From DGH on Does The Gospel Threaten Submitted on 2015 03 24 at 12:22 pm

Mark,

You have me scratching my head again. If the gospel threatens, as you say:

God, as Adam’s father, threatened Adam in the Garden. His threat was an act of love (grace?), designed to keep Adam from sinning. Adam had good reason, then, to be afraid of God when he sinned. It would have been the “essence of impiety” not to have been afraid after he rebelled against God. Adam’s first sin was unbelief. But he clearly forgot to fear God, which was a factor in his unbelief. Adam doubted God’s threat to him as well as God’s love.

then when God said to Adam, “if you eat of the tree you will surely die,” we have the first expression of the Gospel — the protoevangelion as it were. And here I had thought that Genesis 3:15 was the first instance of the gospel:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.

Silly me.

While I have you, I have to ask about your math skills. In your reflections on China (and I do wonder what the sound of 1,000,000 Chinese Christians clapping sounds like) you say that the underground church in China is the size of 100,000 OPC churches. Did you mean the OPC with its total church membership (roughly 32,000) or number of churches/congregations (roughly 300)? If the former, my math says the underground church in would reach a level of 32,000,000,000. But if it is only the size of the number of OPC congregations, then the underground church would be 300,000,000.

Is this one of those metric system differences between the U.S. and Canada?

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “From DGH on Does The Gospel Threaten Submitted on 2015 03 24 at 12:22 pm

  1. Ah, “Gospel Threatenings”; a term so oxymoronic that only the Reformed can say it with a straight face. If only all Calvinists were as sane as Dr. Hart. 🙂

    Like

  2. Andrew — I don’t even know what the sound of 1 Orthodox Presbyterian clapping sounds like, let alone an entire church of them.

    Is now a good time to start a debate about clapping in worship and the RPW? Cause if we’re done w/ the whole psalm-singing debate, we could always go there… or not.

    Like

  3. I want to start a pool on how many different ways MJ is going to get it wrong. We can have side pots on which confusion will be next and another on how many years this will go on and another on how many years till he’s over himself and still another on if he’ll ever be over himself. Maybe one on how many missteps will be justified, because puritans. The possibilities are as limitless as the time period for preparationism.

    Like

  4. the indwelling Spirit knows love and that not loving always harms and needs no warnings or ‘threats’; but our remaining flesh needs them all the time that we not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap for the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Even if we deny the Lord’s abundant word on this, our selves attest to it, don’t they?

    for the believer, why warnings,threats to the flesh: because the thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy, but Jesus came that we may have life, and have it abundantly; The Lord desires that we are not ones barely escaping, suffering loss. John 10:10; Gal 6: 7-8; 2 Peter 2:18; 1 Cor 3:15

    Like

  5. Perhaps he meant 100,000 congregations. There is about 100/congregation, so that would be about 10million. In a land of a billion people, that doesn’t seem like much. I thought it was more like a hundred million which would be a million OPC congregations.

    Like

  6. Geez louise, but isn’t it the Law that threatens and the Gospel that comforts?

    I mean, I don’t mean to sound like a terrible person, but I’ve known enough people that doubt God’s love and are something wanting to throw themselves off a cliff because they doubt it, and if I were to tell them that the Gospel has threats.

    Eh.

    Not surprising to be honest. My experience in Evangelicalism-land has shown me that many ministers aren’t good at mental illness. Saying that, Mike Horton did a White Horse Inn thing on mental illness that I thought was good.

    I only say this because I’ve seen (as I’m sure alot of you folk) what’s happened when Law and Gospel are mixed. Not pretty. <_<

    Like

  7. Do you have faith? Will you have faith tomorrow?

    Mike Horton: “Jewish branches that did not yield faith were broken off to make room for living Gentile branches that share the faith of Abraham in Christ. And yet he adds, “They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you” . The whole tree is holy, but dead branches will be pruned. The whole church of Corinth is addressed as “the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1:2)….To be claimed as part of God’s holy field comes with threats as well as blessings. Covenant members who do not believe are under the covenant curse. HOW CAN THEY FALL UNDER THE CURSES OF A COVENANT TO WHICH THEY DID NOT BELONG? God promises his saving grace in Christ to each person in baptism, whether they embrace this promise or not. Yet they must embrace the promise in faith. Otherwise, they fall under the covenant curse without Christ as their mediator….”

