example, brothers:[f] even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Silly Toolish R2Kers
LikeLike
Doug: Ouch! So because I take issue with R2K , and express my dissent, does that make me a troll? What exactly is a troll?
RS: Don’t take it too seriously, Doug, one can only hope that those with wisdom understand that people who disagree and dialogue on the issues are actually discussing in accordance with the purpose of the site. Discussing differences (when it does not denigrate into calling names and endless U-tube sites) is how people grow in understanding of the issues. It is when a particular way of viewing things is asked questions and challenged that people can see some of its flaws, weaknesses, but also helps them to see the strengths (if any). You don’t have to agree with others to appreciate their position (at least in a sense) and how their position is being used in the sovereignty of God to accomplish purposes that perhaps an agreement might not accomplish. For example, I have not swallowed the 2k position in all of its aspects, but I have grown in appreciation of its stance on working spiritual things through the church rather than looking to politicans to do so.
Another example of learning things in a deeper way (for me) was to see just how deeply held ecclesiology is for some people who are not Roman Catholic. It seems as if ecclesiology drives many things and supports many things. I would never have seen that apart from a longer discussion on other issues. It was shocking to me and has caused much thinking, even when I was trying to sleep the other night. Let the mockers mock but keep pressing on as we all need a lot more humility and a lot more understanding.
LikeLike
Quick — give me an adjective for OL without the serial commenters (OK to use modifiers like “more” or “less”). And it’s OK not to quote yourself or comment on your comment.
LikeLike
And off we go…
It’s probably just time to take my leave. I wish the site had a feature where I could get an e-mail when there is a new post by Hart. That way I can read the new posts and avoid the comments.
LikeLike
Doug, let’s be clear. Jeff and Todd have been taking on your view of the Mosaic covenant, not me. And it sure looks to me like you are, like Donny, completely out of your element. But I am not the one posting on republication.
LikeLike
Doug, so now you’re shouting down the apostle Paul?
LikeLike
Sean, you beat me to it.
LikeLike
Brad, if you’re asking about OL as in Old Life, try “hoppy.”
LikeLike
Erik,
Don’t leave – Among other things, you provide some of the best You Tube links anywhere. That may be your spiritual gift
LikeLike
Richard, you say you don’t know how it is a way to be wiser than God to try to deal with the heart which is the factory of all evil and idols But if the heart really is unfathomable like Isiah says then I don’t know how anybody can presume to deal with it, at least the way you understand such dealing.
LikeLike
DGH sneers: Doug, so now you’re shouting down the apostle Paul?
I’m not, you are. Or, I’m rubber you’re glue, whatever you say bounces of me and sticks on you. Darryl when you make such outrageous claims, you only prove you don’t want true dialogue. You enjoy characterizng people and ridiculing them. Sham on you!
Darryl, far from shouting Paul down, Paul shoots your mischaraceization of himself when he says; “AS
LikeLike
AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS!
The elect looked at the law aright! Psssst, by faith! They looked at the sacrifices, and looked ahead to Christ, who was the promise. Only the reprobate looked at the law, “AS IF IT WERE BY WORKS”
This verse shoots your books premise to smithereens! Poof! Your argument collapses. You are simply misunderstanding Paul’s point in Galatians, because you are apparently unsophisticated enough to figure out Paul uses the word “law” in different senses. Your reading is wooden, therefore you read Paul you only think of one thing, and have sadly tied your brain into knots of contradiction. Stop it!!
LikeLike
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not!
Okay Sean, this answers the question, is the law against faith in Christ? God forbid! The ceremonial law, (i e animal sacrifices, holy days, festivals and Passover) didn’t offer life in and of themselves. These holy ordinances pointed to Jesus. Rightly appropriated (by faith) God forgave their sins. So the (ceremonial) law pointed to Christ. Not the penal sanctions, or the moral law or the laws about dividing up the land. Until you are able to read Paul with a little more sophistication you will continue to read the Bible in a wooden manner. Stop it!
LikeLike
Darryl, here to help. Sometimes I even aim first.
Erik, you can’t leave you’ve made an implicit vow.
LikeLike
Todd: And the entertainment of witnessing the dismay when we suggest this is not the age to seek to put idolaters and homosexuals to death. (This could get too fun – better get back to work.)
Doug: Todd, what are the morally relevant circumstances that have changed, from this age to the last for a sodomite? Why would society only put a sodomite to death back then? Since AD far more countries have had the DP for sodomy, then during BC?
Have you ever pondered that factoid? Can you see how that *factoid* contradicts your whole world view? Can you please splain why sodomy is punished by death in Christian influenced nations during AD, (and not BC) if this age isn’t supposed to punish sodomy?????????????
Put that in your 2K pipe and smoke it!
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, you say you don’t know how it is a way to be wiser than God to try to deal with the heart which is the factory of all evil and idols But if the heart really is unfathomable like Isiah says then I don’t know how anybody can presume to deal with it, at least the way you understand such dealing.
