A Bit Puzzled

Doug has responded to my post on Thessalonians here. What is puzzling about it is that grammatical and dogmatic parsing, as Doug puts it, is not allowed, in Doug’s thinking. These texts cannot be properly understood with that sort of analysis. I beg to differ. Of course, it is not as if that is the only sort of work that must be done to understand properly such passages. However, it is necessary. Or would Doug say that the voice of “conformed” and “transformed” in Romans 12:2 is irrelevant to understanding that passage? Or what about the text critical problem in Romans 5:1 that pits the indicative against the subjunctive? Is that irrelevant to understanding the meaning of Romans 5:1? Similarly, grammatical and dogmatic parsing is a long-honored part of Reformation interpretation of Scripture. What is ironic about all this, of course, is that the Federal Vision is claiming to be more biblical than its critics, and yet when challenged on the exegetical level, hardly even deals with the original languages at all. So, let’s look at the passages in some detail here.

First up, another pass at 2 Thessalonians 1. First of all, the context is one of suffering from the persecution of those who are outside the faith. That much, at least, is quite evident. Secondly, Paul uses the phrase “This is evidence” (ἔνδειγμα) of the righteous judgment. Suffering, therefore, is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, since God and the world are at loggerheads. The contrast is not between a moment of time wherein the Christians come to faith but the unbelievers do not. The contrast is between the life lived under persecution as opposed to those who are doing the affliction. Paul’s point, then, is that there will be vengeance, and that we should patiently endure, because the vengeance is coming. This contextualizes the phrase “obey the Gospel” (ὑπακούουσιν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ) as something having to do with the entire life, not primarily the entrance into eternal life. The sanctification, therefore, of the believer is in the forefront, where obedience makes the most sense. “Obedience” is therefore synecdochic for the entire Christian life. No implication, therefore, is made of whether coming to faith itself is an act of obedience.

With regard to Romans 6:17, the context helps us to understand that if any act of inception is in view, it is the inception of holiness in sanctification. Verse 15 should prove that quite well: Τί οὖν; ἁμαρτήσωμεν ὅτι οὐκ ἐσμὲν ὑπὸ νόμον ἀλλὰ ὑπὸ χάριν; μὴ γένοιτο. The very next verses prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, since Paul is talking about the principle of obedience as compared to slavery. Are we slaves of sin or of righteousness? What principle rules in us? Obviously, then, Paul is talking about sanctification, not about justification. Sanctification is part of the Gospel, too, and therefore Paul is talking about definitive and progressive sanctification in this passage. He is not talking about justification. He is not saying here that coming to faith is an act of obedience.

In Romans 1:5, Paul is not talking about Christians in general, but about the apostles: ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν. This phrase then leads to a purpose clause with the preposition εἰς. This leads inevitably to the conclusion that the grace and the apostleship is received first in order that the obedience of faith might follow. In other words, the obedience of faith here is not the act of closing with Christ, but rather obedience to the commands of God, which the apostles are to follow in faith, because it is God who works in them both to will and to do. Nothing here about faith being an act of obedience. Doug’s interpretation requires the genitive there to be a genitive of apposition: obedience, that is, faith. But even there, the construction does not require that faith be described as the inception of faith. The accent is most definitely on the continuing nature of faith as it springs from grace and apostleship received from the Lord.

The context of 1 Peter 4:17 is really the same kind of thing that we saw in Thessalonians. The contrast between those who suffer for doing right, and those inflicting the suffering makes the obedience of the Gospel to consist in the continual obedience to the Word of salvation. This is evident from the paraphrase of Proverbs 11:31 that immediately follows, wherein the righteous and the ungodly are contrasted.          

121 Comments

  1. Peter Jones said,

    June 5, 2008 at 9:54 am

    Lane, are you saying that believing on the Lord is not an act of obedience?

    Peter Jones

  2. greenbaggins said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:00 am

    If it is, it is not in the same category as obeying the law. I’m saying that the passages do not justify what Doug claims they support. Paul bifurcates faith and works of *any* kind. That is where this discussion originated. Faith itself, then, cannot be a work. Doug then argues that there is a difference between works and obedience. I argue that they cover the same territory when it comes to justification.

  3. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:07 am

    “What is puzzling about it is that grammatical and dogmatic parsing, as Doug puts it, is not allowed, in Doug’s thinking.”

    What a wonderful straw man you have here. It seemed to me that Doug wasn’t vilifying grammatical and dogmatic parsing as a rule, but rather your particular application of it with regard to justification in the proposed text.

    It is hard to expect a decent exchange when you get off track from the beginning.

    You don’t interact at all with his argument about confusing categories of distinction.

    The point that Doug is making is simply that responding in faith is an act of obedience, which results from God’s grace and power and not from autonomous works.

    What is there to disagree with in that notion?

  4. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:09 am

    Federal Visionists are not sensitive to the fact that Romanists, too, make a distinction between “autonomous” works, which they likewise reject, and Spirit-wrought obedience. It would be a strong start if they would unequivocally oppose the Romanists in rejecting the latter as being instrumental in justification.

  5. greenbaggins said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:11 am

    Joshua, look again carefully at the post, and you will find that it is you who has erected the straw man. I said “these texts.” That contextualizes the second sentence. I realize that I have not answered all his arguments. I decided to do one thing with this post, and that was exegete and prove that my exegesis was not off. Now, you seem to be a bit more hot-headed than Doug. I suggest you read more carefully before blasting at someone who is not blasting at Doug.

  6. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:17 am

    #4

    It all depends upon how you understand “instrumental.” The WCF calls faith the instrument of justification, but does not make faith the efficient cause. It follows that if responding in faith is an act of obedience (faith is something WE exercise is it not?), then our obedience (responding in faith) is instrumental in justification as it is a part of the act of faith.

    Romanists see obedience as an efficient cause of justification rather than simply an instrument of reception or response.

  7. greenbaggins said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:20 am

    Wrong, Josh. Faith is something that God gives (see Ephesians 2). That is what is important in justification. Faith, therefore, is not an act of obedience in the sense that we can then say that obedience is instrumental in justification.

  8. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:22 am

    #5

    What gives you the impression that I am hot-headed? What emotion is contained in calling out a fallacy? Perhaps the word “wonderful” led you to believe I was being sarcastic or cynical? If so, let it be known that such was not the intention.

    If you think you were addressing Doug directly, ok. I don’t mind rescinding the straw man claim.

  9. greenbaggins said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:26 am

    It is primarily this statement that seemed hot-headed to me: “It is hard to expect a decent exchange when you get off track from the beginning.” If you have been following the debates between Doug and I for any length of time at all, what you will find is civilized, on-topic debate about real issues, not a pattern of side-tracking. It seemed you were making a general statement about the debate between Doug and myself. Now, maybe you weren’t. In which case I withdraw my statement about your being hot-headed.

  10. greenbaggins said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:27 am

    And yes, I am directing the post to Doug.

  11. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:32 am

    #7

    It is both. Faith is a condition, accomplished by God (a gift) in regeneration. Faith is also the expression of that condition in assenting/trusting/believing. The condition of faith is the result of God’s gift. The assenting/trusting/believing the occurs by faith is obedience, which results from the condition (caused directly by God), but is not caused directly by God.

  12. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:34 am

    #9

    I wasn’t making a general comment, but one regarding the particular post. I simply thought you were addressing a minor claim in a way that Doug was not asserting it, rather than responding to the more substantive claims.

  13. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:38 am

    As an additional note,

    Even if I were addressing the claim generally, I don’t see how that points out “hot-headedness.” In the least it would point out that I was speaking from ignorance, or simply wrong, but not necessarily emotional.

  14. Ken Christian said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:38 am

    Ref #2 – If the act of faith does not fall into the category of “obedience to the law” (and I agree), then what category of obedience would faith fall in to?

  15. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:38 am

    Joshua – what your scheme does not take into account is that it is faith’s passive character, in resting and receiving Christ’s righteousness, that makes it instrumental in justification, not the obedient character of faith. This is precisely why Paul distinguishes justifying faith in Christ as distinct from other works of Spirit-wrought obedience.

  16. Ken Christian said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Ref. 15 – David, isn’t the believer being obedient to God when he rests upon and receives Christ’s righteousness?

