Law and Gospel
August 14, 2007 at 12:06 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)
The next section deals with the categories of law and gospel. Again, there are some good things and some not so good things.
The good things: they are willing to affirm that the law and the gospel are applications of the Word to individual people. I especially appreciate the “law as adversary, gospel as deliverance” language used. The redemptive-historical thrust of saying that the “law” was the way the OT covenant of grace was administered and the “gospel” is the way the NT covenant of grace was administered is also helpful.
The question in my mind is this: does the law still function in its first use for the Christian? There is no room in this statement for saying that. The idea here seems to be that if one is a believer, then the law is not your enemy. Period. Of course, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. That is admitted by all. But does the law continue to function in its first use (to condemn our sin and point us to Christ)? I would have to conclude that these authors would say “no” to that question. The only use of the law that is still applicatory is the third use of the law.
Second point: have they stripped the gospel of its “good-news-ness” by saying that for the nonbeliever the Gospel has the aroma of death? I would still say that the Gospel is good news even for those who are perishing. We are all perishing. From God’s viewpoint, of course, humans will garner more punishment for themselves by rejecting the good news of the Gospel. However, that still does not solve this point: is the Gospel good news even for the nonbeliever? This is ironic, in some ways, since the FV is concerned with what the NECM (non-elect covenant member) receives, and yet here they deny that good things go to nonbelievers from the Gospel. Are there not common grace implications that the Gospel has? Will not the conversion of the elect prove beneficial to the non-elect? I do not think that unbelievers hear the Gospel as intolerable demand, at least not all of them.
Third point: I have heard and read FV arguments about the hermeneutic of law/gospel, and I am simply not convinced. I do believe that John 3:16 is Gospel, and that Exodus 20 is law. Exodus 20 implies all three uses of the law. The fifth commandment has a promise attached to it. So what? Do this and live also has a promise attached to it. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t law. The promise is achieved by obedience to the law. This is standard first-use of the law terminology. It is not Gospel. The obedience is done by Jesus, and we are the beneficiaries. This is very, very standard Reformed interpretation of the Bible.
kjsulli said,
August 14, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Pr. Lane,
The fifth commandment has a promise attached to it. So what? Do this and live also has a promise attached to it. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t law. The promise is achieved by obedience to the law. This is standard first-use of the law terminology. It is not Gospel. The obedience is done by Jesus, and we are the beneficiaries. This is very, very standard Reformed interpretation of the Bible.
Indeed! Several of my comments were related to this idea, here: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/08/09/justification-and-covenant/. This seems to be a fundamental problem for FV. But watch, they will argue that Adam could only obey “by faith alone,” and thus the promise would have come “by faith alone.”
tim prussic said,
August 14, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Pastor Lane, descriptions of Ex 20 and Jn 3:16 don’t establish hermeneutical prescriptions of every other text of Scripture. In other words, there are such things as Law and Gospel, and they are distinct things. However, to move from that description to a hermeneutic that says every passage MUST be EITHER law or gospel is something quite different. The law/gospel distinction is quite Reformed (or, more broadly, Protestant). But a prescriptive hermeneutic is not quite so.
kjsulli, Adam had to obey God’s commandment, no? Could he have done so without faith? That is, could he have obeyed without believing God’s word, it’s commands, threats, and promises? Now, I’ll readily grant that faith plays different and peculiar roles in the justification of a fallen man, but Adam’s obedience would have sprung from faith. Don’t throw out the baby…
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 14, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Lane,
Your first paragraph represents a very difficult issue, one that is further obscured by our traditional nomenclature of the triplex usus legis (the threefold use of the law).
As long as we speak of “law” as being a-historical and a-covenantal (which we certainly do when we ask questions like, “How does ‘the law’ function in the covenant of grace versus the covenant of works?”), we will never, in my opinion, capture the dynamic of Christian sanctification and law-keeping.
But if we argue, on the other hand, that the elect saint is under the law of Christ (which is an enshrinement of God’s moral will formulated for those united with Jesus), then we no longer have to wring our hands about the supposed (Sinaitic) threats of the law’s “first use.”
So a passage like “Reckon yourselves dead to sin and alive to God” is certainly “law” (i.e., an imperative), but it is not designed to threaten the saint or convict the unbeliever, but rather, it is the natural, practical result of justification and union.
On this score, I would agree with those who pit the Calvinists against the Lutherans. “Lex” does not “semper accusat.”
pduggan said,
August 14, 2007 at 2:47 pm
The fifth commandment offers a promise for obedience to the commadment.
If that’s “law” then can anyone actually receive the promised reward?
How can we characterize the legal basis for the receipt of the promised reward in the 5th commandment?
Grover Gunn said,
August 14, 2007 at 3:47 pm
WSC Q. 66. What is the reason annexed to the fifth commandment?
A. The reason annexed to the fifth commandment is, a promise of long life and prosperity (as far as it shall serve for God’s glory, and their own good) to all such as keep this commandment.
This is a promise of reward like that which a loving father gives to his obedient child when the father in his wisdom deems this best. A reward differs from wages which are earned and can be demanded. God’s enabling us to meet the obligations of the covenant is an act of unmerited grace, and God’s rewarding our obedience is another act of unmerited grace. When we obey God, we are doing our duty, and God owes us nothing. God’s rewards to his faithful people are grace upon grace and mercy upon mercy. These rewards are sovereignly administered. Consider the parable of the hired workers. Yet God is loving and not arbitrary. Those who are faithful will be amply rewarded in this life and in the life to come. Conder the parable of the talents.
Grover Gunn
pduggan said,
August 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I understand Merideth Kline to argue whenever you find a promised annexed to a condition of works you have a “works principle”. Joshua’s cleansing in Zechariah is an example.
Is the 5th commandment an example?
Is Lline incorrect?
kjsulli said,
August 14, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Tim, re: 2,
If you had actually read my comments in the “Justification & Covenant” post, you wouldn’t ask those question of me. Thanks!
tim prussic said,
August 14, 2007 at 4:26 pm
kjsulli, sorry to have not read all your posts! This is a blog and constant interchanges occur without reference to past posts on other threads. Would you be so kind as to direct me to the post #s, for I’d be happy to read what you’ve written.
kjsulli said,
August 14, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Tim, re: 8,
You responded to me in that post a few times. My comments there begin with #93. In #151 I had even asked you to go back and read a few other of my comments. So you’ll forgive me if I feel no need to rehash everything that I already said there.
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 14, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Remember that a big FV point is that the Ten Commandments come as Gospel. God had already redeemed them from Egypt, cf. Ex. 20:1.
They never seem to deal with the fact that the Ten Commandments came in a terrifying theophany-storm, and that these redeemed people trembled at receiving the Law. Right after they got them. The very next verses in Exodus 20.
So, what do they do? What they should. They call out for a mediator. In their case, Moses.
In the same way, the Law comes to us who are redeemed that we may obey it in its third use. But we who know even a little bit of the depths of our continued sin still need and know its first use, even as believers, to drive us to God’s continued mercy in Christ, our mediator.
Those who say that Law always comes as Gospel to the Christian, and never convicts the believer after conversion — I have to wonder how well they judge themselves to be following the Law such that they feel no continuing conviction.
I just cannot relate.
reformedmusings said,
August 14, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Why not turn to the WLC?
Q. 95. Of what use is the moral law to all men?
A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.
Q. 96. What particular use is there of the moral law to unregenerate men?
A. The moral law is of use to unregenerate men, to awaken their consciences to flee from wrath to come, and to drive them to Christ; or, upon their continuance in the estate and way of sin, to leave them inexcusable, and under the curse thereof.
Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.
Notice the connection between questions 95 and 97 as far as the use of the law “common to them with all men.” That would be the classic first use of the law, just as Lane wrote in his post. It also seems clear that the Catechism sees the law as law, not grace, in all its uses, including for believers (e.g., “provokes”, “obedience”).
Douglas Wilson said,
August 14, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Chris, who says that the law does not convict Christians? That is not our point at all. If the law says not to lie, and I lie, then I am cut to the heart by the law. Of course. The point we are making is that to be convicted like this is part of my life as a Christian — God’s rebukes are always oil on my head. Conviction is not an end in itself. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but rather painful. Of course, and the law is God’s paddle for spanking His children. But He does not spank us as an end in itself. It is part of a story, and that story is the peaceful fruit of an upright life. That story’s ending makes the painful chapters part of a comedy — it is good news.
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 1:41 am
Wilson, you are just going to have to do better than that last comment. That is the most gobbledeegook mess I’ve ever seen in a discussion of Reformed doctrine, even coming from a Federal Vision adherent. My goodness, why don’t you go away for a few years and regather, consult your conscience, question what you’ve been doing and where you currently are.
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 15, 2007 at 2:02 am
Robert K.,
When you say “My goodness” are you talking about your own good works and merit apart from a purely intellectual affirmation of Gospel propositions? That seems kind of Roman Catholic.
Or are you talking about Christ’s merit and active obedience imputed and reckoned to you. If so, it seems like you are using this vainly.
Also it sounds more like “infused” language than “imputed” language when you so casually say “My goodness”. And do you mean condign or congruent or pactum goodness?
Or are you using this phrase in a specialized, stipulated way?
And i hope you only capitalized the “M” in “My” because it was at the beginning of the sentence and not as a reference to some infused Divinity.
In loving concern,
Mahaffey
Grover Gunn said,
August 15, 2007 at 2:22 am
As WLC Q. 97 says, the regenerate are under the law not as the covenant of works but as the rule of their obedience. For the regenerate, the moral law is a guide to the new obedience which is a necessary fruit of saving faith. It is a means of fulfilling his new desire to please God. Through regeneration, God has written His law upon the regenerate’s heart. This is not a reference to revelation apart from the word but to the regenerate’s new heart desire and aspiration. He wants to obey the moral law found in the word because this pleases His heavenly father.
The means of grace are primarily the word, sacraments and prayer. The law is part of the word and is thus a means of grace. The regenerate person delights in the law and meditates upon it with the result that he is like a tree planted beside the rivers of water which brings forth its fruit in its season. When the regenerate person obeys the law as a rule of obedience, he should praise God for God’s enabling grace and praise Jesus for cleansing the sin which clings even to his obedience so that God can accept his good works. When God rewards the obedient, again it is grace upon grace. Obeying God’s law as a rule of obedience does result in rewards both in this life and the next.
When the regenerate sins, he faces God not as a wrathful judge but as a displeased father. God can use the law to convict the regenerate of his sin and to motivate the regenerate to confess his sin to his heavenly Father and to ask for fatherly forgiveness. The regenerate is never under God’s wrath but he can be under God’s fatherly displeasure.
WCF 11.5
God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
Grover Gunn
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 2:28 am
It means “my God.” Look up “idiom.”
Now ask yourself: if you read something written by a man (Wilson) who you call your teacher, and it is a pure mess (and an embarrassing mess at that), and you feel you have to deflect for your embattled teacher who is making a fool of himself, why not instead just question yourself as to why you have him as your teacher to begin with?
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 15, 2007 at 2:32 am
Rev. Keister,
In all seriousness,
How do you categorize the following Scriptures?
Acts 6:7, “Then the word of God spread, and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith.”
Romans 1:5, “Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name.”
Rom 16:26, “but now made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith.”
2Th 1:8, “in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
I Pet. 4:17, “For the time [has come] for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if [it begins] with us first, what will [be] the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?”
2Cr 9:13, “while, through the proof of this ministry, they glorify God for the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ, and for [your] liberal sharing with them and all [men].”
Rom 10:16, “But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “LORD, who has believed our report?”
Rom. 3:27, “Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.”
1Ti 5:8, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Act 17:30, “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.”
Law or Gospel?
Blessings,
Mahaffey
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 15, 2007 at 2:44 am
Robert K.
I reread wilson’s post several times and I cannot figure out what set you off. It was a paraphrase and application of Heb. 12: 5-15.
Grover,
Excellent application of the catechism. I agree.
Blessings,
Mahaffey
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 3:00 am
Sean M. in Reformed doctrine there is Law as well in the New Testament just as there is Gospel in the Old Testament.
Doing a word search on ‘obedience’ to make a point about law vis-a-vis the New Testament is silly.
Here are some law verses in the N.T.:
Matt. 5:48
Rom. 12:1,2
Jam. 4:8
2 Cor. 7:1
James 1:19
Matt. 28:20
1 John 5:21
1 Cor. 10:7
Matt. 4:10
John 5:39
2 Pet. 3:18
Acts 16:31
1 John 3:23
John 14:1
Luke 13:3,5
Rev. 3:19
Jam. 4:10
1 Pet. 5:5,6
Matt. 7:7
1 Cor. 16:13
Eph. 6:10
2 Tim. 2:1
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 3:36 am
>”Robert K. I reread wilson’s post several times and I cannot figure out what set you off. It was a paraphrase and application of Heb. 12: 5-15.”
It’s a mess because it didn’t correlate to Chris’ comment. Wilson wants - needs - to conflate law and gospel because that is a main, necessary ingredient in his age old poison. Chris cornered him, and Wilson did what all sophists with poisonous doctrine do, he threw down a lot of words, some of which the equivalent of “Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh, I hold to this, hallelujah!”, attempting overall to give the impression he actually said something re the subject at hand.
Basically, to answer the high priest Doug: in Reformed (in biblical) doctrine the law is subservient to the Gospel. In the Gospel what God demands He gives freely.
Law to Doug Wilson and the Federal Visionists is what it always is to the unregenerate and man-centered: a perversion of God’s law. *It is the Beast.* God’s law is perfect and correlates to the Image of God in man. Fallen man with a debased Image of God perverts and distorts God’s law. Born again man reconnects with God’s law based on the new heart and restored Image of God within born again man. God’s Law is what man in the Image of God IS. It isn’t what man *follows.* As a new man I engage in spiritual warfare against my old nature, the world, and the devil because that is what I am, a soldier of Christ carrying the Image of God within me. I don’t do it because I’m following the law. The law is now *what I am.*
In this life this is by degree. Perfection is only at the point of glorification. Thus the exhortation.
But Law is Law and Gospel is Gospel. Conflating the two is to concoct poison.
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 3:52 am
What Federal Visionists do with Reformed Theology is to attack it at points where it requires the most Spirit-guided discernment, i.e. where Reformed Christians can understand it very well and see what the FVists are doing but where others with currently less understanding of Reformed doctrine are not able to see them working their deception; and this is why I say a distinctive of FVism is ‘disingenuous bewilderment.’ They have to launch into this act of disingenuous bewilderment when they start their: “But does not Calvin say in this passage…?” when they know what Calvin is saying is not what they are attempting to lead people into. They also of course launch into their disingenuous bewilderment act when simply corrected in the basics: “But why could you possibly be correcting me when I didn’t say that?” and variations on that theme. This is why with Federal Visionists - the leaders - we are dealing with deeply wicked individuals. Perhaps individuals who are sinning against the Holy Spirit Himself, because they give this evidence of knowing the truth in the midst of their effort to attack and debase and defile the truth.