RS: You may be speaking of Jeremiah 17:9, but verse 10 follows. God reveals these things to us by the Scriptures and its applications. The heart is unfathomable to us apart from the Scriptures and the illumination of them by the Spirit.
LikeLike
Doug: Put that in your 2K pipe and smoke it!
Todd: If only it were legal!
LikeLike
Richard, that’s just horrible exegesis of V.10. You replaced “I the Lord” with “Us”- to include yourself. So, now you share in one of the incommunicable divine attributes, which to be honest is what we all basically have said about your reading the heart of yourself and others. So kudos to you for finally owning up to it. But then for flair I suppose, you just threw in; “from the scriptures and the illumination of them by the spirit” because, oh, I don’t know, it sounded spiritual. You now occupy the same air as the chick in the Suzuki in front of me on the way home, who’s bumper sticker declared she was a “Goddess and to back off”. Congratulations.
LikeLike
Richard, what Sean said. But given your penchant in the past to line up with those who dare to discern the providence of God on things political and lately your inclination to presume to spiritually search the human heart in ways God alone reserves for himself, I truly wonder what you think it would look or sound like for a human being to trespass creaturely limitations. My guess is that it would run along the same distinction-without-a-difference line as that between revival and revivalism.
LikeLike
sean: Richard, that’s just horrible exegesis of V.10. You replaced “I the Lord” with “Us”- to include yourself.
RS: No, Sean, that is not what I did. In other words, you did some horible exegesis of what I said. Here is what Zrim said” But if the heart really is unfathomable like Isiah says then I don’t know how anybody can presume to deal with it,”
Here is the text that I thought he was referring to: Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?10 “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.”
In other words, the Lord is the one who searches the heart and He alone can reveal our hearts to us. I did not intend nor do I think my language demands that God reveals person A’s heart to person B.
Sean: So, now you share in one of the incommunicable divine attributes, which to be honest is what we all basically have said about your reading the heart of yourself and others. So kudos to you for finally owning up to it.
RS: I think you have greatly and grossly misunderstood what I have been saying, but so be it.
Sean: But then for flair I suppose, you just threw in; “from the scriptures and the illumination of them by the spirit” because, oh, I don’t know, it sounded spiritual.
RS: No, not because it sounded spiritual, but because that is how God reveals things.
Sean: You now occupy the same air as the chick in the Suzuki in front of me on the way home, who’s bumper sticker declared she was a “Goddess and to back off”. Congratulations.
RS: Sean, for one who is so strong about not being able to read the hearts of others in any way shape or form, you have just wrongly read my heart with some corresponding judgments. Again, you have grossly misunderstood what I said and mostly because you were reading into my intents and motives. Reading wrongly, I might add.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, what Sean said.
RS: Which, I suppose, means that you were reading my heart and judging my intengs and motives as badly as he did.
Zrim: But given your penchant in the past to line up with those who dare to discern the providence of God on things political and lately your inclination to presume to spiritually search the human heart in ways God alone reserves for himself,
RS: I guess it is too much to ask when I have done these things in reality as opposed to your misreading of my heart and motives. Remember, it is just as wrong to deny in the Scriptures what God teaches as it is to go beyond them in certain ways.
Zrim: I truly wonder what you think it would look or sound like for a human being to trespass creaturely limitations.
RS: It would look like what you and Sean have just done in grossly misreading my intent and motives. You basically said the heart is unknowable and I simply responded by saying that God can reveal hearts to us. Sean misinterpreted the “us” to thinking that I was saying that God reveals other hearts to me. Evidently you agreed with that. But again, you are guilty of what you accused me of.
Zrim: My guess is that it would run along the same distinction-without-a-difference line as that between revival and revivalism.
RS: There is a huge difference between a revival that has been sent by a sovereign God and revivalism which tries to work those things up in its own methods.
LikeLike
RS says; Let the mockers mock but keep pressing on as we all need a lot more humility and a lot more understanding.
Amen Richard! Let iron sharpen iron! None of us can see the unspeakable gift of Christ in full context. Which of us can say, “I can plumb the depths of God’s revelation”? We truly need each other, and should be kind and gentle with each other. On the other hand, a little hyperbole is also sometimes needed to drive home the point. And a little snark for snark, and since no one is as snarky as DGH, how can one resist? Let us have thick skin and soft hearts for the truth of God’s Word.
Keep pressing on!
LikeLike
Richard, I think your heart-o-meeter is set way too high. Nobody is trying to discern motives here. We’re just reading your words and interpreting them. You may not like how they being interpreted, but please spare us the over-played card of discerning motives. It’s as annoying as explaining the inability to self restrain as addiction.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, I think your heart-o-meeter is set way too high. Nobody is trying to discern motives here. We’re just reading your words and interpreting them.
RS: Did you not read Sean’s post which you agreed with? Here, let me copy and paste (just parts): “You replaced “I the Lord” with “Us”- to include yourself.” “But then for flair I suppose, you just threw in; .“from the scriptures and the illumination of them by the spirit.” Then, Zrim, your response to that was, “Richard, what Sean said.” That, sir, is ascribing motives. I might also add they are far wide and way below the mark.