  17. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:44 am

    David,

    Resting and receiving Christ’s righteousness, though passive, is still obedient. Is it not a daily act of obedient faith to rest and receive the righteousness of Christ rather than to act according to the flesh?

  18. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:46 am

    Ken – yes, but that is not what makes faith instrumental in justification. It is logically fallacious to reason:

    1. faith is instrumental in justification
    2. obedience is a quality of faith
    3. therefore obedience is instrumental in justification

  19. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Joshua, I’m not sure what your last point is. It is true that Christ is the object of faith, whether that faith is being exercised in justification or sanctification. But the two are still distinct – Paul excludes even Abraham’s circumcision as being co-instrumental along with passive/receptive faith in justification, even though no one would debate the Spirit-wrought faith that motivated Abraham’s circumcision.

  20. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:55 am

    An instrument doesn’t produce music unless it is played.

    The music played by the instrument of faith (the condition God gives us) is obedience (assenting, trusting, believing).

    Resting and responding is assenting, trusting, believing.

  21. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:59 am

    Joshua – see #18. It is fine to say that obedience is a quality of faith, but it is wrong to say that faith *is* obedience in the sense of making them interchangable. You can’t just plug in “obedience” everywhere you see “faith” simply on this basis.

  22. Elder Hoss said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:59 am

    One final time – “Calling upon the Name of the Lord”, “believing our report,” “faith”, and “obeying the gospel” are all used interchangeably by Paul in Romans 10, specifically with reference to the INITIAL RECEPTION of the gospel, which reception entails the justification of the sinner.

    Paul could not be more clear. Hence Herman Sasse calls the Reformed who follow Paul, “legalists” for using faith and obedience interchangeably.

  23. greenbaggins said,

    June 5, 2008 at 11:02 am

    Josh, you are equivocating on the term “instrument.” Instrument does not mean something musical, but something that lays hold of something else. It is a means to an end. David’s point about passivity is well taken here as well. Anything in faith that is conducive to justification is grace. Faith is also obedient, but that belongs to sanctification, not justification.

  24. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 11:04 am

    David,

    I’m saying that belief, which results from the condition of faith, is an effect of faith that is obedience.

    To believe is to obey. Obedience is not limited to belief alone, for the act resulting from belief is also part of obedience. However, believing is obeying–it is obedience to understand the Word of God as true. It is obeying to believe that Christ is the object of our salvation and justification.

    I’m not using them interchangeably (I’ve mentioned several times the distinction between the condition of faith and the effect of that condition), but they are not entirely distinct, and obedience is properly related to justification–not as causative, but as receptive in terms of belief.

  25. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 11:11 am

    #23

    The music was a poor analogy. But even the more literal “laying hold,” while passive, is still itself an act that results from a prior condition (such as “having a hand”). God provides the condition, which we do not have (faith) and from that condition we are able to believe (and act of faith) that we have been justified by God in Christ.

    I’m simply saying that the act of belief, which results from faith, is an act of obedience.

    Now if you are arguing that it is the condition alone that is instrumental and not the believing, I can see where we disagree. Otherwise, I think you are just missing the necessary distinction.

  26. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 11:23 am

    obedience is properly related to justification–not as causative, but as receptive in terms of belief

    This is an odd way of putting things, but it still seems to make obedience instrumental in justification. I still don’t know how you end up here, simply given that faith in Christ is an act of obedience (meaning that faith has an obedient character).

  27. Ken Christian said,

    June 5, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    David, Lane, and anyone else…

    Help me see what you guys feel are the neccessary distinctions between faith and obdience in this exchange from Acts 16:30-31:

    Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    The jailor asks Paul and Silas what he must do in order to be saved. Paul and Silas, as God’s ambassadors, tell him to believe in Jesus. We all know that he does. Anyway, I have three questions: Was his believing an act of obedience to God? Did this act of faith result in his justification? Why can’t we characterize his justifying faith as an “obedient faith”?

  28. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    David,

    I don’t know how you cannot end up there, given that an act of faith “has an obedient character.” What exactly does that mean, if not, “an act of faith is obedience.” What is the distinction you wish to draw (and where do you find it) that separates obedience from the act of faith in such a way that makes obedience NOT an aspect of the instrumental nature of that act of faith?

    Or, I’ll ask also what I asked Lane: do you confine the instrumental nature of faith solely to the condition of faith, excluding any act of faith?

  29. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Lane,

    You said:
    “If it is, it is not in the same category as obeying the law. I’m saying that the passages do not justify what Doug claims they support. Paul bifurcates faith and works of *any* kind. That is where this discussion originated. Faith itself, then, cannot be a work. Doug then argues that there is a difference between works and obedience. I argue that they cover the same territory when it comes to justification.”

    I think the proper distinction Doug is making is between works apart from faith, and works done according to faith. By the former there is not, properly speaking, obedience to the Law. Yet with the latter, occurring as a result of regeneration into the condition of faith, the act of faith that apprehends and receives God’s justification is rightly understood as an act of obedience to the Law, that is, God’s command to trust in His Word and in His character.

    This obedience is instrumental because it is inseparable from the act of faith, but like faith, it is not causative with regard to justification.

    To deny this distinction is to ultimately argue one of two things:

    1) The act of faith that receives God’s justification is not instrumental, but only the condition of faith that God provides (and this seems to reduce to absurdity).

    2) The act of faith is not obedience at all. But if that is the case, then what sort of act is spoken of in the Bible that is not either obedient or disobedient, or that falls beyond the pale of God’s commands?

  30. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    I don’t know how you cannot end up there, given that an act of faith “has an obedient character.” What exactly does that mean, if not, “an act of faith is obedience.”

    I am not distinguishing between faith (considered as a spiritual faculty in regenerate man) and an act of faith. In this context, you can use them interchangably. They may have an obedient quality or character, but that doesn’t mean that faith/act of faith is defined as obedience. Not everything that is true of faith or an act of faith is true of obedience. You are just smearing around the definitions and relations between distinct concepts.

  31. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    I think the proper distinction Doug is making is between works apart from faith, and works done according to faith. By the former there is not, properly speaking, obedience to the Law. Yet with the latter, occurring as a result of regeneration into the condition of faith, the act of faith that apprehends and receives God’s justification is rightly understood as an act of obedience to the Law, that is, God’s command to trust in His Word and in His character.

    Was Abraham’s circumcision a work done according to faith?

  32. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 3:30 pm

    “Not everything that is true of faith or an act of faith is true of obedience.”

    I agree with the first part of this proposition, but I’d like you to demonstrate the second. more explicitly: I agree that what is true of faith is not always true of obedience (I have labored already to demonstrate the distinction between the condition of faith and obedience), but I wish for you to show me how “an act of faith” is not “obedience.”

    If I am smearing the definitions, then I’d appreciate it if you could show me where the distinctions exist, as I’ve asked already.

    So far I’ve only seen an assertion that there is a distinction. I am having no trouble recognizing your assertion. What I’m looking for is some demonstration.

    How can one act in faith without that act being obedience?

  33. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    “Was Abraham’s circumcision a work done according to faith?”

    For Abraham it was a work done according to faith. But the purpose of circumcision was not to justify Abraham, if that is what you are getting at. Abraham’s faithful act of believing God (an act of faith resulting from the prior condition of faith freely given by God) was the instrument by which Abraham received God’s justification.

  34. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    #33 – but you aren’t following your own reasoning. Why couldn’t Abraham’s circumcision have justified him, since it was an act of faith just like believing in Christ?

  35. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    #34

    It couldn’t have justified him because he was justified prior to circumcision. The subsequent act of circumcision according to faith is simply a subsequent act of faith to the original act of faith that was believing in God’s free justification.

    You are confusing separate acts. The act of faith that first believes God’s free justification, that is, the act of faith that receives it as true, is an act of obedience.

    The act of circumcision follows these and is an entirely separate moment.

  36. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 4:15 pm

    So, since Abraham’s circumcision was likewise an act of faith, the only thing keeping it from justifying Abraham is the fact that it came chronologically later than his initial trust in God? Is that it?

    That is not the reasoning we are presented with in Romans 4. Paul mentions the chronological issue (faith came before circumcision) as a biblical proof to establish his main point – that we are justified by faith and not works. He still puts it in the works/law category, even though it was an act of Spirit-wrought faith, and on THIS BASIS excludes it from being instrumental in justification alongside of faith.