    Like

  8. “This double covenant is proposed to us in Scripture: of nature and of grace; of works and of faith; legal and evangelical. The foundation of this distinction rests the different relation of God contracting (who can be considered now as Creator and Lord, then as Redeemer and Father) and on the diverse condition of man (who may be viewed either as a perfect or as a fallen creature); also on the diverse mode of obtaining life and happiness (either by proper obedience or by another’s imputed); finally on the diverse duties prescribed to man (to wit; works or faith).” — Turretin, Inst 8.3.4

    There are several points at which FT and MJ are not in agreement. The first is in the question of grace in the covenant of works. The second is in the question of God as Father in the covenant of works. And the third is in reckoning Adam’s sin as unbelief.

    FT is not the Bible, but he does reflect a mature Reformed reflection on covenants.

    Like

  9. I’ll take the under on twelve months. He’s feigned at least twice at taking his ball and going home but eventually somebody won’t ‘handle’ him in the manner he’s accustomed and he’ll give another lecture about being a pastor and being bombarded by small people and it’ll coincide with his new website called, Reinventing The Wheel(Pastoral reflections on doctoring the soul and other mishaps)

    Like

  10. I thought the argument from the French version of the Belgic was especially compelling.

    OR

    I looked for an argument but only found MJ.

    Like

  11. Some ideas for for a new tagline for Ref21:

    Reformation 21 – where the gospel is good news…sort of.

    -or-

    Reformation 21 – the gospel: good news for good people.

    -or-

    Reformation 21 – what happens when pietism, puritans, and wrestling masks collide.

    I am sure some of your deviant minds can do even better.

    Like

  12. Mad, don’t think too hard about it, the sound of one hand clapping, that is. That’s the point. MJ’s comment about 100k OPC churches (Orthodox Presbyterian Church churches?) is just odd. Whatevs.

    That’ll do just fine, Jed. That’ll do.

    Like

  13. The OPC comment by Rasslemania is just his way of reminding the OP geeks that he’s part of the PCA which is 10x the size of the OP. So hate on, just remember who’s boss, geeks. Oh yeah — and I write for Ref21. And I went to China.

    Like

  14. a.

    I’m two over par for commenting today here. You’ll have to ask some other no name commenter.

    Until tomorrow.

    Like

  15. One friend had wisely written, “There are threatenings in the new covenant but not the gospel.” There are no “threatenings” in the gospel if the category of “pure promise” is to be maintained. It seems to me the gospel must have a category of “pure promise” or there is really no gospel at all. Has anyone found in Mark Jones’s writings a category for the gospel as “pure promise” or is “the gospel” always qualified with something else?

    This same friend had also stated, “To tell believers that the gospel (large sense) threatens and the gospel (strict sense) comforts suffers from an endless need of continual qualifications and clarifications. There is no reason why a third category—a hybrid—of “gospel threatenings” is needed to refute antinomianism. It is far more helpful to say that “threatenings” belong to the new covenant (particularly the law in the new covenant), which appears to be the meaning of Dort.”

    Like

  16. Brad, but puritans. MJ purposely set it up contra L/G distinction. Which leaves him with a square wheel. But puritans.

    Like

  17. Michael,

    For always standing by my side, please peruse this, I heartily recommend the article starting on page 10. I used to go to church with Rev. Henry Coray who is pictured. He passed away in 2002.

    It’s your world, man. We’re just living in it.

    With that, I’ve successfully three-putted, I hope you are warm and filled, amigo.