Zrim: You may not like how they being interpreted, but please spare us the over-played card of discerning motives.
RS: I am not sure what discerning motives might be if what Sean said and you agreed to is not discerning motives.
Zrim: It’s as annoying as explaining the inability to self restrain as addiction.
RS: If you will excuse a bit of rudeness, what you are annoyed at is not what determines the truth of the matter. It just tells us that you are annoyed. Sometimes what people are annoyed at reveals a lot about them. But again, if you are so against “heart surgery” in Christianity, then don’t act like a butcher in practicing it.
LikeLike
Richard, you scold us for not reading what you write and then you scold us for reading what you write. I didn’t even break out my crystals this time around, I just merely responded to your rebuttal of Zrim’s allusion with your very poor take on vs.10. And it was not good. Now go ahead and dodge, duck, dip dive and dodge.
LikeLike
Richard, here’s a first: take Doug’s advice and learn the difference between snark and discerning motives. But my annoyance is relevant, because just as swallowing up self restraint with addiction gives real addicts a black eye, over-playing the motives card reduces the sting to real culprits. In other words, I in fact do have a concern for both physical and spiritual health, which is precisely why the sort of malpractice and misdiagnoses you exercise bothers me so much.
LikeLike
Sean: Richard, you scold us for not reading what you write and then you scold us for reading what you write. I didn’t even break out my crystals this time around, I just merely responded to your rebuttal of Zrim’s allusion with your very poor take on vs.10. And it was not good. Now go ahead and dodge, duck, dip dive and dodge.
Zrim’s post that I responded to: : Richard, you say you don’t know how it is a way to be wiser than God to try to deal with the heart which is the factory of all evil and idols But if the heart really is unfathomable like Isiah says then I don’t know how anybody can presume to deal with it, at least the way you understand such dealing.
RS: Sean and Zrim, notice that the words say “I don’t know how anybody can presume to deal with it” with the it referring to the heart and how unfathomable the heart is. Notice that “anybody” refers to all people which is plural.
RS’s response to Zrim: : You may be speaking of Jeremiah 17:9, but verse 10 follows. God reveals these things to us by the Scriptures and its applications. The heart is unfathomable to us apart from the Scriptures and the illumination of them by the Spirit.
RS: Not that the “us” in context is plural which relates to the plural used by Zrim. It was no claim to my reading the hearts of others or anything like that. It was simply a reply that God can reveal the heart and that it is not a hopeless situation where we are stuck with having unfathomable hearts that even God cannot know or reveal as He is pleased to do. You can call it what you will, Sean, but when you read it you did not read it in its own context but instead in a context which you supplied and imputed motives to me that I did not have or even dream of having. That is not dodging, ducking, or diving.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, here’s a first: take Doug’s advice and learn the difference between snark and discerning motives.
RS: Hmmmm, is that a dodge and a dive?
Zrim: But my annoyance is relevant, because just as swallowing up self restraint with addiction gives real addicts a black eye, over-playing the motives card reduces the sting to real culprits. In other words, I in fact do have a concern for both physical and spiritual health, which is precisely why the sort of malpractice and misdiagnoses you exercise bothers me so much.
RS: You have no idea of any malpractice or misdiagnoses. But again, you are accusing me of a false practice when as of yet you don’t seem to understand what the practice is. You cannot get beyond some preconceived idea that you have. Let me give you the vital points of Sean’s post again, which indeed you agreed with.
“You replaced “I the Lord” with “Us”- to include yourself.” “But then for flair I suppose, you just threw in; .“from the scriptures and the illumination of them by the spirit.” Then, Zrim, your response to that was, “Richard, what Sean said.”
That sure seems to go beyond snark and be a practice of the very thing that you condemn.
LikeLike
Richard, far be it from me to be a schoolmarm but;
“You may be speaking of Jeremiah 17:9, but verse 10 follows. God reveals these things to us by the Scriptures and its applications. You may be speaking of Jeremiah 17:9, but verse 10 follows. The heart is unfathomable to us apart from the Scriptures and the illumination of them by the Spirit.
You refute the condition of V. 9 with an appeal to V 10; “but”, and even if I close my eyes and invoke charity on the issue, you affirm my contention in the following sentence, not by acknowledging God’s unique ability but instead conditioning the condition of V.9 not by the uniqueness of God’s capability given in V. 10 but by conditioning the “us”-to include you in this scenario, by qualifying HOW God gives “US” this ability; “The heart is unfathomable to us apart from the Scriptures and the illumination of them by the Spirit.” Here comes the wrench.
LikeLike
Richard, instead of an accusation of false practice think of it as a warning against folly.
LikeLike
So Richard, the 9th commandment compels me to stick up for you — slightly.
Guys, Richard has gone on record (page 8? Not gonna search) as denying that he can read minds. I think it is only reasonable to take him at his word.
Richard, I have a hard time understanding exactly *what* you are claiming. You admit you cannot read minds. You believe that with Scripture’s help, you can imperfectly ‘fathom the heart.’
Could you explain the difference?