  37. Seth Foster said,

    June 5, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    I am having a little trouble following this discussion but this thought comes to mind as I read the comments: Could the reason why the FV seems to be swimming in muddy waters when it comes to justification, faith, obedience, sanctification, and works have something to do with the imputation vs. infusion controversy? Wasn’t that the third declaration or error that the FV study committee determined was contrary to the WSC?

    Here is my take and please correct me if I am wrong. Then rather than try to explain my understanding of the FV position, I’d like to direct you to a church website pastor’s page and get your input on his own words.

    It is my biblical understanding that Christ’s righteousness (His perfect obedience to the Law) is imputed – not infused – to us when we are born again. In sanctification, we become more and more like Christ as we yield ourselves to the Holy Spirit who lives in the believer on a daily, moment by moment basis. And, even that yielding is the work of grace in a believer’s heart.

    The verse that comes to mind is Paul’s in Galatians 2:20: I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.

    In other words, it is not my works that justifies or sanctifies – it’s Christ’s work in me; it is not my righteousness – it’s Christ’s righteousness in me; it is not my obedience or perseverance – it is Christ’s perfect obedience and perseverance in the life I now live in the flesh.

    What amazing love and grace! And that is why Paul goes on to exhort the Galatians to stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again in a yoke of (works-righteousness) bondage (Gal. 5:1)

    Gentleman, brothers – that is what I believe is the grave danger of Federal Vision theology – it is spiritual bondage based, not on imputation, but on infusion. And, I fear that it is becoming more and more entrenched in your churches and presbyteries.

    In order to be “fair and balanced”, as objective as possible, and not to misrepresent the FV, I would like to direct you to http://www.communitypca.org
    If you go to the pastor’s page, you will find his response to the nine declarations. But the one that is specifically related to imputation is #3. I would like your input because I can’t quite decipher his FV code. Thanks.

    If my comment is off the mark of this post, then please ignore it and accept my apologies.

  38. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 4:41 pm

    #36

    No, it isn’t a chronological priority, but a logical one David. Prior to even physical action (circumcision) is a mental one (belief/unbelief). Belief/unbelief are either obedience/disobedience, and therefore of faith/without faith.

    Paul is referring to the physical act in Romans 4, not the condition of Abraham’s belief within the act. Paul is affirming that the outward act of circumcision plays no part in our justification, but it does not follow from this that Paul is denying that an act of faith is not also an act of obedience.

    Here is the logical order:

    Regeneration – God give us the condition of faith as a gift
    Act of faith – we believe that God has justified us freely
    Outward evidence – our belief results in conformity to God’s commands

    The first act is God’s own in which we are entirely passive.

    The second act requires an exercise of the mind, namely, belief. An act of our mind is passive in the sense that it has not created the condition (justification), but it is active in the sense that it is assenting to the condition as true.

    The active assent of the mind to the truth of our justification is an act of obedience: God commands us to believe, and when we do, we have obeyed His Word.

    Thus, the act of faith that is the instrument of justification is necessarily also an act of obedience which falls under the same category: both are act resultant from the prior condition of faith that was gifted by God in regeneration.

    No autonomous works scheme can be attributed to this view. It is not unbiblical, but is simply a necessary implication from the characteristics of an action.

    Circumcision w/o faith is unbelief and therefore disobedience of the heart (regardless of outward conformity)

    Circumcision of the heart is according to faith and therefore obedience to the command of God to “circumcise your heart.” Obedience does not cause our justification, but results from it, and characterizes (i.e. is inseparably an aspect of) the faith that _acts_ to receive God’s work as true.

  39. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    #37

    Seth, I cannot speak for any FV proponents (since I’m not an FV adherent), but I can tell you that this particular discussion is not a disagreement concerning imputation and infusion.

    No one here is asserting that man accomplishes his own salvation apart from God, or that man is glorified (infused with righteousness) when united to Christ.

  40. tim prussic said,

    June 5, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    I’d like to see an answer to #14.

  41. David Gadbois said,

    June 5, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Circumcision of the heart is according to faith and therefore obedience to the command of God to “circumcise your heart.” Obedience does not cause our justification, but results from it, and characterizes (i.e. is inseparably an aspect of) the faith that _acts_ to receive God’s work as true.

    This still doesn’t deal with Romans 4. Paul puts circumcision into the category of works/law, which he explicitly distinguishes from the act of passive/receptive faith. What you are trying to smear together, Paul keeps apart.

  42. Gene said,

    June 5, 2008 at 8:08 pm

    You guys sure seem to work up a lot of sweat to say that God saves us and we appreciate it.

  43. Vern Crisler said,

    June 5, 2008 at 8:26 pm

    Re: #37

    Seth, I think you’re understanding of justification is not quite up to par. You are making the mistake of Osiander, who placed the ground of justification in us. See Section the Wikipedia entry, under “Theology” at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Osiander

    Also, John H. Newman, a Protestant who apostatized to the Roman Catholic sect, believed that it was the work of grace in us that was the basis for justification.

    Both of these views place the ground of justification in us, whereas the Reformed view is that the ground of justification is outside of us, an alien righteousness, i.e., the righteousness of Christ. Theologians have used the terms analytic justification and synthetic justification to describe the main differences between Romanist and Protestant views. Protestants reject analytic justification, the idea that God’s analysis of man — whether his inward transformation, Christ’s presence within him, his future eschatological state, and so on — is the basis for justification. Rather, God looks outside of us, upon Christ, and his life and death (active and passive obedience) are the basis for our justification (a synthetic transaction).

    As usual, FVists are clueless about Reformed theology, so if you want a better understanding of justification, go to standard Reformed systematic theologies. Nothing to be gained by following these Cardinal Newman wannabes.

    Vern

  44. June 5, 2008 at 8:58 pm

    I’d like to see an answer to both #14 and #27

  45. Joshua said,

    June 5, 2008 at 10:19 pm

    David, read #38 again: I do deal with Romans 4.

    The argument isn’t about temporal order, but logical. The act of the mind (belief/unbelief) always precedes the act of the body (circumcision). Just as the sin of Adam in the garden occurred prior to eating the fruit, so the act of faith always precedes the outward work.

    In Romans 4, Paul is contrasting the outward work of circumcision with the inward work of faith that responds to God’s free grace.

    If I’m smearing something, you continue to avoid demonstration and are satisfied with bare assertions.

  46. David Gadbois said,

    June 6, 2008 at 9:56 am

    In Romans 4, Paul is contrasting the outward work of circumcision with the inward work of faith that responds to God’s free grace.

    OK, so why does Paul put the two in separate categories, with circumcision belonging to the law/works category, when your proposal is that they are both in the category of Spirit-wrought obedience/acts of faith?

  47. G.C. Berkley said,

    June 6, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Thankfully our salvation isn’t dependent upon our precise and exact understanding of the mechanisms of justification. However, I thought comments #14 and #22 were good ones that need to be addressed. So far, no takers. It would be glaring if they are ignored…

    Thanks!

  48. David Gadbois said,

    June 6, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    G.C. and Terry – hopefully the rest of the dialogue here would give you an idea of how #14 and #22 would be answered.

    While it is not improper to speak of placing faith in Christ as being an act of obedience, along with being an act of faith, that does not logically make faith and obedience interchangable, such that you can impute to obedience everything you would impute to faith.

  49. tim prussic said,

    June 6, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    Pr. Lane and David, would you mind tossin’ an answer at #14?

    I’ll grant that I’ve got plenty of reading to do and have not studied many things out, but this question seems like the elephant in the room. Contrived answers to this question will, in my view, make the historic Protestant view of justification synthetic and unable to deal with the full biblical concept of faith.

    If one is say that simple, justifying belief, while it is certainly a gift of God, is an obedient act, but one is to qualify that as non-meritorious, graciously-given, and clearly distinct from works of the law, would you say that such an one has denied the gospel? Is an obedient faith (thusly qualified) an heretical notion?

    This seems very closely related to the discussion of 3 or 4 months ago about monergism and Calvinistic synergism. Faith, ISTM, necessitates, human action – we gotta believe; God don’t believe for us, and I don’t see a third option (though maybe there is one). At the same time, faith is most certainly a gift of God. It seems that our discussion lies somewhere in the middle of all that.