    Until next time,
    Andrew

    Like

  18. Sean, did you say Puritans?

    How many ways does the Word of God teach us to come to the Kingdom of heaven? Two. Which are they? The Law and the Gospel. What says the Law? Do this and live. What says the Gospel? Believe in Jesus Christ and you shall be saved. Can we come to the Kingdom of God by the way of God’s Law? No. Why so? Because we cannot do it. Why can we not do it? Because we are all born in sin. What is it to be none in sin? To be naturally prone to evil and …that that which is good. How did it come to pass that we are all borne in sin? By reason of our first father Adam. Which way then do you hope to come to the Kingdom of Heaven? By the Gospel? What is the Gospel? The glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ. To whom is the glad tidings brought: to the righteousness? No. Why so? For two reasons. What is the first? Because there is none that is righteous and sin not. What is the other reason? Because if we were righteous, i.e., without sin we should have no need of Christ Jesus. To whom then is this glad tiding brought? To sinners. What, to all sinners? To whom then? To such as believe and repent. This is the first lesson, to know the right way to the Kingdom of Heaven.: and this consists in knowing the difference between the Law and the Gospel. What does the Law require? That we should be without sin. What does the Gospel require? That we should confess our sins, amend our lives, and then through faith in Christ we shall be saved. The Law requires what? Perfect obedience. The Gospel what? Faith and true repentance. (William Twisse, A Brief Catechetical Exposition of Christian Doctrine, 1633).

    And some others…

    John Murray (1898-1975) …the purity and integrity of the gospel stands or falls with the absoluteness of the antithesis between the function and potency of law, one the one hand, and the function and potency of grace, on the other(Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], 186).

    Edward Fisher (c.1601-1655). Now, the law is a doctrine partly known by nature, teaching us that there is a God, and what God is, and what he requires us to do, binding all reasonable creatures to perfect obedience, both internal and external, promising the favour of God, and everlasting life to all those who yield perfect obedience thereunto, and denouncing the curse of God and everlasting damnation to all those who are not perfectly correspondent thereunto. But the gospel is a doctrine revealed from heaven by the Son of God, presently after the fall of mankind into sin and death, and afterwards manifested more clearly and fully to the patriarchs and prophets, to the evangelists and apostles, and by them spread abroad to others; wherein freedom from sin, from the curse of the law, the wrath of God, death, and hell, is freely promised for Christ’s sake unto all who truly believe on his name (The Marrow of Modern Divinity; 1645, repr. 1978, 337-38. NB: The author of the Marrow was designated only as E.F. Therefore some scholars doubt whether Edward Fisher was actually the author).

    J.C. Ryle (1816-1900). To be unable to see any difference between law and gospel, truth an error, Protestantism and Popery, the doctrine of Christ and the doctrine of man, is a sure proof that we are yet dead in heart, and need conversion.(Expository Thoughts on John, 2:198-199).

    J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937). A new and more powerful proclamation of law is perhaps the most pressing need of the hour; men would have little difficulty with the gospel if they had only learned the lesson of the law. As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens… ‘Making Christ Master’ in the life, putting into practice ‘the principles of Christ’ by one’s own efforts-these are merely new ways of earning salvation by one’s obedience to God’s commands (What Is Faith?, 1925).

    Louis Berkhof (1873-1957). The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God’s will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love of God in Christ Jesus (Systematic Theology, [Grand Rapids, 4th edn. 1941], 612).

    Like

  19. AB, I just read Coray’s vignette on Machen. Thanks for the link. The phrase “unaffected seriousness” wrt to Machen’s pulpit manners stood out to me. Our churches could use some more of that.

    Like

  20. Mike Horton—“To be claimed as part of God’s holy field comes with THREATS as well as blessings. Covenant members who do not believe are under the covenant curse. HOW CAN THEY FALL UNDER THE CURSES OF A COVENANT TO WHICH THEY DID NOT BELONG? God promises his saving grace in Christ to EACH PERSON in baptism, WHETHER THEY EMBRACE THIS PROMISE OR NOT Yet they must embrace the promise in faith. Otherwise, they fall under the covenant CURSE without Christ as their mediator….”

    http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?p=41

    Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, p. 345—The new covenant is not a renewal of an older covenant in the sense of confirming the continuing validity of the old covenant… With respect to the old covenant as a typological realization of the promised kingdom realm, the new covenant does not confirm the continuing validity of the old but rather announces its obsolescence and end. As the Jeremiah 31:31-34 prophecy indicated, the old covenant in its typological kingdom aspect was not a permanent order of the grace-guarantee kind but a probationary arrangement informed by the works principle, hence breakable. And having been broken, it was perforce terminated.