Mark T. said,
August 15, 2007 at 4:39 am
Douglas Wilson writes,
<blockquote? If the law says not to lie, and I lie, then I am cut to the heart by the law.
I wait with the rest of Christendom to see evidence of this so-called cutting to the heart, until then I remain convinced that Wilson is not convicted.
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 15, 2007 at 5:24 am
Robert K.
You unsurprisingly missed the entire point. I did not list law verses or obedience verses. I listed ten verses to show that the statement “Law is Law and Gospel is Gospel” is too simplistic to be biblical. Read the verses. Try to notice the portions that would be relevant to our discussion - “obedient to the faith”, “obedience to the faith”, “vengeance…on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ”, “the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God”, “the obedience of your confession to the gospel of Christ”, “they have not all obeyed the gospel”, “By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith”.
These verses clearly show that it is appropriate at times to speak of the Law as Gospel and the Gospel as Law. The Law/Gospel distinction has its place, but it is not an absolute division. The gospel requires obedience to the risen Savior and Lord. It has commands, it is a law. The law is a tutor (schoolmaster, teacher, guardian) to bring us to Christ, it is a gospel message. Christ is the telos (end,goal,purpose,aim) of the law for all who believe. To those who believe, the law is gospel as well as command and conviction.
Think Robert. Read and think before you talk. The Lord rebuke you for your arrogant and slanderous reviling of ministers.
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 5:57 am
Sean, nice try. You did a word search on ‘obedience’ and thought you were saying something revelational to Reformed doctrine. Then you have simply repeated what you were corrected on. While still not understanding any of it.
You write: “it is appropriate at times to speak of the Law as Gospel and the Gospel as Law.”
What you miss is the Law and the Gospel are not equal. Law assumes a person who is capable of following it perfectly. Gospel assumes a person who is dead in sin and fully incapable of following the law. You have to die to the law and come alive in Christ. Then law is no longer the law of works but the law of Christ. In the law of Christ what God demands he gives freely. For every verse I listed above I can list another verse from the New Testament declaring that what is being demanded is given by God Himself.
The law of works is a curse. It is not gracious. Adam couldn’t do it, and we fell in Adam. Only Jesus could fulfill the demands of the law. Now law for us - for us born again Christians - is the law of Christ. What is demanded of us we are given. We have. Our sanctification - progressive, active sanctification - is by degree and not perfect until glorification. It happens on the unlosable foundation of justification. Vindication at the final judgment includes judgment of degree of reward.
Why don’t you just buy some good Reformed books.
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 6:13 am
When Doug Wilson - like the Pope and his clerics - says “follow the law of works” he is saying “follow the Beast.” “Bow your knee to the Beast.”
God’s perfect law is always perverted and distorted by fallen man and becomes the Beast.
Wilson - and the Pope’s - act of putting shiny white paint on the law of works is called ‘moralism.’ In the system of the Beast moralism reigns. Ritualism, moralism, formalism, clericalism, and an overarching fear of man in place of the fear of God.
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 6:16 am
Sean M., you’re probably close to seeing the power of the Gospel. Start by throwing off the death of age-old false doctrine going around now under the name Federal Vision (or whatever).
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 6:29 am
>Vindication at the final judgment includes judgment of degree of reward.
Most of us will be plebeians, no doubt, for spending all our time on internet forums…
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 15, 2007 at 8:07 am
>>Most of us will be plebeians, no doubt, for spending all our time on internet forums<<
Sean Gerety said,
August 15, 2007 at 10:16 am
But watch, they will argue that Adam could only obey “by faith alone,” and thus the promise would have come “by faith alone.”
You are correct, but why do some people still have trouble seeing the similarity between the FV and Romanism? Rome holds to justification by faith alone in the same sense as the FV. The problem is neither understand justification by faith alone in the same sense as the Reformed and as Christians in general have universally have understood the phrase.
Are people just fooled by the professions of these men that they too believe in JBFA even though they mean something completely different than the Reformers?
Sean Gerety said,
August 15, 2007 at 10:41 am
Tim writes:
kjsulli, Adam had to obey God’s commandment, no? Could he have done so without faith? That is, could he have obeyed without believing God’s word, it’s commands, threats, and promises?
You talk as if faith were some sort of magical ingredient. As if faith were some sort of amorphos mystical power which is infused into a person that enables him to do the work of the law by which he might be saved. Yet, faith or belief (since they’re the same word and mean the same thing) is assent to an understood proposition. That’s it. Saving faith is assent to the propositions or message of the gospel. Believe the gospel and you will be saved - not believe the gospel and faithfully keep the “commands of the covenant” and you’ll be saved. The addition of works, even works done “in faith” is what makes the FV damnable.
Faithful obedience to the demands of the FV’s conditional covenant brings death. Faithfully attempting to keep the law, even doing so in the name of Jesus, does not result in life especially on the last day. It still brings judgment and death.
They said therefore to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
Paul adds, “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”
stewart said,
August 15, 2007 at 10:53 am
“Yet, faith or belief (since they’re the same word and mean the same thing) is assent to an understood proposition. That’s it. Saving faith is assent to the propositions or message of the gospel.”
So do we have faith while we sleep at night?
SamChevre said,
August 15, 2007 at 11:00 am
Sean,
I’m trying to follow your argument; am I understanding it correctly?
Justification is by faith alone.
All who are justified are saved, therefore salvation is by faith alone.
Therefore, salvation is not in any way dependent on obedience.
Therefore, all the warnings and commands in Paul’s epistles are irrelevant to those who are saved.
I can’t agree with the conclusion, but I’m not certain which step in the argument you are disagreeing with.
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 15, 2007 at 11:08 am
Doug,
Thanks for the clarification. I am glad to hear you affirm the first use of the Law in the life of the Christian. And I agree with you what said about the purpose of God’s discipline in the Christian’s life. It is more of a disagreement of what sanctification looks like I think.
I was keying off this paragraph from your statement:
“We further affirm that those who are first coming to faith in Christ frequently experience the law as an adversary and the gospel as deliverance from that adversary, meaning that traditional evangelistic applications of law and gospel are certainly scriptural and appropriate.”
I suppose I could have charitably read that to mean that in the process of conversion, we “frequently” experience the law as adversary and the gospel as deliverance; and that later on in our Christian lives, we can still experience it, but *less frequently* as sanctification progresses? Is that what you meant?
If so, the question is then, whether, pastorally, the FV places enough of a Scriptural emphasis upon the first use of the Law in the ongoing life of the Christian or not. Many of us believe that the law/gospel distinction continues to be necessary in sanctification as well as justification, precisely because we cannot keep the law as Jesus enjoins us to in Mt. 5.
For the law not only convicts us about such things as lying, but about whether what we are doing is truly built for Christ’s reputation or for our own (I Cor 3); whether our works stem from love or not (I Cor 13); whether they reflect the wisdom from above or not (James 3); whether we consider others better than ourselves or not (Phil 2). It convicts us not only of adultery and murder, but of lustful eyes, insulting speech, unfulfilled promises, and most of all, a lack of self-giving love and service. It convicts us anywhere we are not perfectly mature (Mt. 5:4
or lack faith (Heb. 11).
Then, the more we realize our lack in such things, the more we must then cling to Christ alone as our righteousness, so that we preach Christ and not ourselves or own agendas (Phil 3; I Cor 2). I have found this to be the most difficult thing in ministry, much less my Christian life. Every day, honestly evaluated, is a picture of BOTH Romans 7 and Romans 8.