  50. tim prussic said,

    June 6, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    David (#47), who’s arguing for the interchangeability of faith and obedience?!? Clearly, faith conceived as obedience is a subset of it, and thus, distinct from it. I think we need to trace out the distinctions, which evidently I’m not sharp enough to do here and now at work!

  51. Joshua said,

    June 6, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    David said: “OK, so why does Paul put the two in separate categories, with circumcision belonging to the law/works category, when your proposal is that they are both in the category of Spirit-wrought obedience/acts of faith?”

    Because Paul is contrasting the outward, physical act of circumcision with the inward act of faith–consistent with his polemic against Judaizing that would seek to “baptize” Gentiles into the requirements of the Mosaic Law.

    For Abraham to have obeyed the command to be circumcised it is presupposed that he believed God. One who is circumcised apart from belief is not truly circumcised (which is why the OT speaks so frequently of circumcision of the heart).

    The condition of the person always precedes act of the mind/will, which always precedes the physical act. Paul takes on the third step in his polemic, because the Jews in his day misunderstood the prior two steps. The whole flow of Romans follows this:

    1. God justifies freely
    2. The person is united with Christ (this includes the gift of faith, which is a condition of the person, i.e. the new creation)
    3. The person responds in an act of faith, believing what God has done in Christ. To believe is to obey the command of God that says “believe in me” and all its variant. This obedience arises from the condition of faith, i.e. from the person’s regeneration by the Spirit. All obedience is Spirit-wrought, including the act of faith that lays hold of God’s work of justifying him/her in Christ.

    David says: “While it is not improper to speak of placing faith in Christ as being an act of obedience, along with being an act of faith, that does not logically make faith and obedience interchangable, such that you can impute to obedience everything you would impute to faith.”

    And if you’ve been following carefully you would see that I distinguish faith as a condition from obedience. The real issue, which you continue to assert your disagreement with (without demonstration) is whether an act of faith (as an act of faith distinguished from the condition of faith) is also an act of obedience.

    You say it is not, but saying so doesn’t make it so, and it certainly doesn’t demonstrate how it is so. Again, if you think I’m in error, please demonstrate to me how and then demonstrate the correct construction.

  52. June 6, 2008 at 2:16 pm

    Lads,

    There has been a long-standing debate in our circles over whether we can call the offer of the gospel “conditional,” or if we must say it’s “unconditional.” Or, is faith a condition that we fulfill, and of not, then why does it seems like it is?

    Most have argued that faith is a necessary instrument by which we receive the merits of Christ (pardon the expletive), and that “believing” is not something that God does for us. That said, though, we also acknowledge that faith is a gift that is given to all the elect unconditionally.

    The gracious nature of faith precludes its being considered a “condition” in the same way that Adam’s obedience would have functioned in the covenant of works. He was created (or so we used to believe) upright and able to obey his Creator, which, if he had done, would have secured eternal life for him and his posterity. Faith, contrasted with Adam’s obedience, passively receives the work of someone else (Christ the second Adam).

    Furthermore, the passive, non-contributory, receptive nature of faith precludes its being described as “obedient faith” insofar as its justifying role is concerned. Yes, we are called to obey all Jesus’ commands, including the initial call to faith. But our initial faith is not provided by us in our fallen nature, and our ongoing obedience plays no role in our justification anyway.

    So in response to the desire for comment #14 to be addressed, I would say that faith is neither “obedience to the law” nor is it to be considered a New Covenant counterpart to law-keeping in some neonomian sense (i.e., God now only makes us obey one command [faith] instead of ten).

    Rather, faith is the non-contributory instrument through which we are justified, and is the font of all subsequent (non-meritorious though commendable) obedience and sanctification.

  53. June 6, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    […] put together the pieces in Doug Wilson’s “Federal Vision” and has finally come across a piece that just doesn’t fit no matter how hard he tries. As I see it, the solution to this puzzle comes down to what is meant […]

  54. Roger Mann said,

    June 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    51. Great points Jason! “I would say that faith is neither ‘obedience to the law’ nor is it to be considered a New Covenant counterpart to law-keeping in some neonomian sense.” That pretty much sums it up. Robert Shaw also provides us with these wise words to heed:

    5. That God “requires of sinners faith in Christ that they may be saved,” admits of no dispute. The part assigned to faith, however, has been much controverted. Many excellent divines, in consequence of the distinction which they made between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, were led to speak of faith as the condition of the latter covenant. But the term, as used by them, signifies not a meritorious or procuring cause, but simply something which goes before, and without which the other cannot be obtained. They consider faith merely as a condition of order or connection, as it has been styled, and as an instrument or means of obtaining an interest in the salvation offered in the gospel. This is very different from the meaning attached to the term by Arminians and Neonomians, who represent faith as a condition on the fulfilment of which the promise is suspended. The Westminster Assembly elsewhere affirm, that God requires of sinners faith in Christ, “as the condition to interest them in him.” But this is very different from affirming that faith is the condition of the covenant of grace. That faith is indispensably necessary as the instrument by which we are savingly interested in Christ, and personally instated in the covenant, is a most important truth, and this is all that is intended by the Westminster Divines. They seem to have used the term condition as synonymous with instrument; for, while in one place they speak of faith as the condition to interest sinners in the Mediator, in other places they affirm, that “faith is the alone instrument of justification,” and teach, that “faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.” As the word condition is ambiguous, apt to be misunderstood, and is frequently employed in an unsound and dangerous sense, it is now disused by evangelical divines.

    6. That God promises his Holy Spirit to work in his elect that faith by which they come to have a special interest in the blessings of this covenant. This implies, that a certain definite number were ordained to eternal life, and that all these shall in due time be brought to believe in Christ.—Acts xiii. 48. It also implies, that they are in themselves unwilling and unable to believe (John vi. 44); but God promises to give them the Holy Spirit to make them willing and able.—Ezek. xxxvi. 26. Faith, therefore, instead of being the condition of the covenant of grace, belongs to the promissory part of the covenant.—Rom. xv. 12. It is the gift of God, who worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure.—Eph. ii. 8; Phil. ii. 13. (Robert Shaw’s Exposition of WCF 7.3)

  55. tim prussic said,

    June 6, 2008 at 4:46 pm

    Mr. Stellman, I appreciate your answer. Thanks for taking the time. I find myself in hearty agreement with you. I do think, however, that the following comment of yours actually ends up establishing the issue that remains yet unresolved.

    “Yes, we are called to obey all Jesus’ commands, including the initial call to faith. But our initial faith is not provided by us in our fallen nature…”

    No one is arguing that we generate/exercise faith from our fallen nature. Clearly a man MUST be reborn prior to believing. Faith’s given to us and we believe by God’s gracious power at work in us in our regenerate state. All that is agreed upon (I think). The question is in what was is faith to be seen as obedience, and how is it distinct from other obedience – and that, specifically with regard to justification. I think that’s the question in #14. We have to have a distinct category for faith as obedience, and it needs definition.

  56. David Gadbois said,

    June 6, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    And if you’ve been following carefully you would see that I distinguish faith as a condition from obedience. The real issue, which you continue to assert your disagreement with (without demonstration) is whether an act of faith (as an act of faith distinguished from the condition of faith) is also an act of obedience.

    Josh, I acknowledge that the *act* of faith is also an act of obedience. That does not mean that you can impute to obedience everything that is true of faith. Believing in Christ can also be said to be an act of love, an act of intellect and wisdom, etc. It all refers to the same *act*, but that does not mean that you can attribute to intellect, wisdom, love, and faith all of the same roles, properties, or characteristics in that act. Or are you willing to say that we are justified by intellect and wisdom as well?

    Because Paul is contrasting the outward, physical act of circumcision with the inward act of faith–consistent with his polemic against Judaizing that would seek to “baptize” Gentiles into the requirements of the Mosaic Law.

    As I read Romans 4, I do not find Paul’s point to be that we can be justified by inward obedience rather than outward obedience.

  57. Vern Crisler said,

    June 6, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    test

  58. June 6, 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Tim (#53),

    Yes, I realize that no one is arguing that fallen man can believe by himself. But in seeking to “categorize” saving faith (as comment #14 asked), I felt it necessary to show that faith is neither obedience in the strict sense (fallen man obeying Jesus’ command) nor obedience in the loose sense (renewed man’s obedience contributing to his justification).