    Meredith Kline, By Oath Consigned, p. 76— Jeremiah beheld the messianic accomplishment in that perfection which historically is reached only in the fully eschatological age to come, as the ultimate goal of a process which in the present semi-eschatological age of this world is still marked by tragic imperfection. But the theologian of today ought not impose on himself the visionary limitations of an Old Testament prophet. By virtue of the fuller revelation he enjoys (cf. Lk. 10:24; I Pet. 1:10, 12) he is able to distinguish these two distinct stages in the history of the New Covenant and to observe plainly that the imperfection of the covenant people and program has continued on from the Old Covenant into the present phase of New Covenant history. It is in accordance with this still only semi-eschatological state of affairs that the administration of the New Covenant is presently characterized by dual sanctions, having in particular, anathemas to pronounce and excommunications to execute.

    Lee Irons adds this clarification—-“The Kline of Kingdom Prologue (p 316) would agree that the New Covenant has “excommunications to execute” on apostates, but that is not quite the same thing as anathemas or curses. According to Kline revised, the CURSE of divine judgment still comes from the Adamic covenant of works (and not from the new covenant) “

    Like

  21. Zrim, that’s pretty good but EVERYONE knows it’s when you read the Latin and French translations that’s where you understand the puritan heart and gospel terrors.

    Like

  22. Do gospel terrorists quote imprecatory psalms while they preach the gospel? I bear glad tidings, are you one of the ‘almost believers’! Come with me and let me tend to your soul. Run Forrest run.

    Like

  23. This might be helpful (or not since it is another Puritan):

    John Owen:

    “It followeth hence, (1.) That whatever be the state and condition of them unto whom we dispense the word, or whatever we may conceive it to be, we are not, with respect thereunto, to baulk or waive the delivery and pressing of any evangelical warning, or the severest threatening contained in the gospel, much less encouragements and motives unto faith and obedience, though we are persuaded they both believe and obey. For as it is not impossible but that both they and we may be mistaken in their condition, and that the severest menaces may be their proper portion in the world; so, be their condition what it will, all these things have not only their proper use towards them, but are necessary for them in their several kinds. For although they, every one of them as singly laid down, are of the same signification in themselves, yet in their application unto men they have a sense suited unto their condition. For instance: — the same threatening, as applied unto unbelievers, tends to beget dread, terror, and fear of wrath in them, to fill them with evidences of God’s displeasure: as applied unto believers, it tends only to fill them with reverential fear of God, care to avoid the sin threatened, and to excite diligence in the use of means for its avoidance. All of them are good for all. As, therefore, if we should always, in the dispensation of the word, insist on the threatenings of the law and gospel, — whose denunciation multitudes do certainly stand need of, — we might weaken and discourage those whom God would not have to be discouraged; so, on the other hand, if, out of an apprehension that our people or congregations are made up of believers, we should continually insist on the promises of the gospel, with the like springs of consolation, seldom or never pressing on them the threatenings and severe menaces thereof, we should certainly defraud them of a blessed means which God hath ordained for their edification and preservation in faith. The holy intermixture of all these things in the Scripture itself is to be our rule, and not any imagination of our own.” (Hebrews 5:153)

    Like

  24. Patrick, see Zrim’s cut and paste project, above. So, do the different ‘words’ actually differ in essence or merely in reception or pastoral application. Did the Jews merely misinterpret or are there two distinct sons by two distinct and contrary mothers?

    Like

  25. The puritans favorite Puritan:
    “Fourthly; Christ is not in the law; he is not proposed in it, not communicated by it, – we are not made partakers of him thereby. This is the work of grace, of the gospel. In it is Christ revealed, by it he is proposed and exhibited unto us; thereby are we made partakers of him and all the benefits of his mediation. And he it is alone who came to, and can, destroy this work of the devil…. This “the Son of God was manifested to destroy.” He alone ruins the kingdom of Satan, whose power is acted in the rule of sin. Wherefore, hereunto our assurance of this comfortable truth is principally resolved. And what Christ hath done, and doth, for this end, is a great part of the subject of gospel revelation.”
    John Owen – A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace

    and…

    “This whole matter of sanctification and holiness is peculiarly joined with and limited unto the doctrine, truth, and grace of the gospel; for holiness is nothing but the implanting, writing, and realizing of the gospel in our souls…
    “The “law,” indeed, for certain ends, “was given by Moses,” but all “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” There neither is, nor ever was, in the world, nor ever shall be, the least dram of holiness, but what, flowing from Jesus Christ, is communicated by the Spirit, according to the truth and promise of the gospel.”