So, when we hear the Ten Commandments read, we hear not only my duty, joyfully accepted by God’s grace, but also our failures to keep it as we should. That latter reminder helps keep me gentle and patient towards fellow sinners and towards unbelievers.
It keeps my focus on the Gospel of forgiveness, and the fruit of godly character which it bears in me, rather than on my *duty* — all I must do to serve God and be important in His kingdom, a constant temptation for anyone having spent any time in evangelicaldom.
That is why the Gospel is so sweet, and why keeping a strong emphasis on the law/gospel distinction is so helpful in producing a sweet ministry. For as the hymn says, Christ has hushed the law’s loud thunder.
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:10 pm
32, 17:
Salvation is not dependent on obedience, but obedience is the path the saved MUST walk in. That’s a MUST that isn’t a MUST of dependence. A non-contributory means.
Sean Mahaffey
Thanks for posting all those verses that show obedience and faith are frequently not opposites biblically (like ‘works’ are opposes to faith in certain parts of scripture). Very useful citation, and a reminder to not be afraid to speak of being obedient to our faith, accepting Jesus as Savior AND Lord for salvation.
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Chris Hutchison:
What do you think of the following claim:
A person who seeks to do good works, and refrain from from evil works, because the law encourages good works and deters from evil works, cannot be construed of him wrongly understanding the Law, or being under the law
Sean Gerety said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Therefore, salvation is not in any way dependent on obedience.
That’s correct Sam. Salvation is not in any way dependent on our obedience to the law and the imperatives of Scripture in any sense. Our behavior plays no role in our salvation whatsoever. Our salvation in completely contingent on Jesus’ behavior and what He did, not on what we do. In order to be saved a person is commanded to believe the gospel - not believe the gospel and ALSO do the good works of faith in order to saved. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. Works do not make faith saving or “genuine.”
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.”
Works of the law and the good news of the gospel - as it relates our justification - are mutually exclusive.
Salvation is by faith alone, not by faith and works.
Therefore, all the warnings and commands in Paul’s epistles are irrelevant to those who are saved.
How about some specifics? The vine and branches is a perennial FV favorite, but as been explained over and over the FV men don’t understand Jesus’ teaching. My guess is their trouble stems from the fact that Jesus has the teachers and followers of the FV very much in target.
The FV men are those who do not abide in Jesus’ words, His doctrines, and are those who will be cut off unless they repent. These are men who appear to be Christian teachers and brothers, i.e, members of the Covenant of Grace, but who are not. We can identify them by their fruit and their fruit is the rotten doctrines of their two-tiered theory of justification where works done even by faith become a prerequisite and a necessary condition in order for us to remain in the Covenant of Grace and to obtain “final justification” on the last day.
The clear benefit for those who are saved is that the exposing of such false teachers and false doctrines, as Lane and others have done, should drive us from our indolence and cause us to examine and test ourselves to see if we’re “in the faith.” I don’t know about you, but when I see all these teachers who I once thought were Christian men promoting and defending doctrines which controvert, undermine and corrupt the simple gospel message and bring works, even if they call them “non-meritorious,” in through the back door of their conditional covenant, it genuinely scares.
Jeff Hutchinson said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:27 pm
pduggan:
What do you think of the following claim (the beginning of that same paragraph from the WCF, which sets the context of your paraphrase of the end of the paragraph):
True believers are not under the law; it no longer condemns the true believer.
Do you believe that?
So, answering for myself, here is what I think of the claim. The Confession is teaching that a person who “seeks to do good works, and refrain from from [sic] evil works, because the law encourages good works and deters from evil works,” CAN be “construed of [sic] wrongly understanding the Law, or being under the law” if they are believing that they are still under the law, and that the law can still condemn them.
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Sure!
Any thought about Kline back from question #6? Under Kline’s hermeneutics, how can you think of achievable rewards conditioned on obedience (like the 5th commandment) and NOT be treating the command as a covenant of works?
What are the hermeneutics that avoid that conclusion?
Sam Steinmann said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Sean,
A few of the specific passages I have in mind (as “warnings and commands in Paul’s epistles”
would be:
The olive tree:
Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Paul’s warning against self-indulgence in I Corinthians:
I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
Note that I am very much NOT FV; I’m fairly familiar with Reformed doctrine, thanks to Howard Griffith’s teaching, but am Anabaptist, not Reformed.
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Oh, and not to sound picayune in this case, but in that “Let us love and sing and wonder”, where is the imputation of rigtheousness?
We have wahsing with blood. We have the hushing of the law and the quenching of Sinai by Christ, and we have Grace and Justice pointing to MERCY. We have justice asking for no “more” than trust in Christ. Is that ‘code’ for imputed righteousness? it isn’t explicit.
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:46 pm
pduggan,
I think that a hearty affirmation of the Third Use of the Law does not undermine a hearty affirmation of the First Use — in the life of the believer, as well as in the process of conversion.
Note again that the paragraph from Wilson’s FV statement says that the law/gospel distinction has an appropriate “evangelistic” use. It makes no mention of the mature believer.
Whereas I would say a mature believer is precisely one who knows how much he daily fails to follow the law in all its fullness, even as he does increasingly obey it throughout the course of his life. And it is the Gospel, not the law, which offers him perpetual pardon and rest.
But if law and gospel are conflated in the life of the believer, where are we to find comfort when we fail?
Does that help?
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“It convicts us anywhere we are not perfectly mature or lack faith”
izzat right?
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Hymns are not systematic statements summarizing a movement’s theology, so they are not under the same obligation to be precise and comprehensive…. nice try, though!
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:51 pm
41: it helps
Can you see, though, that the very way in which the Lord disciplines us for our failures to keep the law is a form of comfort? Hebrews says its supposed to be.
Is that law comforting us, or the gospel? or both?
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:53 pm
If you don’t think it’s right, then explain why not, otherwise your post is useless rhetoric. You can start with your understanding of Matthew 5, particularly verse 48.
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 15, 2007 at 12:59 pm
re. 44. Absolutely. God disciplines us as his beloved children, not as slaves or aliens.
It is the Gospel which comforts us in this, for it is the Gospel which causes us to be adopted as His children by faith alone.
The Law sets the standards of discipline; but it is only the Gospel which provides us the power to live up to those standards and which pardons us when we fail. The Law cannot do that.
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 15, 2007 at 1:01 pm
sorry I got snarky in post 45. that was in ref. to post 42, btw.
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 2:14 pm
No prob. I was a bit snarky in my question, because I was suddenly surprised to see “lack of maturity” being brought into the question when its usually Jim Jordan who is credited with making the issue of active obedience into one of maturity, rather than law-based-cash-value.
I agree with the maturity-focus in Matt 5:28. It would be interesting to ask how that projects backwards into Adam’s situation, but that will probably derail us.
46: para 3: Then textually, when we deal with “imperative” passages, can they function as “gospel” in providing us motivation to live up to the standard? Like, “i know my heavenly father loves me in Christ, and offers me a promise of long life if I honor my earthly father, so I will trust him and do what he asks and receive the reward”? Or is there “law-thinking” in that kind of reasoning?
Sean Gerety said,
August 15, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Thanks Sam. Seeing you are an Anabaptist and not Reformed, do you agree that no Christian, i.e., a true believer in Jesus Christ, can fall from grace? If not, I suppose I can understand how you might understand passages like Rom. 11 and 1 Cor. 9 similar to the way the FV understands them. After all, if we are to believe Doug Wilson, some Christians go to hell.
