Sanctified Confusion

Published on by D. G. Hart

Can anyone identify the author of these quotations?

First:

The Reasons why God doth promise these two great Gifts of holiness and forgiveness; to sanctifie his people as well as to justify them. There may be these Reasons for their Connexion. First, Both of them have a necessary respect to the salvation of the people of God: A man must be justified if he will be saved; and a man must be sanctified if he will be saved; he cannot be saved without both: he cannot be saved unless he be justified: [Rom. 8:30Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]… None are justified but such as are called, and none are glorified but such as are justified: [Mark 16:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]… He cannot be saved unless he be sanctified: [John 3:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]… [Heb. 12:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]… Here you see a necessity of both of them in reference to salvation; we many times think that if our sins are pardoned, there needed no more to save us, but we are deceived; for as forgiveness is necessary, so is holiness necessary to salvation; as no unpardoned person, so no unsanctified person shall be saved.

Second:

Freed from the burden and bondage of attempting to use the law to establish our righteousness before God, Christians are free to look to “imperatives”, not as conditions, but as descriptions and directions as they seek to love God and others. The law, in other words, shows us how to love. Once a person is liberated from the commonsense delusion that keeping the rules makes us right with God, and in faith believes the counter-intuitive reality that being made righteous by God’s forgiving and resurrecting word precedes and produces loving action, then the justified person is unlocked to love-which is the fulfillment of the law.

Third:

We believe that by this faith we are regenerated in newness of life, being by nature subject to sin. Now we receive by faith grace to live holily and in the fear of God, in accepting the promise which is given to us by the Gospel, namely: that God will give us his Holy Spirit. This faith not only does not hinder us from holy living, or turn us from the love of righteousness, but of necessity begets in us all good works. Moreover, although God works in us for our salvation, and renews our hearts, determining us to that which is good, yet we confess that the good works which we do proceed from his Spirit, and can not be accounted to us for justification, neither do they entitle us to the adoption of sons, for we should always be doubting and restless in our hearts, if we did not rest upon the atonement by which Jesus Christ has acquitted us.

Fourth:

Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God. It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. For man’s powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God’s sight. Besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human strength.

Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man’s help. And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. Wherefore Christ said, John 16,6: Without Me ye can do nothing; . . .

116 thoughts on “Sanctified Confusion”

  1. First – Obadiah Sedgewick
    Second – Tullian Tchividjian
    Third – John Calvin
    Fourth – Philipp Melanchthon

    Like

  3. Is the point here that some of the Westminster divines were puritans (1) who harshed the earlier confessional understandings (3 & 4) and that some like TT (2) may have reacted against the puritans in such a way as to confuse some vital issues while not necessarily contravening the 16th c. confessions?

    Like

  4. Though our 16th c. friends might not have imprisoned Tullian for his teaching I fear that they might have burned his pal Steve Brown at a well-kindled stake.

    Like

  5. cw, the point is that some may be making sanctification the touchstone of orthodoxy, a matter that is hardly clear in our lives but oh how noisy we can be about it with our mouths (and fingers).

    Like

  6. cw, I hear you on Steve Brown, and I’m all about following the rules when it comes to worship, polity, and subscription, which is something that would improve the case of the grace boys exceedingly.

    Like

  7. Isn’t the standard for church membership in the PCA a “credible profession of faith” and the ability to take the five vows? And any reasonable session will consider whether the profession is contradicted by open, notorious, unrepented sin. The obedience boys seem to kick it up a notch for sanctification verification post-membership, preferring the stick to the carrot.

    Like

  10. Darryl,

    “cw, the point is that some may be making sanctification the touchstone of orthodoxy”

    Didn’t you say before you and your church would discipline someone who held to synergistic progressive sanctification?

    Like

  11. Chortles-

    No, you’re wrong. The debate isn’t about discipline per se, but the teaching from the pulpit. No one has argued that if there aren’t continuing signs of sanctification then members should be disciplined. It’s about what pastors are teaching about sanctification. Sessions still deal with public sin.

    Like

  12. foxy young lady, yes. And what is not clear is that someone is teaching such?

    Didn’t your church call for the Crusades? Now the pope wants peace in Jerusalem? Who are you going to believe?

    Like

  14. From the Gospel Reformation…(wait for it)..Network site:

    “In regeneration, its Jesus+Nothing;
    In justification, its Jesus+Nothing;
    In adoption, its Jesus+Nothing;
    In glorification, its Jesus+Nothing;
    In sanctification, Jesus+Nothing=Nothing.

    Sanctification is 100% God, and 100% man, working through the power of the Spirit.”

    – Harry Reeder

    gospelreformation.net

    Like

  15. Of course, but you implied that what was being argued for was an increasing standard after membership. Sessions can only deal with what is brought before them; private sins are between the believer and God. The teaching from the pulpit applies to both, but if the teaching is antinomian then there’s little chance of much growth in holiness inwardly, which is what deals with private sins. That’s what’s so important about thus debate.