  59. Vern Crisler said,

    June 6, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Re: #37

    Seth, you said: “In other words, it is not my works that justifies or sanctifies – it’s Christ’s work in me; it is not my righteousness – it’s Christ’s righteousness in me; it is not my obedience or perseverance – it is Christ’s perfect obedience and perseverance in the life I now live in the flesh.”

    This was Osiander’s view. Against this, Calvin and Reformed theology would say that it’s not Christ’s works “in me” or his righteousness “in me” that justifies. Rather, it’s Christ’s works and righteousness “outside of me” that justifies. That’s why it’s called an “alien” righteousness. It’s outside of us. It is imputed to us from without. God doesn’t analyze anything within us as the basis for justification (analytic justification), but looks upon Christ, both in his life and death (active and passive obedience), and places that to our account.

    Maybe that’s what you meant, but I wasn’t sure from the language you were using.

    Vern

  60. tim prussic said,

    June 6, 2008 at 7:40 pm

    Mr. Stellman (#56), who’s defined obedience in the loose sense as “renewed man’s obedience contributing to his justification”? Maybe a better loose def. is doing what God commands, or simply, doing what we’re told to do by God. Believing falls into that broad definition, no?

    Now, we’re left to distinguish not only between obedience broadly and strictly considered, but we also have to figure how faith fits into the broad definition.

  61. June 6, 2008 at 11:55 pm

    Tim,

    Call me Jason.

    What I’m trying to do is exclude what our Confession calls “any thing wrought in them, or done by them, … faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience” as playing any role in our justification.

    What the divines meant here is that we cannot factor in to the justification equation our obedience to the initial command to believe, or our obedience to any subsequent command to do anything else.

    Calvin said it best when he insisted that, when we are talking about justification, we must exclude any mention of our works or obedience altogether.

    Maybe Tom Wenger could reproduce the quote (I think he has it tatooed on his chest or something).

  62. Joshua said,

    June 7, 2008 at 12:07 am

    David, you said:

    “Josh, I acknowledge that the *act* of faith is also an act of obedience. That does not mean that you can impute to obedience everything that is true of faith. Believing in Christ can also be said to be an act of love, an act of intellect and wisdom, etc. It all refers to the same *act*, but that does not mean that you can attribute to intellect, wisdom, love, and faith all of the same roles, properties, or characteristics in that act. Or are you willing to say that we are justified by intellect and wisdom as well?”

    Consider what is left of an “act of faith” when you remove all the “roles, properties, or characteristics” you mentioned.

    1. Without the intellect and wisdom the act of faith cannot involve our mind.
    2. Without love and obedience the act of faith cannot involve our will.

    What exactly is the act of faith if these elements are not inseparable from it? It is nothing but a philosophical surd, an empty term, a vacuous construction.

    The reason why we don’t speak of “the intellect” as the instrument of justification is because the intellect is part of both fallen and regenerate nature. Wisdom is also sometimes used of both unregenerate and regenerate man. Faith only follows from the regenerate person, but it does not follow that faith is NOT also an act of wisdom, of intellect, of love, and of obedience. It is all of these things, and does not vitiate the grace of God with a “works” theology of justification.

    You also said:

    “As I read Romans 4, I do not find Paul’s point to be that we can be justified by inward obedience rather than outward obedience.”

    If I could give you eyes to see I surely would.

    What exactly do you consider to comprise the “act of faith” if the “characteristics” are not attributable to it?

  63. magma2 said,

    June 7, 2008 at 8:10 am

    Just jumpin’ in for a quick comment Lane . . .

    Per #37 I recommend everyone follow Seth’s link and read Pastor Smith’s responses to the PCA report’s declarations. I have no idea why this man allowed to preach or teach in the PCA? If you want to save time, start at 9 and work backwards. It certainly explains why poor Seth would write:

    . . . it is not my works that justifies or sanctifies – it’s Christ’s work in me; it is not my righteousness – it’s Christ’s righteousness in me; it is not my obedience or perseverance – it is Christ’s perfect obedience and perseverance in the life I now live in the flesh.

    Can nobody see the damage and death being spread by so-called “Pastors” like Smith?

  64. Roger Mann said,

    June 7, 2008 at 9:21 am

    And what’s the essential difference between Seth’s explanation of the doctrine of justification in the above quote, and the Romanist doctrine of justification on the basis of infused righteousness? Personally, I don’t see any significant difference.

  65. Vern Crisler said,

    June 7, 2008 at 8:05 pm

    hmm, sorry for duplications; my posts weren’t going thru for some reason.

  66. Vern Crisler said,

    June 7, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    #63
    Ditto on Sean’s comments regarding Smith.

    However, while Seth’s understanding of justification isn’t up to par (at least in terms of what he wrote in the selected paragraph), I don’t think he was agreeing with Smith’s FV position, or that he got the “Osiander” idea from Smith. Maybe Seth could clear things up, however.

    Vern

  67. greenbaggins said,

    June 7, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    People have been wanting an answer to 14. I would classify faith as not being an act of obedience, at least with regard to justification. Faith is an act of obedience with regard to sanctification in its progressive characteristic, but not with regard to its definitive aspect. I will in no way countenance a formulation that allows obedience in any way, shape, or form, however delimited and qualified, to be instrumental in justification. It does not matter whether God gave the faith in this question. God-given obedience is not part of justification, either. God-given obedience is part of sanctification. This is non-negotiable.

  68. June 7, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Lane,

    Is it possible to have a non-meritorious obedience? If the obedience commanded in the gospel is to look away from oneself and to believe upon Christ alone for our justification, would not such obedience therefore be completely without merit because of the very nature of the act itself? Thus the analogy of the “empty hand”?

    Blessings,
    Terry

  69. Seth Foster said,

    June 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Vern,
    I have been away from my desk, so I haven’t had a chance to respond. I agree with your view completely. What I was trying but must have poorly communicated was that I believe both justification and sanctification are imputed. My understanding from reading the Doug Wilson puzzle and other FV songs and dances about obedience – whether it be justification or sanctification – is that their theology and practice, like the Romanists, hinges on infused righteousness, not imputed or as you say “alien” righteousness. That is why I believe that three or four of the declarations have had to deal with the FV errors on imputation.

    Why am I making such a big deal out of this? And, what does imputation/infusion have to do with the topic at hand? Well, can I give you a crude illustration of FV theology – I do not mean to be flippant, but this is what I have, as a layman, personally read and observed. Please bear with me.

    I picture FV obedience as sort of a windup toy; at justification which according to FV teaching is water baptism, Christ infuses a person or “winds him up” with His righteousness so that he or she is energized and able to obey His commands or, as the FV states, to persevere. By the end of the week, this FV windup toy has wound down, so to speak, and is in need of more infusion. Thus, we have the weekly FV “covenant renewal” or as we normally call it, the Lord’s Supper. I believe this is why the FV pushes for paedo-communion. For, they believe that a covenant child is placed in union with Christ at baptism and therefore is infused with the righteousness of Christ (justified) and needs to participate in a weekly covenant renewal as a necessary means of their sanctification (their ability to persevere).

    This also explains why the FV so heavily emphasizes “church-ianity” and the priestly role of the minister usurping Christ as the mediator between God and man. For, the minister sees himself as Christ’s representative to the extent that he absolves the congregation of their sin and administers this unbiblical form (covenant renewal) of the Lord’s Supper. You can read the weekly liturgy yourself on the same website. FV theology is dangerous theology that leads to dangerous tragic consequences.

    Lane, I want to thank the Lord for your efforts and passion to keep the Federal Vision issue on the front burner. For I believe we are fighting for the heart and soul of the gospel. Thank you so much for your willingness to maintain this blog and take a lot of heat, and to contend for the faith as a true soldier for Christ.

  70. Seth Foster said,

    June 8, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    One more clarifying note
    Infusion implies justification by works or in Doug’s puzzling terms “obedience”; imputation implies justification without works (Eph. 2:8-9).

    FYI
    Bill Smith’s ordination and credentials were approved and successfully transferred from the Louisiana Presbytery to the Ohio Valley Presbytery in 2005. He, along with his session, have gone unchecked and unchallenged for over three years.

  71. Todd Bordow said,

    June 9, 2008 at 9:06 am

    Seth,

    For a layman, you see very well through the subterfuge of the FV. Your church and pastor is blessed to have you as a member.