Wilson aside, let’s take 1 Cor. 9:27 first. The great Reformed Baptist theologian John Gill explains:
So, it is not the case that Paul is teaching that one can start out a Christian and at some point in time become a reprobate. After all, John said; “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.”
Romans 11 is also similar to John 15 previously mentioned and is a warning to the Gentiles not to think more highly of themselves then they should. What God did to unbelieving Jews, the natural branches, ought to humble us and cause us to hold fast to the doctrines of grace. Paul is not teaching that true believers can be cut off from Christ, for Christ tells us that, “All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.” He is addressing Gentiles as Gentiles and warning them of becoming prideful. As Calvin explains:
Hope that helps clear things up for you.
Chris Hutchinson said,
August 15, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Pduggan,
Sorry I missed the subtle reference.
As to Mt. 5:48, the word there, of course, is telios, which can be translated as perfect. And the standard is God the Father. And it is imperative.
As for your last question, I need to think about it. The New England Puritans are an interesting case study on this, with their Cov of Grace paradigm for salvation, and Cov of Works paradigm for earthly, corporate blessing.
At first stab, I would say that the Gospel makes us thankful, and it is that which most purely motivates us to follow the Law, not whatever earthly benefit it may bring.
I remember preaching on Eph 6 regarding the Fifth Commandment, but I can’t off hand remember what my exegesis yielded on that point! So, let me yield for now on this until I have some time to reflect further.
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 3:08 pm
So to summarize calvin
1. This can’t happen to the elect
a. but the elect’s flesh must be “justly” terrified by perdition
b. they elect need to hear the warning “to take heed lest you be cut off”
2. Paul isn’t talking to the elect (so much)
a. he’s talking to those with false glory
i. false glory that they had a position of the jews (which wasn’t election either)
pduggan said,
August 15, 2007 at 3:12 pm
So to summarize calvin
1. This can’t happen to the elect
a. but the elect’s flesh must be “justly” terrified by perdition
b. they elect need to hear the warning “to take heed lest you be cut off”
2. Paul isn’t talking to the elect (so much)
a. he’s talking to those with false glory
i. false glory that they had a position of the jews (which wasn’t election either)
b. he’s addressing everyone, faithful and not.
questions
a. how can the elect “justly” be terrified by a warning that justly can’t apply to them
b. Are 1.b and 2 consistent? The elect need to hear the warning, but the elect aren’t really addressed
c. are 2 and 2.b consistent? The elect aren’t addressed, instead everyone is addressed. Doesn’t that include the elect then? How is that a solution?
d. so the elect need to simultaneously feel terrified of warnings and assured? How do you DO that?
Sam Steinmann said,
August 15, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Seeing you are an Anabaptist and not Reformed, do you agree that no Christian, i.e., a true believer in Jesus Christ, can fall from grace?
I think it’s a matter of definition, and I don’t know that I’d spend a lot of time arguing with someone whose language differs from mine.
I agree that there are a certain number, known by God before the foundation of the world, who will be saved; these (the elect) will be saved and cannot permanently fall from grace.
I also believe that there are some who believe themselves to have a saving relationship with Christ, who appear to all examination to be living a godly life, but who will not continue in God’s grace.
I do not believe that any person can know who is in which category until the judgment.
Sean Gerety said,
August 15, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I do not believe that any person can know who is in which category until the judgment.
Thanks Sam, I don’t think we’re that far apart, but what sort of biblical precedent is there for this? Should Paul have waited until judgment before identifying the Judaizers who were corrupting the gospel to their own destruction? Are we going to have to wait until judgment before we can identify, say, the pope of Rome, as a false teacher and an antichrist? How about run of the mill hypocrites and other charlatans and frauds? Are we not called to identify and expose them?
tim prussic said,
August 15, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Sean, there are a couple things I want to run by you.
First, you wrote (#30) that “faith or belief (since they’re the same word and mean the same thing) is assent to an understood proposition. That’s it. Saving faith is assent to the propositions or message of the gospel.” Now I agree that the communication of the gospel is done propositionally. However, to limit faith to the mere intellectual recpetion of propositions seems a bit rationalistic and less than what the Bible offers. Are we not united to the living Christ by a living faith? Faith is a vital means of union. Do men not LIVE by faith? Does faith not involve inward confidence (either in the propositions of the gospel, or the absolute veracity of the One ultimately speaking the gospel)? It seems to me that you’ve adopted an extremely truncated notion of the nature of faith. It sounds quite similar to Robbins and Clark, with whom I respectfully disagree. Their doctrine in sub-Biblical and dehumanizing, IMO.
More important, however, is your post #36. You seem quite zealous (as we all must be) to defend the solas of the Reformation. That’s wonderful and I commend you for it. I think there might be a bit of confusion with regard to the word “salvation,” however, in your post. It seems you’re using the word salvation in place of justification when you speak of salvation being by faith alone.
Now, by salvation, we’d usually mean the whole shabang: calling, just, adopt, sanct, and glorification. I happily affirm that all that is of sheer grace - that is unearned and unearnable by fallen men (but earned by Christ for fallen men). Now, please follow me closely, the doctrine of sola fide, as I understand it, guards (as it were) the doctrine of justification specifically. Faith is the “alone instrument” of justification in a way that it is not of, say, sanctification. E.g., are we justified absolutely apart from any/all of our works? Without doubt. Are we sanctified absolutely apart from any/all of our works? No, that sanctification, in part, IS our works. Sanct is God’s work in us that daily we more and more put off the old man and put on the new. Sanct is in/by faith and is free grace, but it includes our works in a way that justification absolutely does not.
Thus, to say that salvation is by faith alone can be true if we’re speaking (with slight obscurity) of justification. But it is not true if we mean MORE than that. It actually tends to break down the distiction between justification and sanctification, which we want keep quite clear.
Please let me know what you think, Sean.
reformedmusings said,
August 15, 2007 at 4:44 pm
#52:
I believe that the answers to your questions are in WCF 18:
a. WCF 18.4:
“True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin which wounds the conscience and grieves the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of His countenance, and suffering even such as fear Him to walk in darkness and to have no light: yet are they never so utterly destitute of that seed of God, and life of faith, that love of Christ and the brethren, that sincerity of heart, and conscience of duty, out of which, by the operation of the Spirit, this assurance may, in due time, be revived; and by the which, in the mean time, they are supported from utter despair.”
b. Yes. They need to hear the warnings per WCF 18.4; they may be in sin and need to be warned back to a path that glorifies God. Yet they cannot be unelected, so the actual falling away doesn’t apply to the elect.
c. Sure. Just as when we preach, we preach to all. Yet the affect of the same words differs in the regenerate and unregenerate. This goes back to WCF 18.
d. Not necessarily simultaneously in a particular individual. Goes back to pride and the avoidance thereof. That’s part of Paul’s and Calvin’s point to the elect. As those elected before the foundation of the world, we should always seek to glorify God in all that we think, do, and say. When we don’t, the moral law as God’s self-expression of how to please and glorify Him challenges and constrains us. If one’s sin is particularly grievous, one may come to temporarily lose one’s assurance but never one’s election. Those who were never elected have nothing eternal to lose, only the temporal benefits of being in the visible church as laid out in WSC Q. 63.
pduggie said,
August 15, 2007 at 8:55 pm
RM, its a very strange form of argument that questions about the consistency of what Calvin said can be resolved by reading the WCF.