    Like

  16. By continuing signs of sanctification I meant ever increasing sanctification. Apologies, I wasn’t clear.

    Like

  17. It’s continues to interest, that in this ‘heavyweight’ fight where a single punch has yet to land squarely, that spirituality-sanctification still hasn’t been defined in terms of church attendance, membership or Lord’s day observance. Pastor’s who can’t keep the ordo straight, or worse, want to openly reorder it, want to come meddle and inspect?! Alright, come on, but wear your helmet and bring back up.

    Like

  20. Chortles,

    So do you agree with that citation you posted from Reeder or not? Do you Darryl?

    Or do you agree with the following from GRN:
    Article IV – Union with Christ and Sanctification
    We affirm that both justification and sanctification are distinct, necessary, inseparable and simultaneous graces of union with Christ though faith.
    We deny that sanctification flows directly from justification, or that the transformative elements of salvation are mere consequences of the forensic elements.

    Article VIII – Effort and Sanctification
    We affirm that God-glorifying, Christ-centered, Holy Spirit-empowered effort to put off sin and put on righteousness is necessary for Christian growth in grace.
    We deny that all practical effort in sanctification is moralistic, legalistic or that the only effort required for growth is that Christians remember, revisit, and rediscover their justification.

    Article IX – Faith and Sanctification
    We deny that faith is wholly passive in sanctification or separated from good works in the same sense that justification is by faith alone.

    Like

  21. Well, CVD, I guess that depends on whether we’re talking about the thief on the cross or not. And where’s your dog in this one? Last time I saw him he was shaking nasty Tiber water all over everyone.

    Like

  22. Thanks for letting the quotations speak for you. The one that bothers me most is the bit from the French Confession—“We believe that by this faith we are regenerated in newness of life”.

    And yes, I know that “Calvin did not use the word regeneration like we do.” Part of the problem is the Bible does not use the word regeneration very much, but Calvin’s wording still bothers me. It sounds like Billy Graham explaining how to be born again–by believing (something).

    One trouble with having a 16th century worldview is that you cherry-pick stuff in Calvin that sounds like it contradicts other stuff in Calvin. And then you have to explain how he uses words differently than we do now.

    Consider this other bit from the French Confession:

    “as some trace of the Church is left in the papacy and the virtue and substance of baptism remain,, we confess that those baptized in it do not need a baptism. We believe that God wishes to have the world governed by laws and magistrates…. He has put the sword into the hands of magistrates to suppress crimes against the First Table”

    In 1561 Calvin—“Luther had the discernment at once to perceive what noxious pests the anabaptists would prove….Are we independently of baptism, cleansed by the blood of Christ and regenerated by the Spirit?”

    http://reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/index.html

    Like

  23. on a more positive note, two quotations

    Turretin, Twentieth topic, question six.— if it is asked here whether the sins of the pious equally as well as of the wicked will be revealed, we answer that the negative seems more probable to us. On account of the judge, who since he has been most fully satisfied for us and now intercedes for us in heaven, will then come as their Redeemer and Savior, not to reproach them for their sins, but to fulfill his promises in them and to manifest the wonders of his grace…. The gratuitous mercy of Christ does not wish our sins to be remembered anymore, but casts them behind mercy’s back. Now what God has once wish to be covered in this life, he will not reveal in the other…. If their sins were to be made known, it would lead to the disgrace and confusion of the pious, from which they ought to be free. For Christ will return for this end—that he may be glorious in his saints and be admired in all believers.

    Robert Haldane’s on Romans 6— It is a noble protest against the meager teaching of many so-called Protestants on the subject of justification by faith. Its faithful condemnation of the false, and bold vindication of the true may be reckoned too “decided,” perhaps “extreme,” by “advanced” theologians, but the church of God, in these days of diluted doctrine, will be thankful for such an assertion of Reformation theology. The apostle’s statements as to the believer’s being “dead to sin,” shows “no reference to the character of believers, but exclusively to their state before God, as the ground on which their sanctification is secured”. To be “dead to sin” is a judicial or legal, not a moral figure. It refers to our release from condemnation, our righteous release from the claim and curse of law. This, instead of giving license to sin, is the beginning and root of holiness.

    Like

  24. Chortles,

    Unlike Darryl, it’s not all about meeeeeeee. People can be curious about other perspectives without some diabolical agenda. My only dog in this is most of you guys’ apparent affirmation of monergistic progressive sanctification. So, let’s forget deathbeds – what say you? You did offer the citation after all so I imagine you have a thought or two on it.

    Like

  26. foxy damme, I hate that formulation and wish people wouldn’t say it. Sanctification the work of God’s Spirit whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God and enabled more and more to die unto sin and live unto righteousness. It’s God’s work and our work (sorrowfully for grammar but wonderfully for sinful humans) is in the passive voice.