    Blesings,

    Todd Bordow
    Covenant Presbyterian (OPC)
    Fort Worth, TX

  72. Mark Horne said,

    June 9, 2008 at 11:26 am

    The reason Bill Smith was passed and has gone unchallenged is because his theology was orthodox and bears no resemblance to your vile caricatures. Ohio Presbytery still knows how to be godly and you should learn from them. (Though I can only wonder if your are being encouraged in your disgusting behavior by other members or former members–I hope not.)

    By the way: A stacked political committee, or even an honorable one, even with a GA majority vote, has 0 authority to damage a minister’s office in his presbytery–a fact that was made amply clear to the GA before they made their vote.

    Todd’s blessing of layman despising the courts (Ohio Pby is a real court, unlike any committee) is going to come back on his head. Being a commment cartoonist may qualify you as a Greenbaggins Genius on this blog, but it isn’t going to be viewed that way by the Lord of the Church when we are all summoned before Him.

    Which goes to my standing win MO pby. The only thing I’m being “protected from” are slanders from bloggers. There is no subterfuge. We are here because we are orthodox Presbyterians. Period.

  73. Seth Foster said,

    June 9, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    #63 states that the teaching of Bill Smith will bring damage and death to PCA churches.

    #66 dittoes #63.

    #72 claims that Bill Smith’s teaching is orthodox and should be left unchallenged by virtue of the authority and approval of a church court. And, because #72 says so.

    #72 also claims that the findings of the study committee along with the approval of almost the entire GA should be disregarded and ignored by virtue of the fact that a committee has no authority to challenge a pastor’s teaching. Also, the committee was “politically stacked”. Why? Because #72 says so.

    So, we peons in the pew must accept the FV teaching and preaching of Bill Smith and other FV pastors as the accepted orthodox teaching of the PCA.
    Why? Because church courts like the Ohio Valley Presbytery are considered the final authority on matters of faith. And, because #72 says so.

  74. Ron Henzel said,

    June 9, 2008 at 6:30 pm

    Thomas Müntzer vouched for the Zwickau Prophets. Isabella de Medici vouched for Faustus Socinus. Antoine Saliceti vouched for Napoleon Bonaparte. “Bugs” Moran vouched for Al Capone. Dietrich Eckart vouched for Adolf Hitler. Alvin Karpis vouched for Charles Manson.

    And now Mark Horne vouches for Bill Smith. Why doesn’t this set my mind at ease? I wonder…

  75. Seth Foster said,

    June 9, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    Could it be that Bill Smith’s teaching was approved by the OVP because he was among like-minded men? If they are not like-minded, then why has no disciplinary action been taken by the OVP as recommended by the report? Why no outrage as has been expressed on this post?

  76. Seth Foster said,

    June 9, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    The PCA has a problem and it is not the role of women in the church. It’s in the hearts of men in leadership – men who lack the courage and conviction to stand for the truth of the gospel. I heard a report of a pastor who recently left the Ohio Valley Presbytery and broke all ties with the PCA because of his public stand against the false teaching of the Federal Vision. I guess he didn’t share the “orthodox” views of Bill Smith and his presbytery.

  77. Elder Hoss said,

    June 9, 2008 at 11:59 pm

    Seth – Standing for the “truth of the gospel” would be a worthy endeavor for Presbyterian and Reformed men today, if they actually understood it, and from there, declared it in the power of the Holy Spirit to a perishing generation.

    I’ve heard some of the most dyed-in-the-wool of the TULIP crowd “preach the gospel” without once mentioning the terrible offense of peoples’ sin against a holy God, the need for repentance, and in turn, the great redemptive fact of the RESURRECTION of our Lord as the culmination of that gospel. Nice essays that read like an excerpt from one of Godet’s commentaries, sure. But messages which follow the simple apostolic kerygma, or “the Gospel” – not always, sad to say.

    Truth can often suffer most in the house of its friends.

    Then of course others, in the “New Life” crowd, believing that the chief aim of the “gospel” is to convince people that they should stop trying so hard to obey God, and just realize that “they are more sinful than they ever dared believe, and more loved than they ever dared hope” AS IF the gospel was a matter of convincing people that Jesus died for them individually and accepts them simply by virtue of their asking Him into their hearts.

    All of this in the “flagship” PCA churches, where, allegedly, a “great church planting movement” has been birthed.

    Nonsense.

    If you want to talk about “standing for the truth of the gospel” start THERE.

    As has been previously noted in a related thread, there are strict subscriptionists [to the SECOND version of the WCF at least, the one that excised theonomic impulses from its pages] bad to the bone “TR” Presbyterian and Reformed ministers who will, if pressed, admit that their ministries have not issued forth in the conversion of a single pagan, or “outsider” to their congregation in over 10 yrs. Some of these are the same men who shout most vociferously about the “grave threat to the gospel posed” by this or that FV guy, no more or less relevant to Christendom and the worldwide spread of the gospel than they are.

    PCA congregations which in practice, reject the third mark of the church [as articulated by, say Belgic 29], which sinfully “re-baptize” members who have received trinitarian baptisms, which tolerate borderline heretical hymnody patterned after the so-called “charismatic renewal”, Presbyteries which ordain men who lack even an elementary grasp of their reformed history through the work of diverse sections of the church such as Dabney, Kuyper, Van Til, Bavinck, and Session members who themselves refuse to provide a Christian education for their covenant youth, and who fail to uphold the kind of zealous obedience to God’s law that Paul did in his apostolic labors [note that “being zealous to maintain good works” is one of the “faithful sayings” which circulated in the early church] – THESE are the 5th column the church ought deal with, as all such pose A FAR GREATER threat than does Norman Shepherd or Douglas Wilson, sorry to say.

    Yes, let sundry of our PCA Presbyteries and Sessions recover a fear of God and His law, inculcate Christian education as normative for God’s people [public school educators who hate Jesus are a FAR greater danger to your church’s children than is this or that series of conference tapes from Monroe Louisiana or Moscow Idaho, truth be told], get about the business of removing from their ordained leadership men who show by their feckless and incompetent ordering of their homes that they have sullied the office of elder, let the standard of daily family worship and a healthy regard for the Lord’s Day – let all of these weighty matters be given the due proportion they deserve.

    Consider this my anti-Romanizing tendencies, but it seems to me that a properly catechized laity, walking in the fear of God, will be more than capable of taking whatever meat and expectorating whatever bone exists in Wilson, Leithart, or anyone else. Remember as well that these individuals in most cases fall outside the province of our own denominations, such that we would do well to IMMEDIATELY and COMPREHENSIVELY address the individual and corporate transgressions that have come in many respects, to characterize entire congregations, if not Presbyteries.

    There is a reason a good and trusted colleague of mine left the PCA for the URC, as he came to the conviction that on the very basis of the Reformed Confessions’ delineating the true/false church, it was no longer possible for him to discern whether his local church, as well as his Presbytery, had irretrievably crossed the line. As he observes continuing trends in the PCA along the lines I’ve illustrated in an animated fashion, he is more confirmed in his decision, with the passing of each Lord’s Day.

  78. Ron Henzel said,

    June 10, 2008 at 4:01 am

    Elder,

    I’m all for the properly-catechized laity for which you call, because if the PCA nationwide was truly characterized by that then dangerous men like Steve Wilkins and those who’s supported him would have been shown the door years ago, and our churches would have properly seen that the teachings of Norman Shepherd, Douglas Wilson, and Peter Leithart are a far greater threat than your incessant insistence that they are little more than a “tempest in a teapot.”

    As you well know, I have taken some of the concerns you raise here very seriously when you’ve raised them elsewhere. For example, I have joined you in your concern over the neglect of church discipline in the PCA. But allow me to say here (as I hope I’ve implied elsewhere) that I join you only insofar as these and other allegations can be corroborated by testimony and evidence, of which you have provided exceedingly little.

    Where are these churches of which you complain? Where are these presbyteries? Are you the only one who can be entrusted with the knowledge of them?

    Meanwhile, you have written many other things here and elsewhere over many months that have, in my opinion, seriously undermined your credibility. You fight sin with sin, and if you were in my church, I would have worked assiduously to have you brought up on charges several times now for your ridiculously bitter and often libelous (not to mention utterly juvenile) attacks in defense of heresy a long time ago.

    How ironic! Your anonymity affords you protection from the very third mark of the church that you would see pursued with others! Coincidence? I think not.