    – John Owen, Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit.

    Like

  26. Jack, which reminds me of one of Owen’s concluding remarks on the mortification of sin, particularly besetting sin; ‘get a sense of the love of God for you in Jesus Christ’ (paraphrase)

    Like

  27. Patrick: This might be helpful (or not since it is another Puritan):

    What if I told you that it was helpful because it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument?

    Your quote of Owen, which I affirm whole-heartedly, tells us that we must not neglected the preaching of the commands. Very true; but it would be on point ONLY IF the aim or practice of your interlocutors were to neglect the preaching of the commands.

    It’s not. In my preaching, I affirm in almost every sermon the necessity of keeping God’s law, together with the impossibility of doing so completely.

    The point of making the gospel central is not to provide cover for neglecting the law. It is rather to place the law within its proper framework.

    Perhaps that gives you some measure of relief?

    Like

  28. sean, Owen doesn’t fit easily into the template that he is being employed to support. Another favorite from Owen:

    The law guides, directs, commands, all things that are against the interest and rule of sin. It judgeth and condemneth both the things that promote it and the persons that do them; it frightens and terrifies the consciences of those who are under its dominion. But if you shall say unto it, “What then shall we do? this tyrant, this enemy, is too hard for us. What aid and assistance against it will you afford unto us? what power will you communicate unto its destruction?” Here the law is utterly silent, or says that nothing of this nature is committed unto it of God: nay, the strength it hath it gives unto sin for the condemnation of the sinner: “The strength of sin is the law.” But the gospel, or the grace of it, is the means and instrument of God for the communication of internal spiritual strength unto believers. By it do they receive supplies of the Spirit or aids of grace for the subduing of sin and the destruction of its dominion… (John Owen, A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace)

    If one cares about the gospel, why the resistance to the law-gospel antithesis or wanting to conflate the two, even a little bit, which undermines the grace of the gospel? “But if it is by grace, it is no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” Rom. 11:6. The law and its threatenings as taught in Scripture certainly are to accompany the good news of Christ death and resurrection for the salvation of sinners. Why? As Owen writes in Hebrews commentary, “Because they become the gospel.” That is, the law which diagnoses our sin and its threatenings are suitable or proper to accompany the good news of the offered remedy – Christ crucified. The orthodox Reformed theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries called this preaching law and gospel. Together it can be said that they make up the message of the gospel in its broad sense. In that sense the message can be said to contain law and threatenings as well as the good news of salvation in Christ. But that doesn’t mean that the promise of the gospel, the power of God unto salvation, is part demand of law for works of sanctification and part good news of forgiveness in Christ for justification. As Paul wrote, sinners are completely saved only by grace through faith in Christ alone and it is not of ourselves in whole or in part – it is the gift of God (Eph. 2:8).

    Like

  29. I would encourage friends in Vancouver to make a drive to find a good Reformed Confessional church – even if was out of the city limits. Readers here at Old Life may know of one.

    Like

  30. Mark Jones—Is it possible to question the Marrow today without being accused of being neonomian? Boston had reservations about the conditionality of the covenant of grace, but pretty much every orthodox Reformed theologian I have read affirmed the conditionality of the covenant of grace .. in describing how faith is an antecedent condition for receiving the benefits of the covenant. They had to in order to ward off the Antinomian view that faith was not a condition for receiving the benefits of Christ.