    Like

  27. CeeVee, I think that statement (100%/100%) is not strictly in line with the confessions and is liable to misunderstanding as (to be fair) are nearly all statements on sanctification. No one will master or adequately explain this most mysterious of operations. The WSC is good enough for me:

    Q. 35. What is sanctification?
    A. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.

    Like

  28. cletus, i doubt you’d get a majority view of completely monergistic sanctification from us…

    Like

  29. Cletus,

    If it helps, here is A.A. Hodge (reformed theologian) on sanctification, that it is simultaneously God working and us working.

    “while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists.”

    Like

  30. Our concern is that justification is solely an act of God’s grace.

    Sanctification is an area we will bicker about endlessly.

    Despite little discernable diff to outsiders…

    Like

  31. Todd,

    Of course. Which any synergist-in-prog-sanct would say as well. The “simultaneously God and us working” is what (I would presume) Reeder means by the common 100% God, 100% man saying. That’s why I don’t see why Darryl has a problem with it. It doesn’t seem to say anything that Paul isn’t (1 Cor 15:10, Col 1:29, Titus 2:11-12, Gal 5:25, Phil 2:12-13, etc). Perhaps the fear lies in the ways the 100/100 “division” can be construed – I came across an interesting excerpt on google books from a book called “The Sanctification Connection: An Exploration of Human Participation in Spiritual Growth” which references Frame’s outline of how synergist participation in sanctification might be construed (page 33 online):
    Pilot and co-pilot
    Teacher and classroom
    Primary and secondary cause
    Commander and troops
    Author and characters in a story (Frame’s preference)
    The author (Kettering) adds another – a jazz band.

    Berkhof:
    “God and not man is the author of sanctification. This does not mean, however, that man is entirely passive in the process. He can and should co-operate with God in the work of sanctification by a diligent use of the means which God has placed at his disposal.”

    Kent,

    “Our concern is that justification is solely an act of God’s grace.
    Sanctification is an area we will bicker about endlessly.”

    Well the question is if progressive sanctification is solely an act of God’s grace as well. I think any synergist would say so. An anti-synergist model of progressive sanctification apparently presumes that any cooperation must negate grace, or that it necessarily leads to the distorted illustration of an ox and human both pulling the cart 50/50 or 99/1, or that both parties working is coordinate rather than the believer’s activity always remaining subordinate, when the illustrations above would be more apt.

    Like

  32. Cletus, it is almost impossible to put it precisely and exhaustively into words, but we know when we are amongst those who agree with our views.

    Like

  34. Sean- Some of us are in churches which just assume those things, from members and adherents. Attendance to the means of grace can’t really be a definition of sanctification: that’s the path to formalism.

    Kent- Just like we know when we are amongst those who believe in and strive after godliness, and those who don’t…

    Like

  35. Alexander, it seems an odd complaint. How do you imagine being faithful to the first 4 commandments-third use and all, without regard to right worship and Lord’s day observance? Everyone wants to dive into personal holiness and navel gazing and define sanctification along those lines or like Wright and the various neo-calvinist, theonomic expressions, measuring sanctification via political and social activism, but somehow keeping the first table is either too susceptible to formalism or can be done in any variety of ways. Sheesh, I may need to become Lutheran.

    Like

  36. Sean: Alexander, it seems an odd complaint.

    Yes, Alexander does his best to be a total jackass with every posting.

    He is quite good at it.

    Like

  41. Once someone starts bragging about their level of sanctification you want to make sure you can account for the whereabouts of your wallet and your wife.

    Like

  42. A certain guy I am aware of made a big deal about what sanctification should look like (complete with period costumes) and is now featured in a lawsuit that contains the verb “ejaculate” about 100 times.

    Like

  44. Maybe, # “Confessional Presbyterian-Contra Monocovenantalism and all Shepherdian-like reformulations of Sola Fide per the Duplex Gratia or any reformulations of the Ordo Salutis per the Historia Salutis such that Union displaces the role of Faith in relation to Justification-Christian.” maybe Twitter More

    Like

  46. C-Dubs, I’m just a noob with the birdie thing. I do want to volunteer my services for the ‘ Come to _ _ _ _ _ Thang’ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,”Got a rough presbytery meeting staring you down, call 210-open a can”

    Like

  48. Sean-

    I quite agree that right keeping of the Sabbath and of worship are very important and are indeed a part of the life of the believer. Furthermore, I didn’t argue that holding the “correct” views on politics was a measure of sanctification- nor have any of the main “obedience guys” in the current debate, but please refer me to examples if I’m wrong. Maybe we should keep to the debate at hand rather than resort to the default responses resorted to whenever this topic comes up.

    The problem is that if sanctification is merely measured in outward things like church attendance then those who attend every week will start saying: well I do my duty, I go to church every week, I must be converted. Even though they have had no vital working of the Spirit in their souls, they have no evidences of grace, but they go to church every week so they’re fine. That is formalism.