Adding in the WCFs wording makes Calvin even strangers
a: the elect AREN’T “justly” warned at all, as calvin says they must. Also Calvin says the elect need to go through these terrors to deal with their flesh, while the WCF puts it forward as something sub-optimal compared to assurance.
Also, I wonder how someone can be considered to have a life of “faith” if that person is unconvinced that God is propitiated w.r.t them for the sake of Christ. And if they are convinced, how is it that they could be said to lack assurance?
b: The falling won’t happen. But does the WARNING apply to them? Are they addressed by it or not. You say “no” but then how will they hear and heed it? Why would they, if they aren’t addressed. Isn’t it “someone else’s mail”, to coin a phrase?
C: calvin didn’t say people would be affected differently. He said they were and were not being addressed.
Terry W. West said,
August 15, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Sam,
I thought I would add the paragraph that Mr. Gerety left out of his quote from Calvin’s commentary.
Calvin says:“Otherwise thou also shalt be cut off, etc. We now understand in what sense Paul threatens them with excision, whom he has already allowed to have been grafted into the hope of life through God’s election. For, first, though this cannot happen to the elect, they have yet need of such warning, in order to subdue the pride of the flesh; which being really opposed to their salvation, ought justly to be terrified with the dread of perdition. As far then as Christians are illuminated by faith, they hear, for their assurance, that the calling of God is without repentance; but as far as they carry about them the flesh, which wantonly resists the grace of God, they are taught humility by this warning, “Take heed lest thou be cut off.” Secondly, we must bear in mind the solution which I have before mentioned, — that Paul speaks not here of the special election of individuals, but sets the Gentiles and Jews in opposition the one to the other; and that therefore the elect are not so much addressed in these words, as those who falsely gloried that they had obtained the place of the Jews: nay, he speaks to the Gentiles generally, and addresses the whole body in common, among whom there were many who were faithful, and those who were members of Christ in name only.
But if it be asked respecting individuals, “How any one could be cut off from the grafting, and how, after excision, he could be grafted again,” — bear in mind, that there are three modes of insition, and two modes of excision. For instance, the children of the faithful are ingrafted, to whom the promise belongs according to the covenant made with the fathers; ingrafted are also they who indeed receive the seed of the gospel, but it strikes no root, or it is choked before it brings any fruit; and thirdly, the elect are ingrafted, who are illuminated unto eternal life according to the immutable purpose of God. The first are cut off, when they refuse the promise given to their fathers, or do not receive it on account of their ingratitude; the second are cut off, when the seed is withered and destroyed; and as the danger of this impends over all, with regard to their own nature, it must be allowed that this warning which Paul gives belongs in a certain way to the faithful, lest they indulge themselves in the sloth of the flesh. But with regard to the present passage, it is enough for us to know, that the vengeance which God had executed on the Jews, is pronounced on the Gentiles, in case they become like them.
I would suggest that one should read all of what Calvin has to say on Romans chapter 11. You can find it here.
Blessings in Christ,
Terry W. West
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 10:14 pm
A theme emerging as the FVists get more and more cornered and more and more out of their cave, or closet, is their taunt of ‘Baptisterian’ or Baptistic Presbyterian. This can’t be ignored. It shows that the FV are indeed Romanists and that they are merely exploiting the fact that the Reformation left too much of the Papist poison on their plates. Of course, the FVists want this fact to mean all Reformed Christians must now waltz into the darkness and bondage and death of the Beast and abide there with them, which is of course not necessary.
I would argue that the WCF in chps. 10 and 28 fend off such darkness; and Calvin as well, the theologian of the Holy Spirit (Romanists/FVists hate God the Holy Spirit more than they hate Christ Himself), though not expecting to be attacked by such delinquents in such a manner didn’t protect every statement and passage he wrote as one has to in an age that is even more dishonest than the age and people Calvin was doing battle with. As mentioned before, Sadoleto didn’t pretend he wasn’t Romanist.
Michael Saville said,
August 15, 2007 at 11:04 pm
RE:59
–”(Romanists/FVists hate God the Holy Spirit more than they hate Christ Himself”
Lane?
Are there any comment guidelines around here?
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 11:26 pm
When you deny the work of Christ on the behalf of His elect what are you saying about Christ? You’re calling Him a fool? A joke? You put man in the place of Christ. Like Satan you are merely expressing your hatred that He saved an elect and took power away, in some way (some irrational way followers of devil think) from Satan? You deny regeneration is effected by the Word and the Spirit. You deny the work of the Spirit in the economy of redemption. You claim man does that work with ritual? What is the Spirit then? Something to laugh at? A joke? What is the work of the Spirit? Something you can wave off with your hand and usurp with your ritual and physical trappings and man fearing environment? Romanists and FVists hate God the Holy Spirit as much or more than they hate Christ Himself.
You can’t have your Beast doctrine and claim you don’t hate God at the same time.
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Michael Saville, was your conscience stung by my comments? Or are you just a sensitive false teacher, or follower of false teachers?
pduggie said,
August 15, 2007 at 11:32 pm
I’d just like to continue to thank the two Hutchisons and reformedmusings and Sean Gerety for their continued graciousness and Christian demeanor in these ongoing discussions.
Way to go!
Robert K. said,
August 15, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Flattered.
Jesus saves.
Sean Mahaffey said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:12 am
“Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.”
Robert, you are foolish, hateful, bitter, and factious. I encourage you in Christ’s name to repent of your harsh judgments. “Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?”
I am not having anything else to do with Robert and I encourage everyone else to stop responding to him as well.
In Christ,
Sean Mahaffey
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 5:20 am
More false piety and zero self-awareness from the FVists.
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 6:35 am
Sean M., keep in mind what we are doing is 1) not allowing people to redefine Reformed doctrine which historically is sound biblical doctrine; and 2) trying to get teachers and followers of false teachings to see the light. These are not bad motives. Your personal vanity and worldly pride gets wounded, but boo hoo. Being disabused of false teachings can not be done without causing friction.
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 7:00 am
I’m rubber and you’re glue.
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 7:01 am
Oh, and thanks to Grover Gunn too!
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 7:11 am
67: Notice the “we” Rotbert puts into the sentence as well.
Also not Rotbert is arguing the ends justify the means
reformedmusings said,
August 16, 2007 at 7:22 am
RE #58
Terry,
I don’t see any help for FV there. I address the ingrafting issue in my treatment of John 15:2 at http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/john-152-the-same-sap/. Calvin blows the “objective covenant” myth away with his comments on that verse:
“There is scarcely any one who is ashamed to acknowledge that every thing good which he possesses comes from God; but, after making this acknowledgment, they imagine that universal grace has been given to them, as if it had been implanted in them by nature. But Christ dwells principally on this, that the vital sap — that is, all life and strength — proceeds from himself alone. Hence it follows, that the nature of man is unfruitful and destitute of everything good; because no man has the nature of a vine, till he be implanted in him. But this is given to the elect alone by special grace. So then, the Father is the first Author of all blessings, who plants us with his hand; but the commencement of life is in Christ, since we begin to take root in him.” [my emphasis]
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 7:48 am
>”Notice the “we” Rotbert puts into the sentence as well.”
It’s called the communion of the saints.
pduggan said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:10 am
I don’t think hutchisons, gunn, RM, or Gerety much agree or are even close to “doing” the wicked works you are doing. Lane might, since he says nothing.
I’d love it if any or all of those men would disabuse you of the notion that you’re all a “we” together.
pduggan said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:12 am
Regeneration is certainly the work of the Word and Spirit, both mediately and immediately.