    Mark Jones—The Marrow Men ended up fighting a battle in order to defend the Auchterarder Creed.—-“It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ.” … Witsius, the so-called “middle-man” in the Antinomian-Neonomian debates that emerged in the latter part of the seventeenth century, asks whether repentance precedes the remission of sins. Does sorrow for sin precede justification as a disposing condition, prerequisite in the subject? An awakened sinner will, in his experience, have a previous (or, concomitant/accompanying) hatred for sin and purpose of a new life before receiving Christ.

    http://www.paramountchurch.com/blog/post/how-do-i-know-im-a-christian

    Like

  31. Matthew Mason—According to John Owen, although God’s will toward the elect was not changed upon the death of Christ, for he is immutable, Christ’s death nevertheless changed the status of the elect. On the basis of Christ’s merit, founded on God’s free engagement in the covenant of redemption with his Son, God is obliged to deliver them from the curse . Therefore, because of Christ’s satisfaction, God is able to give out the benefits Christ purchased, without any other conditions needing to be fulfilled. In particular, Christ also purchased faith in the gospel for the elect. Hence, from the time of the atonement, the elect have an absolute right to justification.

    Fisher’s Catechism on Q.87, q.20 What is the evil in maintaining that none but true penitents have a warrant to embrace Christ by faith? a. It sets sinners upon spinning repentance out of their own bowels, that they may fetch it with them, as a price in their hand to Christ, instead of coming to him by faith, to obtain it from him, as his gift

    http://heidelblog.net/2013/11/are-gods-demands-always-gracious/

    David Robertson: I am astounded that you have suggested that I am more dangerous than a person who teaches that grace makes no demands….The demand for repentance is not good news! I could not disagree more…when God calls for repentance it is great news, because it means that he wants us to return to him….he has also provided the means.

    Scott Clark–Are you suggesting that Christians are still under wrath in some way? Of course God is displeased with Christians when the sin but our sin doesn’t place us back under the law for justification….Yes, repentance is an gospel in the broad sense, in the same way sanctification is a part of the gospel in the broad sense. In the narrow sense, however, we should be careful to distinguish faith and repentance because justification and sanctification are two distinct things. We are not justified because we are sanctified. We are sanctified, by God’s grace, because we are justified.

    Like

  32. Mark Jones—I have heard that one or two have argued that sanctification is by faith alone. No one disputes that it is by grace alone, but the more contentious question is whether sanctification is by faith alone. I do not think so, and I agree with Kevin DeYoung who also denies that sanctification is by faith alone. Of course, whatever does not comes from faith is sin. So sanctification always involves faith (Acts 26:18)… But the phrase itself is decidedly unhelpful.

    Mark Jones—In the process of becoming holier, are we sanctified by faith alone? I think what’s at stake is whether there are other means that God uses in a positive way to conform his people to the image of Christ Jesus. We could ask whether God’s gospel threats or his moral law are true and valid instruments of sanctification in the life of a Christian who is united to Christ

    Mark Jones—For Christ, keeping God’s commandments functioned as a means of sanctification (John . 15:10). For us, keeping the commandments likewise functions in part as the means by which we remain in Christ’s love

    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2016/01/great-scott-thomas-bostons-ort.php

    Like

  33. Jones, Antinomianism p 24–“There was a perfect synergy involved in Jesus’ human obedience and the Holy Spirit’s influence…Following this pattern, although man is completely passive at the moment of regeneration, he cooperates with God in sanctification.”

    The Christology of Mark Jones consists of equating the justification of Christ with the sanctification of a sinner. Jones denies that substitution makes our works not necessary for salvation. Jones accepts substitution FOR JUSTIFICATION ONLY, but agrees with Richard Gaffin and Norman Shepherd that our living by faith means our obeying the law.

    On p 22-23, Jones argues from the fact that Christ obtained salvation “bestowed on conditions”, that we too must obtain “sanctification” in the same way, bestowed on conditions. Instead of talking about the merits of Christ, he speaks of Christ’s living by faith, which was obeying the law, to get to the idea of our also living by faith, which then comes to mean our obeying the law.

    On p 24, Mark Jones argues from the fact that Christ “was not left to His own abilities but was enabled by the Spirit” to say that we Christians are enabled by the Spirit “to cooperate with God in sanctification. Except for the emphasis on sanctification instead of justification, the conclusion is no different from that of NT Wrights—don’t be so Christocentric, because the work of the Spirit in us is Christ’s work also for the not yet aspect of our justification.

    http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2015/10/08/are-good-works-necessary-to-salvation/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s