—
Richard: given that you reasonably dislike being charged with mind-reading after your explicit denials, then perhaps you can understand how we might dislike being charged with externalism after our explicit denials?
LikeLike
sean: Richard, far be it from me to be a schoolmarm but;
RS: But you do it so well.
Sean quoting RS: “You may be speaking of Jeremiah 17:9, but verse 10 follows. God reveals these things to us by the Scriptures and its applications. You may be speaking of Jeremiah 17:9, but verse 10 follows. The heart is unfathomable to us apart from the Scriptures and the illumination of them by the Spirit.
Sean: You refute the condition of V. 9 with an appeal to V 10; “but”, and even if I close my eyes and invoke charity on the issue, you affirm my contention in the following sentence, not by acknowledging God’s unique ability but instead conditioning the condition of V.9 not by the uniqueness of God’s capability given in V. 10 but by conditioning the “us”-to include you in this scenario, by qualifying HOW God gives “US” this ability; “The heart is unfathomable to us apart from the Scriptures and the illumination of them by the Spirit.” Here comes the wrench.
RS: Your “interpretation” could be correct if my quote was simply a bare statement with no context. But I was responding to a statement by Zrim where the idea was that our hearts are unfathomable to us. Those are not the exact words, but he used a plural pronoun. My point is that God knows the heart and He can reveal as He pleases. In other words, our hearts are not unfathomable to all and completely unknowable. However, our hearts are unfathomable to us unless He chooses to reveals them to us (each person’s heart is unfathomable unless God chooses to reveal each person’s heart to that person). As with David, if we really want to have pure hearts, we must seek the Lord to reveal them to us (that is, each person must have his heart revealed to him by God).
Psa 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts;
24 And see if there be any hurtful way in me, And lead me in the everlasting way.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: So Richard, the 9th commandment compels me to stick up for you — slightly.
RS: Doug will appreciate that along with me.
Jeff Cagle: Guys, Richard has gone on record (page 8? Not gonna search) as denying that he can read minds. I think it is only reasonable to take him at his word.
Richard, I have a hard time understanding exactly *what* you are claiming. You admit you cannot read minds. You believe that with Scripture’s help, you can imperfectly ‘fathom the heart.’
Could you explain the difference?
RS: I am not sure that I can at this point. I will admit that part of the confusion is my own fault from a few to several months ago. Someone (perhaps you, Jeff, but not sure) said that he could tell all he needed to know about the heart by external behavior. He then asked me if I could read the heart. My response was in the positive. The point, however, was that if person A can tell things about the heart from external behavior, then why can’t others tell things about the heart from a person’s words?
When one is asking questions based on the Bible and the other person is being honest, something is being revealed about the person’s heart. The Holy Spirit can also give illumination during these times, but the illumination is of the Scripture and how it applies to the inner person. There is also another matter as well.
Romans 8:16 “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.”
Sean might take notice of the plural pronouns in this verse as well, though I am sure that this is simply easier than naming a lot of names in the text about all that the Spirit meant. Now, while some may sneer at all interpretation of providence and/or all the acts of God in our day, I would argue that each time He regenerates a soul that soul is a new creation and there are things about that new creation that a person can have a spiritual understanding of. For example, if God has worked in the soul of person A (such as Rom 8:2 above), then person A will have an “easier” time of understanding/recognizing the work of grace in the soul of person B. One could call that fellowship in the biblical sense rather than a grilling session. In other words, it is not some vision that a person has or is reading the mind of another person, but instead in a time of fellowship and talking/questioning there is a spiritual understanding that occurs.
Yes, one can argue that one only has the other person’s words to go by, and that is mostly correct. There is no infallibility about it, but as Jesus said in John 7:17, “If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself.” If the regenerate person is able to discern something of the glory of God then why is it so hard to recognize the hand and glory of God in other beings (by their words) because He is the same God doing (more or less) the same work in souls that are pretty much alike?
—
Jeff Cagle: Richard: given that you reasonably dislike being charged with mind-reading after your explicit denials, then perhaps you can understand how we might dislike being charged with externalism after our explicit denials?
RS: Yes, I can understand that. I guess it would be right to apologize for that for not being clear. I know you are not guilty of externalism, but in discussing things your argument appears to lead there. I will try to do better in that regard in the future if there is a future. After all, I cannot read minds or know the future.
LikeLike
Psa 139:4-6
4 Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.
5 You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it
Psa 19:12
12 Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
13 Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Richard, if you want to state unequivocally that you don’t claim powers of divination, Holy Spirit illumined or otherwise, I’ll gladly receive your claim. I however, don’t think it’s reasonable, nor charitable toward us at this point, for you to presume, that we have all at different times simply or maliciously misunderstood you and that you have been nothing but precise, concise and readily understood in your assertions. You can accuse me of being hard bitten-cynical and caustic in my responses at different times and not be far off the mark, but your claims that Jeff or Zrim or myself or any number of other interlocutors continually misconstrue your remarks or comprehend poorly strains credulity. You either are unclear in what you mean to communicate, or you simply don’t appreciate the associations engendered by your claims.