In sacraments, Christ and the benefits of the New Covenant are represented, sealed and applied to believers.
pduggan said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:14 am
How does addressing the ingrafting issue in John 15, where Calvin considers that a sign of the decretal covenant, help us understand an objective visible covenant such as is described in Romans 11? Calvin has said the objective visible covenant is *effective* in some, and opens a gate for the elect.
pduggan said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:16 am
Also, that Calvin quote on John 15 is discussing benefits to those who aren’t even in the church, isn’t he?
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:37 am
>”I don’t think hutchisons, gunn, RM, or Gerety much agree or are even close to “doing” the wicked works you are doing. Lane might, since he says nothing. I’d love it if any or all of those men would disabuse you of the notion that you’re all a “we” together.”
You’re projecting how man-fearers think on a Christian who fears only God.
Sam Steinmann said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:40 am
Sean G,
In regards to your question, “Are we going to have to wait until judgment before we can identify, say, the pope of Rome, as a false teacher and an antichrist?” Absolutely not. That is certainly not what I meant to say or imply.
My statement “I do not believe that any person can know who is in which category until the judgment” is ONLY intended to refer to the two groups I mentioned–the elect, and those who “believe themselves to have a saving relationship with Christ, [and] who appear to all examination to be living a godly life.” Those who are NOT living an apparently godly life (and I would include teaching heresy in “not living godly”
can be (and should be, if they are within the church) judged as ungodly.
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 9:52 am
Now I agree that the communication of the gospel is done propositionally. However, to limit faith to the mere intellectual recpetion of propositions seems a bit rationalistic and less than what the Bible offers.
“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” I realize that Christianity is a bit too intellectual for many which is why the appeal of mysticism is so strong and the acceptance of incoherence as theological principle is so admired. Perhaps this explains why many in the FV/NPP are so eager to replace the biblical idea of union with Christ with the irrational non-propositional existential union of Gaffin and others which is entered into by the waters of baptism and the mumblings of a priest.
Please let me know what you think, Sean.
I think your failure to understand the biblical nature of saving faith, which is intellectual (it is after all premised on the belief of an intelligible message), and your unease with the idea that Christianity is propositional from beginning to end, for only propositions can be either true or false, perhaps explains why you’re so obviously attracted to the conflation of faith and works advanced by Wilson, Wilkins, Leithart and the rest of these corrupt minded men who are advancing their little vision. I’m quite sure for many who see the Christian system of faith as too rationalistic to begin with, as you’ve expressed it (and you are not alone), the conflation of the FV does appear to be “humanizing” in comparison.
While I’ve seen where you might differ with the majority of these FV men, and that little bit is encouraging, you do seem to consistently defend and side with these men both here and at other blog sites. Do you not see that what these men are teaching is a different gospel — a different way of salvation — and belief in it can only bring death? Or is that too “rationalistic” for you Tim?
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 9:53 am
Thanks Sam for clearing that up. I guess I just misunderstood you.
Mark T. said,
August 16, 2007 at 10:00 am
Sean Mahaffey,
Before I act on your urgent request that everyone shun Robert K., I want to repeat a question that I asked you a few days ago but you refused to answer: Why do you want to silence Robert K for using language that is no more offensive than Wilson’s while you tolerate such an offensive approach to communication from Wilson?
Thank you.
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 10:06 am
A theme emerging as the FVists get more and more cornered and more and more out of their cave, or closet, is their taunt of ‘Baptisterian’ or Baptistic Presbyterian. This can’t be ignored. It shows that the FV are indeed Romanists and that they are merely exploiting the fact that the Reformation left too much of the Papist poison on their plates.
Excellent point and observation Robert. The slurs you mention which is starting to reach a crescendo with these FV men is a sure sign that they’re being hit very close to home. In my experience that tends to be when the abusive ad hominems start to fly.
Sam Steinmann said,
August 16, 2007 at 10:14 am
Sean G,
Now that we’ve gotten (I hope) what I believe on perserverance clear, I still have a question.
To me, “assent to propositions” as a synonym for “belief”, and belief as a synonym for “faith”, ends up with saying that the kind of faith the devils have (”Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
is the kind of faith that is saving for people. That is so clearly contrary to what James is saying that I expect I’m not understanding you correctly.
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 10:16 am
It seems to me that faith also involves trust. It is definitely assent, for we cannot trust that which we do not know. The Bible clearly states that we can know. But demons do not trust Jesus. And I think this element of faith is essential.
kjsulli said,
August 16, 2007 at 12:11 pm
pduggan, re: 40,
Oh, and not to sound picayune in this case, but in that “Let us love and sing and wonder”, where is the imputation of rigtheousness?
We have wahsing with blood. We have the hushing of the law and the quenching of Sinai by Christ, and we have Grace and Justice pointing to MERCY. We have justice asking for no “more” than trust in Christ. Is that ‘code’ for imputed righteousness? it isn’t explicit.
My use of a stanza from that hymn in #116 here was as a doxology praising God that we are justified by faith alone. This was in response to jared’s confusing the matter by saying that Adam, had he obeyed, would have met the terms of the Covenant of Works “by faith alone.”
pduggan said,
August 16, 2007 at 2:05 pm
82. Nobody said bapterian on this thread.
Also, what has wilson said that’s offensive *on this blog*
I don’t care if Rotbert K says I’m an F-ing C-word on his own blog, as long as he cuts out the crappy name-calling useless wicked repetitive off-putting rhetoric here.
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:27 pm
To me, “assent to propositions” as a synonym for “belief”, and belief as a synonym for “faith”, ends up with saying that the kind of faith the devils have (”Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”) is the kind of faith that is saving for people. That is so clearly contrary to what James is saying that I expect I’m not understanding
James is arguing that belief in God alone and that he is One (i.e., monotheism) is not enough. The demons also believe God is one and they’re not wrong for doing so, but for a person to be saved they must also believe the Gospel. Even if demons believed the gospel (and James doesn’t say that they do), it doesn’t follow that they too would be saved. For one thing Jesus didn’t die for demons, but for sinful men so the message of the gospel doesn’t apply to demons.
That’s why I argue the difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed and not some added nebulous psychological element that magically makes ordinary run-of-the-mill belief saving. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard well meaning Christian pastors tell me believing the gospel is not enough. That is quite an amazing thing, so there is little wonder why the FV has grown almost exponentially.
FWIW the history of how P&R folks have defined the word faith is both a disturbing and miserably confused read. Despite Tim’s dislike for Clark and Robbins, I would highly recommend Gordon Clark’s What is Saving Faith as an excellent and much needed study of this question. It is especially important given the rise of the false gospel of the FV as these false teachers have really been able to capitalize on the tautological definition of faith that has plagued P&R churches.
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:29 pm
It seems to me that faith also involves trust. It is definitely assent, for we cannot trust that which we do not know.
You can’t believe something you don’t know either. To believe something and to trust something are the same thing. If I trust someone that means I believe what they say and if I believe what a person says that means I trust them. The words are synonymous. Clark’s objection to the traditional definition is that the addition of fudicia or trust adds precisely nothing to our understanding of what faith is and is merely (etymologically speaking) defining a word by itself.
Also to assent to some proposition is to agree or subscribe to it. For example, I understand dialectical materialism pretty well as a philosophy and as a form of economic determinism, but I do not assent to it. So, understanding alone is not enough. Many people understand the gospel and there are many unbelievers who sometimes understand the gospel better than many believers. However, the problem with unbelievers is that they don’t believe. Conversely, however little someone understands of the gospel and believes it to that degree we can say that person is a saved person.