    Kent- If you have to resort to name calling and profanity to make an argument it’s best to just bow out of the debate. Not gracefully- that ship has sailed- but at least to save yourself further embarrassment.

    Like

  50. The ones laid down in Scripture and explicated in Reformed writing for the last 400 years or so.

    Like

  51. Nice footwork. It just turns out that regular attendance to the means of grace in our entertainment saturated culture takes the work of grace in one’s heart to commit to. That’s in the Bible and our Confessions …

    PS. One hopes you are not including Richard Baxter in your ‘Reformed writing’ literature.

    Like

  52. Is jackass too unholy for your standards, Alexander?

    Stop being one every time you post on here.

    We are all impressed on how you smugly tell us you are far more holier than everyone else combined.

    I meant the opposite of impressed.

    Like

  53. TBR- I wasn’t thinking of Baxter, no. I agree that it is by God’s grace that we return again and again to the means of grace. But these outward observances cannot be the substance of sanctification.

    Kent- Yes I think profanity is beneath and unbecoming a Christian. As is glorying in vulgarity. You won’t impress the world by aping it. I do not claim superior holiness; but I strive for holiness and to follow Christ and I would hope those who claim Christ as their Lord and Saviour would seek to do the same. You do not help your brothers and sisters by lowering the bar; you condemn them to continue in their struggles.

    Like

  54. Alexander, “merely measured in outward things?” I thought good trees bear good fruit? What if my confession(confess with your mouth…), membership(pursue peace and purity and submit) and attendance(don’t forsake the gathering together…but encourage each other all the more) are all evidence of a devotion to Christ and His people? Love of the brethren, preference of the brethren, works of mercy toward the brethren. These are easily relegated to the bin of formalism? Like I said, if you want to peer into my soul and divine the nature of my affections, or even your own, good luck with that. Particularly, if I had a late night run to Taco Bell or my coffee isn’t ready in the morning, we might just have a moment.

    Like

  55. As Rush Limbaugh might have put it back in the day, the sanctified man is the one who I would trust overnight in a Motel Six with my wife & kids while I was out of town. There are many men who are highly religious and have a public profile who I would not trust. There are ditch diggers who do not wear their religion on their sleeves who I would trust. Religion is funny like that.

    Like

  56. “…these outward observances cannot be the substance of sanctification…”

    What is ‘the substance of sanctification’, Alex? You haven’t really answered my original question.

    Like

  57. TBR, you are wasting your time.

    All Alexander does is wait for you to be honest and then nitpick and criticize and pointlessly bring up terms that have no meaning, then he chuckles at how you fell for it.

    Like

  58. The problem is that if sanctification is merely measured in outward things like church attendance then those who attend every week will start saying: well I do my duty, I go to church every week, I must be converted. Even though they have had no vital working of the Spirit in their souls, they have no evidences of grace, but they go to church every week so they’re fine. That is formalism.

    Alexander, you have a point here. There is such a thing as externalism among those who place an emphasis on the means of grace, and sabbatarianism is just as vulnerable to legalism. But the point from over here in confessionalism that emphasizes the means of grace for Christian nurture is that formalism and externalism can come in experimental dress. The “evidences of grace” can be as easily feigned as any regular and disciplined church attendance.

    So-called personal testimonies can just as easily be parroted as creed recitation. The question isn’t who’s more externalistic, it’s which template is more biblical–attesting to the work of the Spirit within the believer or confessing the work of the Son outside the sinner in history? Reading the NT, sure seems like the latter.

    Like

  61. Whitefield, whose very head movements were sanctified:

    “How is it, good woman, that you are so deeply moved at what you cannot hear?” (To woman too far removed from his open air pulpit to hear him but still experiencing
    ‘convulsions of admiration’)

    “Ah! sir,” said she, “but can you not see the godly wag of his head?”

    Like

  62. Erik, ditch diggers, really? You had to go there? As one whose vocation is a rung or two below a ditch digger I highly resemble that comment. Which Motel 6 will they be staying? I got your back!

    Like

  63. CW, didn’t we learn that at a near distance it sounded like “blessed are the cheesemakers”?

    just sayin…

    Like

  64. Richard Smith ruined the subject of sanctification for the next 37,389 commenters who would like to weigh in on the subject.

    Doug Sowers ruined theonomy for the…

    Like

  67. Sean, Zrim, TBR-

    When I say these outward things shouldn’t be the substance I’m talking from the perspective of the individual. I agree: the session cannot look into the individual’s heart. But the individual knows what’s going on inside him: his thoughts, words, deeds done in secret. If he is instructed that his outward , public actions are all that matter then that is where formalism can creep in.

    Love of the brethren is a very good mark of grace. But it’s an inward thing: it’s a disposition. We do not rest in our feelings, we rest in Christ, trust in him. But again that trust is an inward thing. There are plenty of people who believe Christ is the Son of God and that He is the only way to salvation: but they do not trust in him as their saviour. They have head belief; they have outward obedience but they do not have the vital, inner working of the Spirit. That is why sanctification has to be taught as more than outward obedience: it is these things of course, or includes them, but it’s the gradual making more holy of the whole being.