LikeLike
Sean: Richard, if you want to state unequivocally that you don’t claim powers of divination, Holy Spirit illumined or otherwise, I’ll gladly receive your claim.
RS: I claim that.
Sean: I however, don’t think it’s reasonable, nor charitable toward us at this point, for you to presume, that we have all at different times simply or maliciously misunderstood you and that you have been nothing but precise, concise and readily understood in your assertions.
RS: I do not presume that I have at all times been maliciously misunderstood and I know that have not been readily understood. I would say, however, that when you read person A with a pre-conceived notion of what person A believes (as in historical groups that a person is thought to be identified with) that can also color a person’s interpretation of what one is reading.
Sean: You can accuse me of being hard bitten-cynical and caustic in my responses at different times and not be far off the mark, but your claims that Jeff or Zrim or myself or any number of other interlocutors continually misconstrue your remarks or comprehend poorly strains credulity. You either are unclear in what you mean to communicate, or you simply don’t appreciate the associations engendered by your claims.
RS: Perhaps there is a middle ground. Once one gets an idea that a person fits in with a particular group no matter what the person says the words are interpreted in that context. Perhaps I don’t fully appreciate the associations engendered by my claims, but I am not sure anyone fully appreciates the assocations that a second person may have by the claims of the first.
LikeLike
Zrim: Richard, instead of an accusation of false practice think of it as a warning against folly.
RS: Warning taken.
LikeLike
RS: Someone (perhaps you, Jeff, but not sure) said that he could tell all he needed to know about the heart by external behavior. He then asked me if I could read the heart. My response was in the positive.
That was I. I didn’t say “all I needed to know”, and I didn’t dismiss words entirely, but I can see where that impression came from.
RS: The point, however, was that if person A can tell things about the heart from external behavior, then why can’t others tell things about the heart from a person’s words?
OK. I can live with this. The point I was making was not
NOT: Actions reveal, words do not,
BUT: Actions and words are both external evidences, AND actions weigh more than words.
In particular, I was denying that words could be something more than external evidences. I was also pointing out that Scripture places greater weight on what we do as evidence of what we are. I was rejecting the idea that “we should throw away actions as evidence because those actions could possibly come from wrong motives or hypocrisy.”
—
So with words I would distinguish between “self-reporting” and “discourse.” Self-reporting carries less weight because it is self-conscious, and more filters are in place. Discourse carries more weight because it allows for observation.
For example, to gauge whether Bob loves Alice, I would be more likely to ask Bob about Alice and let him talk. About her. That gives a lot more insight than asking him to self-report about his love.
That’s really the fundamental distinction between “objective” and “subjective”: Do we ask people to focus on, talk about, place their trust in things outside themselves (namely Christ), or themselves?
—
RS: When one is asking questions based on the Bible and the other person is being honest, something is being revealed about the person’s heart. The Holy Spirit can also give illumination during these times, but the illumination is of the Scripture and how it applies to the inner person.
Well, there’s that “other person is being honest” part that is tough here. That’s a large part of the pushback you’re getting. You seemed to be saying that people *can’t* be trusted to give honest accounts of their faith, but they *can* be trusted to give honest accounts of their love.
RS: There is also another matter as well.
Romans 8:16 “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.”
Right, and this is the sticky part where Sean starts getting the “divination” vibes. I read Rom 8.16 as a straight-up verse about assurance: How can Alice know that she is saved? You seem to be transferring that over to a question of examination: How can Bob know that Alice is saved?
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle: BUT: Actions and words are both external evidences, AND actions weigh more than words.
In particular, I was denying that words could be something more than external evidences. I was also pointing out that Scripture places greater weight on what we do as evidence of what we are. I was rejecting the idea that “we should throw away actions as evidence because those actions could possibly come from wrong motives or hypocrisy.”
RS: I am not trying to say that actions are not evidence, but that actions alone cannot be the only evidence. My position is not that they are worthless and should be thrown away as evidence, but that they are part of the picture rather than being THE picture.
—
Jeff Cagle: So with words I would distinguish between “self-reporting” and “discourse.” Self-reporting carries less weight because it is self-conscious, and more filters are in place. Discourse carries more weight because it allows for observation.
For example, to gauge whether Bob loves Alice, I would be more likely to ask Bob about Alice and let him talk. About her. That gives a lot more insight than asking him to self-report about his love.
That’s really the fundamental distinction between “objective” and “subjective”: Do we ask people to focus on, talk about, place their trust in things outside themselves (namely Christ), or themselves?
RS: I am not sure why a person speaking about his own heart would be trusted less than a person speaking about a second person. When a person looks inside (so to speak) of himself, s/he is actually looking for the work of Christ in his or her soul. Which, once again, gets back to some corresponding issues. I would argue that the language “place your trust in ___” sounds like a person doing the work and the person would have to look to self to see if s/he is placing his or her trust in Christ. But in looking to the soul for the imprint of the hand of God, that is, the things that He works in the soul, one is actually looking at the work of another.
—
Old comment RS: When one is asking questions based on the Bible and the other person is being honest, something is being revealed about the person’s heart. The Holy Spirit can also give illumination during these times, but the illumination is of the Scripture and how it applies to the inner person.
