John Calvin as early as 1536 put the problem with sin and the law this way:
For while the law, as has already been demonstrated, leaves not one man righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of justification, or we must be loosed from the law, and so loosed as that no account at all shall be taken of works. For he who imagines that in order to obtain justification he must bring any degree of works whatever, cannot fix any mode or limit, but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Therefore, laying aside all mention of the law, and all idea of works, we must in the matter of justification have recourse to the mercy of God only; turning away our regard from ourselves, we must look only to Christ. For the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would obtain any assurance of this, they must give no place to the law. (Institutes 3.19.2)
The obedience boys may have us think that Calvin is merely talking about justification, as if justification, the material principle of the Reformation, deserves a merely. So does the law become any less demanding when we talk about sanctification which is partial and imperfect in this life? Somehow the law is ineffective when it comes to justification but it is a walk in the park when it comes to sanctification? Not if you’re going to keep your conscience free (or do justice to the Belgic Confession):
We believe that for us to acquire the true knowledge of this great mystery the Holy Spirit kindles in our hearts a true faith that embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, and makes him its own, and no longer looks for anything apart from him.
For it must necessarily follow that either all that is required for our salvation is not in Christ or, if all is in him, then he who has Christ by faith has his salvation entirely.
Therefore, to say that Christ is not enough but that something else is needed as well is a most enormous blasphemy against God– for it then would follow that Jesus Christ is only half a Savior. And therefore we justly say with Paul that we are justified “by faith alone” or by faith “apart from works. (Art 22)
Or this:
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. (Art 24)
It seems to me that the sixteenth-century Protestants identified salvation with justification because that was the benefit in which believers received the perfect righteousness of Christ. Anything less than perfection, graciously induced or not, whether on the Roman Catholic scheme or the Norman Shepherd plan, was not going to save.
Again, I wonder why, why, oh why, Protestants would take exception to making justification a priority?
Old Life 
Point well taken. Good post.
LikeLike
But how ya gonna keep down on the Pietist Measurable Fruit Farm after ya told ’em it’s all of faith with justification coming before all?
LikeLike
Yes, a most excellent and indeed soothing post, from both the Institutes and the BC, to the tortured and troubled souls who feel that they haven’t done enough to “further God’s kingdom.” Simply preach the Word, honestly and truly, and those who are in anguish will hear and listen and respond to it.
[those who do not, the ones who are ensnared by the world’s call to do something more, to worship only with a certain fervency, to embrace popular culture in such a manner as to attract all though the church’s doors, will never have such peace of mind and assurance that they have done God’s work]
LikeLike
And even a little earlier from JC –
John Calvin’s preface to Pierre Olivétan’s French translation of the New Testament (1534)
LikeLike
two more…
John Calvin – Institutes, Bk.3.14.11
John Calvin in his response to Sadoleto: A Reformed Debate
LikeLike
Correction: The book title is not “A Reformed Debate” but “A Reformation Debate.”
LikeLike
This is spot-on and easy to affirm but I do have a few questions. How does something like Jer. 31:31-34 factor in where the law is said to be written in the heart? If we identify salvation w/justification, what of regeneration and being renewed in the image of God, albeit incompletely? I am certainly not intending to suggest that law is a walk in the park regarding sanctification but does it play some instrumental role in our being renewed in righteousness and true holiness by the Spirit?
LikeLike
More good stuff at OL today, thanks Jack.
LikeLike
MC, sanctification is imperfect and partial. How in anyway would that fit with the righteousness of Christ?
LikeLike
MC, it seems the question is – what role does the law play in our “being renewed in righteousness and true holiness by the Spirit?” I think it is safest to look primarily to the confessional standards such as:
So the moral law, in its role, points us to Christ and his fulfilling of that law as a covenant of works for us. And that he endured the curse of the law in our place. And all of this for our good. And this good news increases and provokes more and more thankfulness in us as we grow in the blessedness of God’s grace in which we stand. That thankfulness finds its expression in our thankful duty to endeavor to walk in conformity to Christ’s moral law.
Regarding sanctification, it seems to be more a function of God’s grace than his law:
Certainly the law is used by God, both through preaching and His Word, yet it is Christ himself who has been given to us for both justification and sanctification and, as the earlier quotes make clear, even our whole salvation. Again, Calvin responding to Sadoleto:
LikeLike
D.G. and Jack,
Thank you for clarifying.
Jack- your explanation and citation of Calvin was very helpful.
D.G.- It was not my intention to somehow suggest that sanctification fits with the righteousness of Christ alone in our justification. Thanks again for your blog. It is regularly helpful.
LikeLike
The writer to the Hebrews does not use the word “sanctification” in the WCF sense of the word.
Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Hebrews 10–then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
Hebrews 10: 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
Hebrews 13:24 Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.