    I applaud your commitment to the means of grace, but we should not stop there. The believer should be examining himself within as well as without. It is through the means that sanctification is wrought, because that is what they are: means! They’re not grace itself per se, but the means through which grace is bestowed.

    I also note with irony that I am continually accused of being uncharitable and setting traps by people who resort to name calling and point scoring. If, Mr. Hart, you want people to be charitable to you then show some charity to others.

    Like

  68. Alexander,

    The problem for those of us who have been around here for awhile is we’ve interacted with people making the same arguments you are making and they have proven over time to be prigs, Why should we think you any different?

    We’ve also encountered lots of sanctified people who didn’t talk much about how they had become sanctified. They just were and it showed in how they interacted with and treated others.

    Like

  69. If you want to win someone over you don’t show up out of nowhere at a site (or a church) and start correcting everyone. You get to know people and slowly, gently, make your argument. One of the best guys around at this is Zrim. He has one of the most irenic personalities I’ve ever seen. I’d hate to be that guy’s mailman at Christmas time because I’m sure the cards are pouring in.

    Like

  70. Erik: So ganging up on him, taunting him with sarcastic remarks, and hurling demeaning names at him–not just in this comment section, but in others–because of the actions of others who preceded him is your solution? How is that being winsome? How is it exhibiting the gift of charity? What would our Lord say about it?

    Like

  71. Alright, who on here bet me that Alexander and Bobby were the same people under a multi name?

    You win…

    Like

  73. Erik-

    Well I’d hope I’d be judged on what I say and not what others say. I’ve given my credentials, I’ve attempted to distinguish my position from those you would associate me with. If I’ve been sharp in comments it’s in response to the same attitude directed towards me. But of course that’s not an excuse.

    As to sanctification: again, I do not claim superior holiness. In a debate about sanctification the “mechanics” of sanctification inevitably must be discussed.

    Like

  74. Alexander, and here’s a wager, if a person were as introspective as you think he should be, if he were attuned to what’s going on in his heart, would he be promoting holiness as much as the obedience boys do? I mean, wouldn’t that kind of heart pondering cause everyone to shut up about sanctification?

    Like

  76. Mr. Hart-

    You make a good point. And in certain contexts- such as within a church community- I would agree with you. That example would be the main promoter of holiness rather than lecturing on it. However, there would still need to be teaching. And in the case of blogs and books we have a different situation. Because here all we have is the teaching. We can’t observe Rick Phillips or Mark Jones in their day to day lives (nor TT so we must take him at his word). When influential blogs and books start teaching something which is an error, corrective teaching is necessary. Sometimes we need people to say what needs to be done and what should be expected, rather than just living out the example.

    Some of us don’t frequent public houses. However, your point is noted and as one who partook in university debating I’m certainly not averse to pointed debate. However, why that should necessarily include name calling and derision- especially amongst Christians- I don’t see. Especially when there isn’t the personal relationship which often neutralises such tactics.

    Like

  77. Mark Galli—- “so much preaching and teaching in American churches seem to suggest that if we just do this or that more fervently—always depending on the grace and power of the Holy Spirit!—we can make significant progress in the life of holiness. We Americans are a very optimistic bunch with a can-do spirit. But I’m wondering if we’re overpromising, with the result that we’ll eventually underdeliver. This can only lead us into despair.”

    mg– I am often approached by Christians who think I’ve pulled the rug out from under their feet. “What’s the point of being a Christian then, if I can’t be transformed?” For some, it seems, faith has become more of a self-improvement project than a living relationship with a gracious Go

    mg– we have forgotten eschatology—the end times. Back in the 1960s and ’70s, evangelicals could talk about little else. We were mostly concerned with predicting the date of the Second Coming …But we are wise to remember that in large part, the Christian faith is an eschatological faith—that is, it is mostly about promise and fulfillment, about what Christ’s death and resurrection assures us in the future.

    mg–“We will, in fact, be made holy and blameless in love. I’ve come to believe that the promise of real transformation does not apply to this life, but to the next (see especially 1 Cor. 15). Thus my hope is not fixed on improvement in this life, but on transformation in the next.”

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/may-web-only/real-transformation-happens-when.html?paging=off

    Ellul—after all has been said, nothing has been done

    Like

  78. D.G., no thank you. While alcohol is lawful, it is unwise to handle the ordinances of God while under its influences. (Lev. 10:8-11) And there is no honor in debating for the sake of debating. Doting about questions and striving about words with no clear objective to edify only brings about envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, and froward disputations. (1Tim. 6:4-5) I only came to defend Mr. Rutherford’s reputation, then was drawn into defending the reputation of Establishmentarians, and finally have been drawn into defending a brother. But this business of sniping at each other and using shaming sarcasm is unbecoming of servants of the Lord Christ. And to express pride in your boisterousness? That is not good, either.