Jeff Cagle: Well, there’s that “other person is being honest” part that is tough here. That’s a large part of the pushback you’re getting. You seemed to be saying that people *can’t* be trusted to give honest accounts of their faith, but they *can* be trusted to give honest accounts of their love.
RS: I am not arguing that their accounts will be honest or accurate all of the time. I am just saying that people can easily be deceived about whether they believe (especially since there is a distinction between believing something and having true faith). For professing believers, giving honest accounts of their heart is to be expected and those more mature can help them in matters of assurance.
Old comment RS: There is also another matter as well.
Romans 8:16 “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.”
Jeff Cagle: Right, and this is the sticky part where Sean starts getting the “divination” vibes. I read Rom 8.16 as a straight-up verse about assurance: How can Alice know that she is saved? You seem to be transferring that over to a question of examination: How can Bob know that Alice is saved?
RS: I would not put this as a verse to be directly transferred. I would say that if Alice is saved and the Spirit has given her assurance (not arguing the method of that), then she will be able to give a much better account of that to Bob. Below are a few verses that get at the point of how the mouth speaks forth the heart. People speak forth what fills the heart. This is why I think that the words of people reveal their hearts in different ways than their lives do.
Proverbs 16:23 The heart of the wise instructs his mouth And adds persuasiveness to his lips.
Ezekiel 33:31 “They come to you as people come, and sit before you as My people and hear your words, but they do not do them, for they do the lustful desires expressed by their mouth, and their heart goes after their gain.
Matthew 12:34 “You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.
Matthew 15:18 “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
Luke 6:45 “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
LikeLike
RS: When a person looks inside (so to speak) of himself, s/he is actually looking for the work of Christ in his or her soul.
OK. But surely you can concede the relatively high probability of counterfeits. So you say,
RS: But in looking to the soul for the imprint of the hand of God, that is, the things that He works in the soul, one is actually looking at the work of another.
Unless one is looking at the work of oneself.
I mean, you want me to find love for God inside. Then I go sinning daily in thought, word, and deed. That might just make me think that the affections I feel are not reliable enough to be indicators.
Put it like this: If our love for God is insufficient to justify (which we agree to), then it is probably insufficient to be dispositive evidence of justification. Think of Peter.
—
The verses you adduce about the tongue are actually a good set of prooftexts for “objective” rather than “subjective” evaluations. In each case, the person is not self-reporting (“Oh, I am so wise/lustful/defiled”). Instead, he reveals his heart by the way he talks about other things. Right?
LikeLike
Jeff, I’m not sure it’s a ninth commandment thing. I know Richard can’t read minds and I know he doesn’t claim to. He’s just getting an old lifey ribbing for speaking, as you suggest and he concedes, in sloppy ways that come off sounding like there could be such a thing as Xn telepathy. Hey, if Piper can baptize hedonism maybe Richard can telepathy? Remember the stuff about dreams?
But, Richard, in some of your last remarks you have demonstrated more awareness of what ails. Far be it from this old lifer not to give credit when its due.
LikeLike
“Fixing the PCA—Again”— 534 comments to the shakey title of the post. Wow! I scanned, especially the 10th page of comments. I recently mentioned the single comment of an OLTS commenter who feared a new inquirer or new Christian might crash after a visit to this site. The relatively few comments I reviewed were pretty effective of making the point he tried to make. Richard, I think you have too much good to offer and I’d forget OLTS–Hopeless efforts to reach DG and fans, I say! Love, Bob Morris
LikeLike
Old Bob,
That’s spelled “Shaky”:
I witnessed that butt-kicking first hand.
LikeLike
Old BM, do you want to teach us or do you simply want us to agree with you. That’s what Communists called love of the comrades. I keep trying to tell you why you should disagree with Robbie George and other Manhattan Declarers. But you don’t want to be taught. That’s not loving.
LikeLike
Bob Morris: “Fixing the PCA—Again”— 534 comments to the shakey title of the post. Wow! I scanned, especially the 10th page of comments. I recently mentioned the single comment of an OLTS commenter who feared a new inquirer or new Christian might crash after a visit to this site. The relatively few comments I reviewed were pretty effective of making the point he tried to make. Richard, I think you have too much good to offer and I’d forget OLTS–Hopeless efforts to reach DG and fans, I say! Love, Bob Morris
RS: But no one is really hopeless if God wants to work. Someday Dr. Hart will see the light about cats and more important issues too. What he is blind to at the moment is that you don’t own cats, but that they just tolerate you as long as you feed them and clean up after them. But this shows why he does not like Jonathan Edwards. Cats don’t really show affection, they just coldly go about their business until they want something and then they pretend to like you in order to get what they want. Dogs, on the other hand, show affection and as such good theologians like dogs. Colder of heart historians like cats. Someday, we can only hope, he will learn to love the writings of Edwards who writes about God with such affection. Just keep reaching out to the folks you are around with the glory of God in the Gospel and the rest is just the small stuff.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: When a person looks inside (so to speak) of himself, s/he is actually looking for the work of Christ in his or her soul.