LikeLike
Great post, Dr. Hart. It seems that the obedience boys are content to move on from justification and focus upon their imperfect and impartial sanctification. Nothing less than the consciences of the faithful are at stake in this current debate. Of course, natural men love to focus upon themselves, so maybe looking to Christ and His work alone would require giving up their favorite object, self.
Jack, thank you for the quotes from Calvin.
LikeLike
Paul,
Nothing less than the consciences of the faithful are at stake in this current debate.
Exactly!
LikeLike
Jack,
May I echo your reply to Paul?
EXACTLY!
The report of the Obedience Boys’ broadside 406mm guns (Gospel Reformation Network and related piety/sanctification/works emphases) sound like ‘Black Cat’ firecrackers now.
LikeLike
Newcomer MC is no Sucka MC. That’s good — we have enough suckas in these parts. Word.
LikeLike
Jack must have a good pastor to whom he owes such advanced learning. Doesn’t hurt having Westminster to stand on, neither. Thanks again, Jack.
LikeLike
Jack, sorry, you’re wrong. It’s a little beyond the consciences of the faithful.
1) according to this guy, the body and souls of the faithful are at stake: Suicide http://www.mbird.com/2013/12/the-dangers-of-transformation-and-the-hope-of-mercy-in-a-suicidal-church-and-world/
2) and according to this guy, the body and souls of our children are at stake:
http://www.brentdetwiler.com/brentdetwilercom/don-carson-kevin-deyoung-and-justin-taylor-defend-cj-mahaney.html
http://abrentdetwiler.squarespace.com/brentdetwilercom/executive-director-mark-prater-effectively-calls-victims-of.html
too bad to send your son to an “obedience boy’s” school and have him get raped and then have the “obedience boys” cover it up.
too, too bad.
It could happen to you; it could happen to me.
Especially those of us who are kind of serious and theologically inclined, it’s easy to get sucked into this kind of mess.
I am very grateful to Darryl (and Jack here) and all the rest who will not let this issue rest.
LikeLike
I think we can learn a thing or two from the Lutherans on this topic. Imagine their Law/Gospel distinction combined with our robust preaching and catechesis. It doesn’t get much better than that.
The problem, as previously mentioned, is that many of our Presbyterian & Reformed brothers (especially in the South) are not being influenced with Lutherans but by revivalistic Baptists.
Big difference.
LikeLike
Todd,
C.J. Mahaney is still being recommended by Harry Reeder’s Embers To A Flame/Fanning The Flame church revitalization business, especially C.J. Mahaney’s book “Why Small Groups”. It’s all right there in their big, thick manual that comes courtesy of the $16,000 price tag and a signed contract to get advice from Madame Guyon, Thomas Merton, and everyone else on the other side of Luther, Calvin, and Turretin. There appear to be ‘wormholes’ in the material to other types of bad theology/theologians.
LikeLike
Just don’t lump the “revivalistic” Baptists with the Baptists who challenged Jonathan Edwards and the second generation New England theology after Edwards died. The Confessionally Reformed have a bad record of persecuting over sacramental issues and not taking a broad view with their cannons and guns. In other words, be careful with what plumb line you are using.
LikeLike
That should be taking a broad view with their cannons and guns, not, not taking a broad view.
LikeLike
Took the day off Friday, saw Interstellar with the Mrs. My advice, if one is an unapologetic Sci fi geek as we are, read the negative reviews and go see it anyway. We spent the drive home laughing at how the plot was call constructed &tc. Truly memorable to spend an afternoon with my wife in that way, instead of in front of spreadsheets between my sterile cubicle walls.
Have a nice Lord’s day.
LikeLike
John,
Thanks. When I wrote about the ‘report of the 406mm guns’, I was trying to illustrate the image of all of the ship’s guns turned in the same direction on one side and firing in unison/at will at another ship or at an island beach-head. I was trying to describe the loud noise/commotion that the Obedience Boys were trying to make over why Sanctification is the priority now (works righteousness) through the Gospel Reformation Network. I did not know about the aspect of church history that you presented and am very grateful to learn.
To summate; there seems to be more bark than bite in the GRN, in my view. I had friends from days gone by who claimed they could hold Black Cat firecrackers in their hands when they went off (maybe some burns and blood blisters). In my view, all their fuss is like the popping of the Black Cats to me. We just need the courage to say no to them, and all their ‘disciples-clones’ who are in our churches who want to place us in that type of spiritual slavery. The people that it is hard for at present (in the PCA, more?) is for those who are presently under this ‘yoke of slavery’ and don’t have anywhere to go, or would be admonished or disciplined for disagreeing with their Pastor/Sessions over these issues and their beliefs/convictions to follow Reformed theology in the tradition of the classic reformers (Luther, Calvin, Turretin, etc.), especially in subscribing to prioritizing Justification, the nullification of mandated small group discipleship, etc.