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Sean, I agree with you. I actually said that in my comment: “It is definitely assent, for we cannot trust that which we do not know.” Maybe it wasn’t explicit enough. I am (with you) equally irritated by those who say “We have to believe Christ, not a proposition.” As if that statement somehow managed to escape being a proposition. Christ is the Logos, which definitely includes propositional truth. There is no escaping that for the Christian. Otherwise, why recite the creeds of the faith? Is that not a series of propositions? Are not the confessions one long series of propositions? Absolutely they are. But is trusting in Jesus to be defined *only* by propositions? Or is there that entrusting? I am reminded of the Peanuts cartoon where Snoopy pushes the button to go across the street. Then a couple of pictures show him standing there. Finally, Linus comes to him and says to him, “You have to move your feet, too.” The last picture shows Snoopy crossing the road with a sheepish grin on his face, saying “how embarassing.” The fact is that there is no huge dichotomy between head and heart like the West wants so desparately to believe. Our faith is not a leap into the unknown. But it is a leap. Would you agree with this?
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:42 pm
”Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”)
Let me just add that not only is James teaching us that belief in God and monotheism is not enough, but sincerity and the “heartfelt” nature of that belief also isn’t something which saves a man nor should we be fooled by it. I don’t know that I ever considered it before now, but it seems James is providing an interesting refutation of the Kierkegaardian idea of infinite passion and that it is the “passion” which one feels and not the propositions believed that saves.
FWIW, probably like you, I’ve met a great number of folks over the year that are very, very sincere in what they believe, some have even been trembling, but who did not believe the gospel even though they professed a belief in God (or, better, a god). James is explaining the ways in which we can identify true faith with the feigned variety, so don’t be taken in by the tears of Robert K’s favorite preacher, Benny Hinn =8-0 (Just kidding Robert).
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Thanks Lane. I’m sorry if I jumped to any conclusions.
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:47 pm
No, that’s all right, Sean. I don’t think I was exceptionally clear there.
greenbaggins said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:47 pm
My propositions were a tad fuzzy.
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 3:56 pm
The fact is that there is no huge dichotomy between head and heart like the West wants so desparately to believe. Our faith is not a leap into the unknown. But it is a leap. Would you agree with this?
I see I spoke to soon. While I agreed with the first part, after Linus and Lucy I’m afraid I wouldn’t agree at all that faith is a leap (it certainly would entail a change) or even that there is a dichotomy between head and heart. I think when pastors talk about the supposed distance or difference between head and heart they really mean the difference between understanding and assent (i.e., understanding something and believing it to be true). But, of course, I’m being charitable and perhaps they don’t mean that at all (frankly, I suspect most do not).
As far as I can tell, in Scripture there is no such dichotomy and that as a man thinketh in his heart so is he. The heart is the center of thought and that is the mind or soul. I take the position that heart, soul and mind are all the same thing and man is a unitary being not a mind and will or some tripartite conglomeration. I believe Clark provides a long excursus on the head/heart question with biblical passages ad nauseum in What is Saving Faith which he got from John Laidlaw.
Beth Ellen Nagle said,
August 16, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Sean, what do you mean by “tripartite conglomeration”?
Sean Gerety said,
August 16, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Hi Beth. Consisting of mind, will, and emotions for example.
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 8:34 pm
PDUGGAN WRITES: “I don’t care if Rotbert K says I’m an F-ing C-word on his own blog, as long as he cuts out the crappy name-calling useless wicked repetitive off-putting rhetoric here.”
This gives the impression I actually said you were a [what you wrote] on some blog of mine. But I know you didn’t mean to give that impression…
THOUGHTS ON THE CONTENT OF FAITH
My big insight on faith (ha ha), from the Bible, is this: it is a recognizing of something that is real and that is above you. God is real, He created you, He’s above you. Unregenerate man has a problems with recognizing anything above himself. Vanity, pride, rebellious self-will are in control and won’t allow it.
So Jesus gives examples of faith that seem to involve *recognition of chain-of-command.* Or recognize that there is something above oneself. The centurion who recognized Jesus’ command as a soldier recognizes chain-of-command. The woman who recognized that the children of Israel (while Jesus was yet to be crucified) were Jesus’ business and not she and who then responded that the dogs get the crumbs from the table (she was humbling herself, genuinely, recognizing her place).
But Jesus said ‘I have not seen greater faith in all Israel’ etc. in response to these individuals who recognized chain-of-command and the real King at the top of that chain-of-command. Anybody can recognize the creation (or some created thing) and give submission to it (because that doesn’t threatened the very survival of the Old Man within one), but it takes a new heart implanted by God to be able to recognize the Creator and to not be in rebellion to Him.
These illustrations, from the Bible itself, are in a sense outside the subject of the economy of redemption, in that they aren’t “believe He died for your sins” type of assents, yet Jesus IS talking about faith in them, and this is an element in having real, saving faith. Being able to recognize that which is above you and which is not just another part of the creation but the Creator Himself. This is the hardest thing for vanity and pride and self-will to suffer. Look at atheists. Look at Richard Dawkins. He writhes at the thought.
So faith in Christianity is curiously intellectual (and we all deal with that, though there is flesh on the abstractions the more we develop understanding of it), but it also involves this breaking, or overcoming (by God’s grace) of vanity, pride, and self-will within.
Just the act of simple prayer is difficult simply because we are recognizing something that is higher than ‘us.’ It assaults the remains of vanity and pride and rebellious self-will - the Old Man - within us.
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 10:51 pm
I love everything you say about faith there, Robert
Too bad you’ve ruined yourself as a messenger by your vileness
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Man-centered, man-fearing/revering types always care about such things. Fear/revere only God, pduggie, it is the beginning of wisdom.
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:13 pm
How can you fear God when you don’t love your brother?
Robert K. said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:23 pm
>”How can you fear God when you don’t love your brother?”
Ah, it only seems like hate from your perspective, pduggie. It’s called tough love. Anyway, even if one only wears soft gloves, as mentioned earlier, whenever you are disabusing people of false doctrine friction is created. It’s unavoidable.
pduggie said,
August 16, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Youve abused, but not disabused.
tim prussic said,
August 17, 2007 at 12:03 am
Sean, I’d appreciate it if your posts to me were as civil as my are to you.
I feared my comment about the nature of faith would hide the more important issue I wanted to address, which is the latter portion of my post (#55). I’d like to hear what you think about that latter portion.
As to the different gospel of the FV (#79) - I think, by and large, that such language is misapplied. I have heard/read stuff that needs clarification and I’ve even heard a sermon from a high-profile FV guy that contorted the doctrine of forensic justification beyond recognition. That last example, I think, is another gospel and deserves to be condemned. However, flying off the handle and calling every idea that’s slightly different from what I think another gospel is a waste of breath and does far more harm than good.
Also, your comments on Robert’s comments (#82) are interesting. Do you think it’s possible that American Reformed culture and practice COULD be highly influenced by Baptistic culture and practice? If one identifies some of those influences, is that a sign of Romanism? How irrational is that?!
Sean Gerety said,
August 17, 2007 at 10:21 am
I feared my comment about the nature of faith would hide the more important issue I wanted to address, which is the latter portion of my post (#55). I’d like to hear what you think about that latter portion.
You clearly understood what I was addressing per #36 for you even commend me for “zealously” defending the solas. Consequently, to divert the discussion to other benefits or blessings of that great salvation, such as the mortification of sin in sanctification or the wonders of the glory to