JRC: OK. But surely you can concede the relatively high probability of counterfeits. So you say,
RS: You seem to look more at the hand of man while I am saying that we should look to the hand of God to manfiest Himself.
JRC: RS: But in looking to the soul for the imprint of the hand of God, that is, the things that He works in the soul, one is actually looking at the work of another.
JRC: Unless one is looking at the work of oneself.
RS: But God can make Himself known and His work is not the same as the work of man.
JRC: I mean, you want me to find love for God inside. Then I go sinning daily in thought, word, and deed. That might just make me think that the affections I feel are not reliable enough to be indicators.
RS: But there is more to affection and the soul than just feelings as such. The love of God in the soul must come from God Himself and the presence of God is necessary for there to be true love for God.
I John 4:12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. 13 By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. 14 We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 We have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.
JRC: Put it like this: If our love for God is insufficient to justify (which we agree to), then it is probably insufficient to be dispositive evidence of justification. Think of Peter.
RS: Christ alone justifies and works do not add to justifiction in the slightest, yet they must be there. We are told that the one that does not love Christ is to be eternally cursed. The sign of true love is a distinctive sign of salvation. The only ones that truly love are those that have been born of God and know God (I John 4:7-8). On the other hand, the one that does not love does not know God. So it sure seems to me that Scripture does link true love as a way of knowing if we have eternal life or not.
—
JRC: The verses you adduce about the tongue are actually a good set of prooftexts for “objective” rather than “subjective” evaluations. In each case, the person is not self-reporting (“Oh, I am so wise/lustful/defiled”). Instead, he reveals his heart by the way he talks about other things. Right?
RS: I don’t think I would go as far as you think I might on that. I do think that it is both the way a person talks about the work of God in his or her soul as well as how s/he talks about other things. If God is really at work in the person’s heart, then they can describe what is going on (not just feelings as such) and do so in a way that one can recognize the hand of God in them. This would only be true if the other person in the discussion recognizes the work of God in his or her own soul.
LikeLike
RS: But God can make Himself known…
Yes, and He has made himself known in His word. What you are describing sounds like trying to read God’s revelation in a different manner, albeit qualified as “not infallible.”
I have trouble with a fallible revelation of God. Not with a fallible interpretation of that revelation, but a fallible revelation of itself. Here you posit that God’s work in the heart reveals itself; but you concede that God’s work in the heart can be imitated.
Further, think about the “temporary faith” or “false faith” cases in the Matt 13 parable. What would the shallow and thorny soils report out about their own hearts?
Let’s tackle this from a different angle. Here’s what the Confession has to say about assurance:
There’s some there that agrees with what you are saying (“never so utterly destitute of that love of Christ”). But there are two key differences:
(1) Assurance is not necessary for saving faith.
You seem to condition church membership on having assurance.
(2) Hypocrites may vainly deceive themselves.
You seem to say that the work of God in the heart cannot be counterfeited.
LikeLike
Jeff Cagle quoting RS: But God can make Himself known…
JRC: Yes, and He has made himself known in His word. What you are describing sounds like trying to read God’s revelation in a different manner, albeit qualified as “not infallible.”
RS: God’s work and revelation are infallible, but our interpretation of it is not always so.
JRC: I have trouble with a fallible revelation of God. Not with a fallible interpretation of that revelation, but a fallible revelation of itself. Here you posit that God’s work in the heart reveals itself; but you concede that God’s work in the heart can be imitated.
RS: I don’t think that elements of this work in the heart can truly be imitated, but out way of looking at it can be less than accurate. It is God that works in the heart (we are, after all, new creatures in Christ Jesus) to teach it and conform it to Himself. The more the heart is conformed to Him, the more it will recognize Him in the heart. It is not just information that is involved here.
JRC: Further, think about the “temporary faith” or “false faith” cases in the Matt 13 parable. What would the shallow and thorny soils report out about their own hearts?
RS: Which is why another person that is more seasoned is helpful to them and so is able to better wade through their reports of great joy and so on.
JRC: Let’s tackle this from a different angle. Here’s what the Confession has to say about assurance:
I. Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and estate of salvation[1] (which hope of theirs shall perish):[2] yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace,[3] and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.[4]
II. This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope;[5] but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation,[6] the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made,[7] the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God,[8] which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.[9]
III. This infallible assurance does not so belong to the essence of faith, but that a true believer may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties, before he be partaker of it:[10] yet, being enabled by the Spirit to know the things which are freely given him of God, he may, without extraordinary revelation in the right use of ordinary means, attain thereunto.[11] And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure,[12] that thereby his heart may be enlarged in peace and joy in the Holy Ghost, in love and thankfulness to God, and in strength and cheerfulness in the duties of obedience,[13] the proper fruits of this assurance; so far is it from inclining men to looseness.[14]
IV. True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light:[15] yet are they never so utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived;[16] and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.[17]
There’s some there that agrees with what you are saying (“never so utterly destitute of that love of Christ”). But there are two key differences:
(1) Assurance is not necessary for saving faith.