LikeLike
Semper,
The militaristic imagery of my post was not in response to your comment. I agree with you about the Gospel Reformation Network. What I was challenging was the whole history of how the confessional Reformed types handled the Anabaptists. There were many differing factions among the Anabaptists who started getting persecuted pretty early on during the Reformation. Some were only challenging the sacramental beliefs and a whole lot of confusion and misunderstanding ensued. More heat than light was shed over the whole issue. It is a fairly complicated and subtle issue that the confessions that came out of the reformation never dealt with satisfactorily. Lots of Anabaptist blood was shed that was not necessary in retrospect. My main point being is that the Baptists of today are a many varied group that cannot be lumped under the same heading- especially in regards to just trying to come to more clarity in regards to what the Gospel actually is and what it entails. The Gospel gets compromised in extremely subtle ways very easily. So, be careful where the guns are aimed and be careful in determining who the enemy really is. We easily think we are on the right side when we might not be- like when Joshua was confronted by Christ Himself. Whose side are we on- we want to be on the side that is proclaiming the Gospel most clearly. No compromise allowed with the Gospel.
LikeLike
John,
All Baptists are annoying on at least some level, so my comment stands.
LikeLike
Thanks John ~ I wasn’t certain, but when I saw the ‘cannons and guns’ reference, I only wanted to make sure that I was being clear in my description. And through the exchange, I learned from you, so I’m very appreciative.
LikeLike
Erik,
That is a deeply profound assertion for someone who proposes to be so logically inclined. Or, are you just playing games with me, Erik?
LikeLike
John,
As a former Baptist I have lots of Baptist friends. Many dear people.
I’m not doing church with them, though.
LikeLike
Church is where the Gospel believing elect gather together to hear the Gospel and grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ. You must not know the right type of Baptist’s. I have problems with those whose sacramental formula’s fence out, slander and even put to death, the elect. It can lead even palatable Puritans, like John Cotton, to make statements like this:
John Cotton—they (talking of some Anabaptists-my addition ) do not deny magistrates, nor predestination, nor original sin, nor maintain free-will in conversion, nor apostacy from grace ; but only deny the lawful use of the baptism of children, because it wanteth a word of commandment and example, from the Scripture. And I am bound in christian love to believe, that they who yield so far, do it out of conscience, as following the example of the apostle, who professed of himself and his followers, We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. But yet I believe withal, that it is not out of love to the truth that Satan yieldeth so much, but rather out of another ground, and for a worse end. He knoweth that now, by the good hand of God, they are set upon purity and reformation; and now to plead against the baptism of children upon any of those Arminian and Popish grounds, as those above named, Satan knoweth they would be rejected. He now pleadeth no other arguments in these times of reformation, than may be urged from a main principle of reformation, to wit, That no duty of God’s worship, nor any ordinance of religion, is to be administered in his church, but such as hath a just warrant from the word of God. And by urging this argument against the baptism of children, Satan transformeth himself into an angel of light.”*
John Y: I find statements like that mind-boggling
* Cotton on baptism, 1647, p. 3
An Abridgment of Church History of New England, Isaac Backus
LikeLike
Some of the elect might be annoying too. If you fence them off then you don’t have to deal with them. Like the people the Apostle Paul and Jesus dealt with on a regular basis. That really pissed off the social climbing upwardly mobile folks. You might not even call the elect “dear people” either. However, by your much superior outward moral behavior you are obviously more fruity then them and you don’t have to do church with them.
LikeLike
DGH—“the sixteenth-century Protestants identified salvation with justification because that was the benefit in which believers received the perfect righteousness of Christ. Anything less than perfection, graciously induced or not, whether on the Roman Catholic scheme or the Norman Shepherd plan, was not going to save.”
Mark Jones explain that context of the Shepherd controversy is important, because commands depend on the situation and not on narrow distinctions between law and gospel. Since we don’t have many legalists anymore, perhaps we don’t need justification priority anymore. Even though Mark Jones still has not defined “union with Christ” , he does knows for sure that “in Christ” comes first, but after faith, and also before God’s imputation of Christ’s atonement to the elect.
t: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/11/which-is-better-justification.php#sthash.F4wQC6zX.dpuf
LikeLike
dgh—The view in some union with Christ circles is that Lutheranism manifests an anthropocentric view of Christianity (e.g., man’s salvation) that contrasts with Reformed Protestantism’s theocentric outlook (e.g., God’s glory). After all, an oft-made contrast between Heidelberg (which is considered a catechism that made concessions to Lutheranism) and Westminster is that the former catechism begins with man’s “only comfort” while the Shorter Catechism begins with “God’s glory” as man’s chief end.
dgh—Maybe Reformed Protestants need to learn a thing or two about how to be truly theocentric. The Lutheran theology of the cross could teach Reformed Protestants a measure of humility in their self-ascribed ability to locate God’s glory in every nook and cranny of the created order. Reformed might also consider that Lutherans understand better than Reformed triumphalists and experimental Calvinists that God’s glory is nowhere more on display, at least in this world, in the justification of sinners.
LikeLike