    I do not know who Alexander is or what denom he belongs to, but he disclaims the FCC and is from Texas. (My best guess is that he’s Free Presbyterian, but there are a couple of other likelihoods.) I am FCC and am from Alabama. You have merely encountered two like-minded individuals.

    Like

  79. Bobby-

    I’m actually in Scotland, and I am FP. As an FCC I’m sure you’ll recognise that we have our differences but I am very happy that on this very important topic we are in one accord. Thank you for coming to my defence.

    Like

  80. I’ve looked into my heart this morning, and I beheld my awesomeness. So, par. Now, I have to go to the word to get a better picture. I don’t think the heart is the truth-teller that some portray it to be. Better, I think, to build around the idea of Jesus lifted up as the serpent in the wilderness, and be drawn away from licking your own wounds and focused on your infirmity and look out from yourself and upon the objective truth of Jesus and be healed. The Holy Spirit attaches itself to the word and works faith in us by making that word effectual. The inner ‘disposition’ from the Holy Spirit, is a disposition of true faith that responds to the promises and threatenings of God in his revelation. Even the psalmist begs off and requests God to examine his heart and lead him in the way everlasting.

    1 Cor 4

    3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself. 4 For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.
    6 I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers,[a] that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written

    Like

  81. CW, that may well be the case, though as far as I can tell Keller hasn’t responded to TT’s crawl back. I don’t say this to intentionally rile you up, but all this reminds me of the various fights among the “Fighting Fundamentalist” Baptists that I grew up watching. Just substitute John Rice and who made his guest list and who didn’t for his various “Sword of The Lord” conferences for Keller and his enterprises.

    Like

  83. I merely provide a public service around here by advising newcomers how not to come across as a tool in their first 5 minutes. That rep becomes hard to shake once it’s established. See also: Tom Van Dork.

    Like

  84. E, the service can be defined as

    Shoo away the dogs
    Rebuke the swine
    Direct head shot on the wolves

    Like

  85. Alexander: Ah. Sorry, I thought I remembered reading last night a comment you made about being from Texas. I was scanning through the pages pretty quick, though, and must have misattributed someone else’s words to you. Anyway, yes, I always enjoy the fellowship of those in the FP, seeing as we are of a like mind on a great many issues. Do take care over there, with the referendum business going on.

    Like

  87. Sean-

    I very much agree with what you say in your last post. I only maintain that there must be a place for introspective examination as well. The Psalms are also full of such self-examination.

    Like

  88. The gospel does not cause fear for as many as those who believe the gospel (neither do believers fear election)

    But the law does cause fear for those who believe the gospel, which is why those believers find safety in the gospel

    That is quite different from Gaffin’s idea that, for believers, there is no more distinction between law and gospel.

    The Heidelberg Disputation (Luther)

    The law of God, the most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance man on his way to righteousness, but rather hinders him.

    Although the works of man always appear attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins.

    The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they are not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.

    To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God. Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin.

    I John 3: 20 for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

    Like

  90. Alexander, I’m not sure all of the rules you subscribe regarding the refutation of error apply to blogging. That’s not to say that bloggers get a free pass. But if it is more like a pub than an academic treatise, summoning up a formal refutation may be overkill.

    Like

  91. Couldn’t care less what A has to say.

    He’s a lot like B, but clearly much less gifted IQ-wise.

    Like

  92. Alexander, you make a lot of the inner life. But I’m not sure my point about the inner life being just as susceptible to sin landed at all. Plus, why so down on the outer life? Seems to me my wife and kids benefit highly from me sticking around when on those days my inner man says, “Just run, run fast and don’t look back.” I know I sure do benefit when my wife resists that inner voice and sticks around.

    ps I hope I didn’t bully you too much there.

    Like

  93. In point of fact, D.G., I defend your reputation in private among my Establishmentarian friends when they do the same kind of ganging up on your articles and comments.

    Like

  95. Bob – In point of fact, D.G., I defend your reputation in private among my Establishmentarian friends when they do the same kind of ganging up on your articles and comments.

    Sheer Van Dorkian

    Like

  96. Bobby’s “About Me”:

    Interests: “Presbyterian and Reformed theology and history, German culture and history, Zen Buddhist philosophy”

    Uh huh, yeah…

    Like

  100. [polite smile] D.G. is interested in American revivalism, and Dennison is interested in moralistic preaching. Should I assume that they agree with it?

    Like

  101. The internet has made it possible for those people who you used to only see downtown muttering to themselves while carrying their cardboard house behind them to have their own metaphysical place in this world.

    Watch them change the world at a computer terminal at a public library near you.

    Like

  103. E, my last visit to the Research Library, looking for microfiched financials from the 1950s, taught me the latest thing is muttering about one’s unsolicited book’s current status. Some of those in front of me in the lineup had four going at once. Imagine how they will change the world!!!