RS: I don’t disagree with that.
JRC: You seem to condition church membership on having assurance.
RS: But I don’t. The issue is that elders should be more spiritually mature and be able to help people (such as come from the parable of the sower) away from assurance if needed and toward assurance if needed. But certainly they should be able to have more discernment in the matter than most of those that come to them.
JRC: (2) Hypocrites may vainly deceive themselves.
RS: That does not contradict my position. But I would also argue that experienced elders should be harder to deceive than the hypocrite himself. However, and once again, the elders are not infallible in this. However, it is better to try to wade through these things than not.
JRC: You seem to say that the work of God in the heart cannot be counterfeited.
RS: I don’t think that true love and true eternal life can be counterfeited. However, people can have a wrong idea of what true love and true eternal life is. So again, the work itself (in this case) cannot be counterfeited by there are the things that people who are not infallible can mistake how to read them. Imagine, as Dr, Hart rolls his eyes, if the biblical teaching of love and humility in the churches were replaced with a love and humility that were not biblical. Imagine also, if the teaching of the true God was replaced with teaching of a false god but the teachings were similar and perhaps even close. The true God cannot be counterfeited as such, but that is a different thing than the evil one trying to deceive with other options. It takes a level of discernment to wade through true love versus false love, true humility versus false humility, and the true God versus the false gods.
LikeLike
RS, as long as you include that the virtues of cats are harder to see than those of dogs, and that this relates to the kind of charity that Old Lifers have to Protestant professions of all kinds (as opposed to the experimental Calvinist notion that you can really see plain as day what’s going on in the heart), you have it about right. That, plus cats enjoy tobacco and whiskey.
LikeLike
I can just see D.G. holding the cigar up to their thin little lips so they can take a puff…
LikeLike
I can also envision picking Hart up at the Des Moines airport in the fall if we get him to Iowa. I suddenly realize that he has not traveled light. He has his golf clubs and two animal cages. 2 hours later we’re on the course and the cats are pooping in the sand traps.
LikeLike
D. G. Hart: RS, as long as you include that the virtues of cats are harder to see than those of dogs, and that this relates to the kind of charity that Old Lifers have to Protestant professions of all kinds (as opposed to the experimental Calvinist notion that you can really see plain as day what’s going on in the heart), you have it about right.
RS: I guess I don’t know of anyone who thinks that s/he can see plain as day what’s going on in the heart. On second thought, I think I heard a piece by Mark Driscoll on that. I don’t personally know of anyone like that.
D.G.Hart: That, plus cats enjoy tobacco and whiskey.
RS: Like I said, dogs have true affection and cats are just plain wicked.
LikeLike
RS,
I’ve actually known quite a number of people who overestimate their abilities to read others. They are usually very intuitive people who disdain actual, like, evidence and stuff. They make predictions about what people will say and do; when these predictions are wrong, it has little impact on their overconfidence.
On the other hand, I’ve also known a few people who are in fact good at reading others. They tend to express themselves much more cautiously, but their predictions are usually very good.
A large part of my pushback has to do with desiring to keep confidence to decorous levels.
LikeLike
JRC: I’ve actually known quite a number of people who overestimate their abilities to read others. They are usually very intuitive people who disdain actual, like, evidence and stuff. They make predictions about what people will say and do; when these predictions are wrong, it has little impact on their overconfidence.
RS: At times intuitive simply means going by how the person feels about it or what the person wants to happen.
JRC: On the other hand, I’ve also known a few people who are in fact good at reading others. They tend to express themselves much more cautiously, but their predictions are usually very good.
A large part of my pushback has to do with desiring to keep confidence to decorous levels.
RS: The issue at this point, however, has to do with a theory as opposed to a person’s level of confidence in being assured of absolute knowledge. For example, Jesus said that the Spirit and eternal life are like springs of running water. Our theory or approach has to cover issues like that. Despite the fact that the human heart is so deceptive, God can bring assurance to the souls He desires to and He can use others that He has worked in their hearts to do this with other people. God comforts some so that they may be able to comfort others.
I Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
We also have to deal with the fact that there is a spiritual reality, yet God has promises a level of discernment to His people. There are things that the natural man cannot discover, which is to say that all the reasonings of men in the natural way cannot discover either. There is a spiritual appraisal and there is a having the mind of Christ that is different than just reasoning our way to and through things. There is a spiritual wisdom and understanding which is to say that there are things that the Spirit has to illuminate our understaninds and spiritual sight to. There are such things as spiritual hearing, spirtual seeing, and spiritual tasting. These are all in the Bible and have to do with our subject.
Let us say that we are told to taste and see that the Lord is good (which we are). Jesus said let him who has ears let him hear. We are told to walk by faith and not by sight, yet faith is the sight of the soul. These are things that believers have, yet they have to be trained to use them and grow in them. Hebrews 5:14, for example, ” But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” In asserting these things I don’t think that my confidence is in myself or any supposed ability that I have, but I think that is is a recognition of some basic biblical issues.
LikeLike