    On the other hand, I find your more calm and self-disciplined tone here refreshing. I can only hope that the rebukes that others here have delivered to you in recent days are now bearing fruit. You have been consistently rude, arrogant, and spiritually blind. One down, two to go.

    You are filled with anecdotes, and some of them bear the ring of truth. But to pat yourself on the back by attributing your support of catechizing to an “anti-Romanizing” tendency is enough to gag a maggot! The only catechizing your buddies Shepherd, Wilson, Leithart, Wilkins, Schlissel, Lusk, Horne, et. al. would support would be that which deleted questions 70 through 73 from the Westminster Larger Catechism (or gutted from them the doctrine of imputation), thus paving the way for a future generation to make a pilgrimage across the Tiber. And as we all know, some already have.

  79. Elder Hoss said,

    June 10, 2008 at 9:25 am

    Ron – I could well apply the following to your bromides here, and elsewhere:

    “We are now so stultified in our thinking and so priggish in our expressions that it becomes unavoidably offensive to tell the truth.” – Johann George Hamann

  80. Ron Henzel said,

    June 10, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    Elder Hoss,

    You’ve essentially just proved one of my basic points.

  81. Elder Hoss said,

    June 10, 2008 at 1:58 pm

    Ron – In responding to your unsolicited remarks (your old standby) I went out on a limb quoting a non-Eerdmans and non-Banner writer. Please pardon.

  82. Todd said,

    June 10, 2008 at 2:14 pm

    Elder Hoss,

    Where are all these mass conversions among the theonomic camp?

    Todd Bordow
    Covenant Presbyterian Church
    Fort Worth, TX

  83. Ron Henzel said,

    June 10, 2008 at 3:57 pm

    Elder Hoss,

    It must take a man of firm principles and deep convictions to write the way you do. When you find out what they are, let me know.

  84. Elder Hoss said,

    June 10, 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Well Ron, apparently, the way/the what of my writing [you doubtless recall commenting on how “engaging” they appear to you when I asked why you continued to respond unsolicited to my writings] has piqued your interest to such an exent that you’ve contacted http://www.reformedcatholicism.com in an effort to determine my name through a process of elimination [“Johnson, is it you?”], kind of like the nascent gumshoe Oscar Smuff in the old Hardy Boy thrillers! Perhaps with GLW [who has expressed similar queries], you could establish a burgeoning detective practice, pro bono of course.

  85. Ron Henzel said,

    June 10, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    Yes, Hoss, I was a bit curious as to your identity. Although I find it inexplicable that anyone with an ounce of self-respect would support your infantile online tirades, I was nevertheless relieved to learn that even though Kevin spoon-feeds your gargantuan ego over at his RC blog, he at least does not stoop to the level of cowardice that would be required to actually be someone who regularly puts his lack of sanctification on display behind an assumed name.

    I’ll let you have the last word here, if you so desire.

  86. its.reed said,

    June 10, 2008 at 7:31 pm

    Ref. 85:

    Elder Hoss:

    Your behavior is unbecoming one who professes faith in Christ.

    Repent and reform it please. Or, if not so convicted, stop posting to this blog.

    Reed DePace
    moderator

  87. Richard Goswiller said,

    June 11, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Brian Harrington (elder Hoss)…is that you?

  88. Pat Woods said,

    June 12, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    Actually, what Mr. Miller (New Life) meant was more in keeping with the prayer: “Lord have mercy on me a sinner” when he said “you’re worse than you think and more loved than you dare believe”.
    It is not the great theology of the PCA, but it is a good way to open the conversation to baby Christians who don’t know much.

  89. Vern Crisler said,

    June 12, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Re: #88,

    rey said, “They make the gospel = “Adam sinned and you’re going to hell for what he did. But wait–Jesus died, so just say ‘I beleive’ and then go sin all you want personally and its ok….”

    Rey, would you and “Elder Hoss” provide some names and dates? Just what Reformed minister is teaching this sort of antinomianism?

    Vern

  90. its.reed said,

    June 12, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Ref. 88:

    Rey, you continue to make comments that are strange, off the wall, and leave one scratching one’s head how in the world you think your point has anything to do with the original comment to which you are responding.

    At least you’re consistent.

  91. Pat Woods said,

    June 13, 2008 at 11:06 am

    I think that justifying faith is the only response I could have to God’s grace to me in His Justifying act of Jesus’ death on the cross for my salvation. Like “the ringing of the nose produces blood”. It just has to happen. Of course it is God’s work and of course it is my God given response to His work (that’s what I thought Seth was getting at when he referred to an instrument producing music).
    I think that sanctifying faith is a choice. I choose every day if I am going to believe the Lord, take him at his Word, obey His commands etc…sometime I choose not to, and then by God’s grace I repent.
    So, sure I do the acts of faith, but I do neither on my own and I certainly didn’t have any control over justifying faith, it just happened.

  92. synthesizer said,

    June 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    ref #92

    I thought I was the only one who was mystified.

  93. tim prussic said,

    June 13, 2008 at 3:41 pm

    I just figured Elder Hoss what the geriatric version of the big guy on Bonanza.

  94. Seth Foster said,

    June 13, 2008 at 4:33 pm

    I think we got off track around #77.
    I recently read the Aquila Report and read the news that the Louisiana Presbytery received a strong admonition from this week’s General Assembly. I applaud this action which is refreshing and encouraging for God’s church. And, I would also like to encourage the Louisiana Presbytery for their humble response to this admonition. God will surely honor humble hearts with His mercy and forgiveness.

    I pray that this admonition would speak to the hearts of all the presbyteries in the PCA. I plead specifically for the Ohio Valley Presbytery. More than three years ago, you approved the transfer of a pastor from the Louisiana Presbytery. This pastor had supported the views of Steve Wilkins having signed the Auburn Avenue Position Statement. Yet with this knowledge you went ahead with a voiced vote and approved him almost unanimously. For the last three years, he and his session with your help hounded and intimidated anyone who spoke out against the Federal Vision; your shepherding committee threatened a pastor with discipline if he didn’t get his wife to confess to slander and retract the truth of her statements on ByFaith online. That pastor and his family will probably never darken the door of a PCA church in the future. Every Sunday, you allow this FV pastor to preach the same dangerous views that have brought confusion and have damaged the purity of the gospel and the church. Please do not let this admonition to the Louisiana Presbytery from the General Assembly fall on deaf ears and hard hearts. A broken and contrite heart God will not despise (Psalm 51).

  95. David Gray said,

    June 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    >A broken and contrite heart God will not despise

    All too often this is invoked suggesting how others should be broken and contrite…

  96. tim prussic said,

    June 13, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    That’s right, you should repent!

  97. its.reed said,

    June 13, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    Ok guys – off tpic. I’m gonna let it go, provided you all agree to not poke each other again – at least on this one.

    :)

  98. Mark Chambers said,

    June 14, 2008 at 9:11 am

    Lane said:
    I would classify faith as not being an act of obedience, at least with regard to justification. Faith is an act of obedience with regard to sanctification in its progressive characteristic, but not with regard to its definitive aspect.

    That is exactly right.

    I posted this in the other “puzzled” thread but I’ll repeat it here.

    [The Scriptural analogy] is the blind man receiving his sight or iow, one being in a dark room when the light is turned on. Is the will involved? No. Is seeing light an act of obedience? No, it is a matter of realization. One with eyes to see, sees. The regenerate mind believes. The regenerate individual does not have to will to believe [the justifying work of Christ] any more than the seeing person must will to see light. Whole eyes see. Regenerate minds believe.

    Justification took place at the cross. It is applied to the individual at the moment of regeneration. It is received by that person in the same way the eye receives light from an outside source. One does not intend to see or will to see, they see. It is a matter of realization and is utterly passive.

    [On the other hand] Acts of obedience; positive responses to the commands of God; all those things that are part and parcel of progressive sanctification and the life of the disciple (which proceed from the regenerate heart and are subsequent to justification) involve the will. Justifying faith is not an act of the will and is therefore not a matter of obedience. It is entirely the work of Christ.

  99. bret said,

    June 14, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    #67

    If it is non-negotiable does that mean that Wilson no longer can be considered within the pale? Does Wilson’s equivocating on this one point suggest at the very least that he speaks dialectically and so should be listened to carefully when it comes to the doctrine of justification?