    I guess library training has a class on having to treat everyone politely while you gauge their mental status and ability to bring chaos to the room in seconds.

    Like

  104. The community where I grew up and now work has a new $20 million remodeled public library. Fabulous news for those who are too cheap to pay for Netflix and those who are too financially disadvantaged to pay for a smart phone or internet hookup. Also a wonderful place for the unemployed or marginally employed to congregate during working hours, They could have just handed out $100 bills to these folks nearly endlessly, but nothing says “I love you” like bricks & mortar.

    Like

  105. Nothing more depressing than visiting the local library if you grew up seeing it as a place to quietly read and study from books.

    Like

  107. We are in North America where nobody gives a (insert deleted expletive) about another’s ancestry.

    Welcome anyways!!

    Like

  108. Kent, but how do you reconcile Bobby’s favoring Germanness (achtung, babby) and Puritanism? What strange subspecies of Protestantism do you get from that? Well, it seems, all you get is a lot of Puritanism with “k” used instead of “c”. Wow!

    Like

  110. I would have to wait before a ton of proof is presented that lets me conclude that a holiness Puritan finds strength and comfort in National Socialist theory and history

    But at times I have to admit seeing a direct connexion between theonomists and the Third Reich

    Like

  111. I’ve been around long enough to only see a dozen or so big talkers and finger pointers burn out and leave after they’ve shot their….. bolt….

    It still is amusing to watch their rise and fall.

    Like

  112. two quotations from Calvin:

    ” God’s promise the object and support of faith” Institutes, 3; 2:29 —For in God faith seeks life: a life that is not found in commandments or declarations of penalties, but in the promise of mercy, and only in a freely given promise.
    For a conditional promise that sends us back to our own works does not promise life unless we discern its presence in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have our faith tremble and waver, we must buttress it with the promise of salvation, which is willingly and freely offered to us by the Lord in consideration of our misery rather than our deserts.
    :
    The apostle, therefore, bears this witness to the gospel:3 that it is the word of faith [Rom 10:8]. He distinguishes the gospel both from the precepts of the law and from the promises, since there is nothing that can establish faith except that generous embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself [2 Cor 5:19-20]. Thence, also, arises that frequent correlation of faith and gospel in the apostle, when he teaches that the ministry of the gospel is committed to him to further “obedience to the faith” [Rom 1:5], that “it is the power of God for salvation to every believer; … in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith” [Rom 1:16-17]. And no wonder! Indeed, since the gospel is the “ministry of reconciliation” [2 Cor 5:18], no other sufficiently firm testimony of God’s benevolence to us exists, the knowledge of which faith seeks. Therefore, when we say that faith must rest upon a freely given promise, we do not deny that believers embrace and grasp the Word of God in every respect: but we point out the promise of mercy as the proper goal of faith.

    As on the one hand believers ought to recognize God to be Judge and Avenger of wicked deeds, yet on the other hand they properly contemplate his kindness, since he is so described to them as to be considered “one who is kind” [Psalm 86:5], “and merciful” [Psalm 103:8], “far from anger and of great goodness,” “sweet to all” [Psalm 144:9], “pouring out his mercy upon all his works” [Psalm 145:9].

    and then, from Calvin’s commentary on Romans 8:13—“For God does not strictly require the destruction of the flesh, but only bids us to make every exertion to subdue its lusts”

    Like

  113. http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/06/an-apologie.php

    mark jones—-As a pastor I do not like to use big words in the pulpit…. And I’ll be wearing skinny jeans in the pulpit before I preach from the Westminster Confession or Catechisms. So how would I explain all of this to average laypeople?

    mark jones— I tend to dislike the idea that the Puritans were somehow radical or different on soteriological issues compared to the broader Reformed tradition).

    mark jones— Neither Owen, Mastricht, or any other reformed writer has ever suggested that the consummation of our salvation and eternal life is granted on the basis of good works. If one did put good works into the instrumentality of our salvation, then that would make works the basis of eternal life. The language of “basis” suggests ground; but a ground is different from an instrument. So Rick’s concern, if he still has one, might need some fine-tuning.

    mark mcculley—if one did put faith into the instrumentality of our salvation, would that then make faith the basis of eternal life? Perhaps Mark Jones needs to do a bit of fine-tuning.

    To the extent that you put your faith in your faith as working instead of in Christ’s finished righteousness, then to that extent your working faith becomes the basis/ground of your hope. Instead of looking at Christ’s death as a complete satisfaction of the law, you will “nonetheless” also be looking to your present works (and not your present sins).

    Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and LIFE for all men. ,

    Romans 5: 21 as sin reigned in death, grace also reigns through righteousness leading to ETERNAL LIFE through Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Romans 8:10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is LIFE BECAUSE OF righteousness.

    mark Jones—See Rom. 8:13, which his obviously about sanctification

    mark mcculley—not if you look at the context, beginning in Romans 8:1-4 and paying attention to the “cause” in Romans 8:10

    I don’t know if Ralph Erskine is a good “puritans” but consider what he wrote about Romans 8:13

    ” Gospel mortification is from gospel principles, viz. the Spirit of God [Rom. 8. 13], ‘If ye through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live’; Faith in Christ [Acts 15. 9], ‘Purifying their hearts by faith’; The love of Christ constraining [2 Cor. 5. 14], ‘The love of Christ constraineth us.’ But legal mortification is from legal principles such as, from the applause and praise of men, as in the Pharisees; from pride of self-righteousness, as in Paul before his conversion; from the fear of destruction; from a natural conscience; from the example of others; and many times from the power of sin itself, while one sin is set up to wrestle with another, as when sensuality and self-righteousness wrestle with one another. The man, perhaps, will not drink and swear. Why? Because he is setting up and establishing a righteousness of his own, whereby to obtain the favor of God here is but one sin wrestling with another.

    Erskine— They differ in their weapons with which they fight against sin. The gospel believer fights with grace’s weapons, namely, the blood of Christ, the word of God, the promises of the gospel, and the virtue of Christ’s death and cross [Galatians 6. 14] ‘God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, by whom (whereby) the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.’ But now the man under the law fights against sin by the promises and threatenings of the law; by its promises, saying, I will obtain life, I hope, if I do so and so; by its threatenings, saying, I will be damned, if I do not so and so. Sometimes he fights with the weapons of his own vows and resolutions, which are his strong tower, to which he runs and thinks himself safe.

    Erskine—The believer will not serve sin, because he is alive to God, and dead to sin [Romans 6. 6]. The legalist forsakes sin, not because he is alive, but so that he may live. The believer mortifies sin, because God loves him; but the legalist, that God may love him. The believer mortifies, because God is pacified towards him; the legalist mortifies, that he may pacify God by his mortification. He may go a great length, but it is still that he may have whereof to glory, making his own doing at least some of the foundation of his hope and comfort.

    Like

  115. louie c k last night—-a 28 year old person has not lived long enough to do enough of the works necessary “to go to heaven”

    good works equals not sins of omission

    evil works equals sins

    dead works equals “anything done by a person who is not yet justified before God”

    Why are we talking about our works instead of about our sins?

    Like

  116. Machen—“But what was the difference between the teaching of Paul and the teaching of the Judaizers ? What was it that gave rise to the stupendous polemic of the Epistle to the Galatians? To the modern Church the difference would have seemed to be a mere theological subtlety. About many things the Judaizers were in perfect agreement with Paul. The Judaizers believed that Jesus was the Messiah; there is not a shadow of evidence that they objected to Paul’s lofty view of the person of Christ. Without the slightest doubt, they believed that Jesus had really risen from the dead. They believed, moreover, that faith in Christ was necessary to salvation.

    But the trouble was, they believed that something else was also necessary; they believed that what Christ had done needed to be pieced out by the believer’s own effort to keep the Law. From the modern point of view the difference would have seemed to be very slight. Paul as well as the Judaizers believed that the keeping of the law of God, in its deepest import, is inseparably connected with faith.

    The difference concerned only the logical–not even, perhaps, the temporal–order of three steps. Paul said that a man (1) first believes on Christ, (2) then is justified before God, (3) then immediately proceeds to keep God’s law. The Judaizers said that a man (1) believes on Christ and (2) keeps the law of God the best he can, and then (3) is justified.

    The difference would seem to modern “practical” Christians to be a highly subtle and intangible matter, hardly worthy of consideration at all in view of the large measure of agreement in the practical realm. What a splendid cleaning up of the Gentile cities it would have been if the Judaizers had succeeded in extending to those cities the observance of the Mosaic law, even including the unfortunate ceremonial observances!

    Surely Paul ought to have made common cause with teachers who were so nearly in agreement with him; surely he ought to have applied to them the great principle of Christian unity.

    “As a matter of fact, however, Paul did nothing of the kind; and only because he (and others) did nothing of the kind does the Christian Church exist today. Paul saw very clearly that the differences between the Judaizers and himself was the differences between two entirely distinct types of religion; it was the differences between a religion of merit and a religion of grace. If Christ provides only a part of our salvation, leaving us to provide the rest, then we are still hopeless under the load of sin.

    For no matter how small the gap which must be bridged before salvation can be attained, the awakened conscience sees clearly that our wretched attempt at goodness is insufficient even to bridge that gap. The guilty sinner enters again into the hopeless reckoning with God, to determine whether we have really done our part. And thus we groan again under the old bondage of the law. Such an attempt to piece out the work of Christ by our own merit, Paul saw clearly, is the very essence of unbelief; Christ will do everything or nothing, and the only hope is to throw ourselves unreservedly on His mercy and trust Him for all.”

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.