  100. Elder Hoss said,

    June 14, 2008 at 10:01 pm

    Ron – My last word would simply be that things like de facto antimonianism, ordaining unqualified men to the office, refusing to act upon the late D. James Kennedy’s courageous motion against public education, dumbed down seeker services, modifying the WCF (1783) whilst claiming to hold to strict subscriptionism – all of these things are of far greater and more immediately relevant danger than this or that book from Canon Press or Athanasius Press, or what have you.

    The churches are losing our covenant youth in droves, and I would think that the modus operandi of our PCA pastors in the wake of such horrific realities ought be very different. What animiates/motivates them in their indefatigable obsession with B-players on the world stage of Christendom such as are found among, say, the FV?

    As to again, my use of a pseudonym, I could ask what benefit it is to you, if playing chess in the park, to know the name of your opponent.. Or, I could ask of what benefit it was for a particular populace to know who wrote the First and Second Blasts of the Trumpet, or – more tellingly – Hebrews.

    Truth be told, I have zero interest in sending this or that heresy hound or bureacrat hack on the trail of my pastors, fine men who serve the Lord with great zeal and whom you likely would fulminate against (with others on this blog) so as to jeopardize their abilities to serve the Lord in their capacity as pastors.

    Yet another reason for the pseudonym.

  101. rgmann said,

    June 15, 2008 at 1:14 am

    102: Elder Hoss wrote,

    Yet another reason for the pseudonym.

    Or, more likely, cowardice! And, for what it’s worth, the writer of Hebrews wasn’t using a “pseudonym” or trying to “hide” his identity for fear of public criticism! But you obviously take yourself seriously, and that’s all that really matters, right?

  102. rgmann said,

    June 15, 2008 at 1:28 am

    100: Mark wrote,

    [On the other hand] Acts of obedience; positive responses to the commands of God; all those things that are part and parcel of progressive sanctification and the life of the disciple (which proceed from the regenerate heart and are subsequent to justification) involve the will. Justifying faith is not an act of the will and is therefore not a matter of obedience. It is entirely the work of Christ.

    Mark, the problem is that God has quite clearly commanded us to “repent” (Acts 17:30) and have “faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21). The Apostle John leaves us with no doubt as to our duty:

    “And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ.” 1 John 3:23

    It seems quite a stretch to argue that when we obey God’s command to believe in His Son, that our “faith” is not an act of obedience or a “positive response to the commands of God.” Moreover, as I’ve pointed out several times now, the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly states that justifying faith is an act of “evangelical obedience” — “not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness” (WCF 11.1). So, unless one feels that the Confession is wrong on this point, I’m not sure how we can argue that faith is not an act of evangelical obedience.

  103. Mark Chambers said,

    June 15, 2008 at 6:07 am

    Mark, the problem is

    The problem Mann is with your reasoning. How does one come to faith? How does one believe? How does one DO faith?

    that God has quite clearly commanded us to “repent” (Acts 17:30) and have “faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).

    Precisely Mann. Faith is something one has, repentance is something one does. There is a categorical difference there Mann which your conflation indicates you are missing. Furthermore you misread Acts 20:21. There is an unwarranted inference in your use of the verse.

    Act 20:20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house,
    Act 20:21 solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

    There is no command there.

    The Apostle John leaves us with no doubt as to our duty:
    “And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ.” 1 John 3:23

    Again Mann, how does one DO belief? How does it come about?

    It seems quite a stretch to argue that when we obey God’s command to believe in His Son,

    Once again Mann, how does one obey the command to believe? You confuse the evidences of faith and belief (repentance for example) with belief itself. The latter is condition (a matter of ontology) out of which the former proceeds.

    that our “faith” is not an act of obedience or a “positive response to the commands of God.”

    Faith itself is not a matter of obedience. Acts of faith; those things which proceed from the condition of faith; those things which people of faith do, are indeed matters of obedience. You’re confusing categories. How does one muster up a belief Mann? How does one bring themselves to believe? Explain the mechanics of it all. You make saving faith a work. Saving Faith is not a work. It is not something you bring yourself to do. It is a condition, a constituent aspect of the regenerate mind. That is why it is right to say that Justification is by faith NOT WORKS, but also correct to say that Faith works.

    Moreover, as I’ve pointed out several times now,

    A repeated error is still an error.

    the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly states that justifying faith is an act of “evangelical obedience”

    I don’t believe you understand the confession Mann. You appear to proof text it the same as you do Scripture.

    14:1 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls (Heb_10:39), is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts

    You would do well to understand why the divines made the distinction they did. Until you (and others like you) are able to distinguish between being and doing these confused arguments will continue on ad infinitum.

    There is nothing more to say on the matter.

  104. Elder Hoss said,

    June 15, 2008 at 8:13 am

    RGmann (and Ron, at the end of this comment) – That I’ve written about 98% with my given name, what I have more recently written with “Elder Hoss” would demolish your broadside, and again, if you can tell me how knowing the identity of your opponent in a chess match in the park is the sine qua non of engagement, have at it.

    My pastors, while agreeing with virtually everything I have been putting forth here, are smarter than I am, in that they refuse to allow the world of the combox to intrude upon their duties as pastors/teaching elders, and again, I have zero interest in creating even the possibility of kangaroo courts for either of them (you and others may persist in characterizing that as “cowardice” but that ought be very difficult to do in light of the 2 factors I have just underscored).

    Let the merit (pun intended) of arguments prevail. A few threads back now, the offer was posed to get our “exegetical hands dirty” by finding passages in Paul where he spoke of the “obedience of faith.” On 3-4 occasions (to Reed’s consternation I’m sure) I drew attention to the fact that in Romans 10, the beloved and inspired Apostle uses “believing the report”, “calling upon the Name of the Lord”, and “obeying the gospel” interchangeably.

    No response really was forthcoming, save for a tacit acknowledgement that while this may have been the case in Paul (ie, that he may have used “obeying the gospel” in a sense OTHER than speaking merely of non-believers who FAIL TO) various apriori polemical concerns make it necessary for us to still maintain, CONTRA Paul, that “works of law” and “obedience” are the same thing, and that Paul “never uses obedience” in the context of justifying faith.

    With all due respect, it is this kind of overbite/breakdancing which solidifies Liberals and other non-Reformed people in their heresy/heterodoxy, and when people call attention to it, something more than “repent and change your demeanor” is required in the chess match.

    Call me John Jones, Thurston Howell III, Elmer Fudd, or – as has happened here – far worse. But just deal with the arguments. Deal with the very real quagmire our denomination presently finds itself in for such things as refusing to bring the late D. James Kennedy’s public education censure for a full vote, for tolerating seeker-sensitive services which trifle with our holy God, for shunning catechesis of our youth, church discipline, and a host of other blandishments that we ought face head on, in concert with the adage we love to quote but not obey, “ekklesia reformada reformanda est.”

    My last comment, and Ron, I do appreciate your graciousness in allowing me the last word. Undersrtand my ribbings were in part a response to yours (as you have a formidable sense of humor viz. some of your comments toward ‘ole Hoss at RefCath, I’m assuming we have a level of raparte where this is appropriate, but do forgive me if I have caused unecessary offense).

  105. its.reed said,

    June 15, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Ref. 106:

    Elder Hoss, you have no basis to assume anything to my consternation, as I’ve not given you any arguments or debates one way or the other. Might I suggest you are so busy tarring people you only know via the internet that you are not careful in your reading.

    Your comment here to RG Mann (#102) earns you your second warning from me.

    “Truth be told, I have zero interest in sending this or that heresy hound or bureacrat hack on the trail of my pastors, fine men who serve the Lord with great zeal and whom you likely would fulminate against (with others on this blog) so as to jeopardize their abilities to serve the Lord in their capacity as pastors.”

    Here you personally attack RG Mann. As well, you once again attack other broadly. You are consistent in broadside mischararacterizations of both the commenters on this blog, and the pubilc that reads it. Such amounts to libel (slander in writing) and is sinful.

    (Not to mention the fact that you’ve deliberately ignored my last warning. As I serve Lane here as a moderator, the owner of this blog, surely you can see how this is a violation of the 5th commandment).

    If you have particular accusations – particularly naming them is the biblical pattern.

    Lamenting, even arguing against what you perceive is a declension in the Church in America is completely fine (as long as it is on topic of a given thread). Your broadsides, however, are not appropriate, as your only substantive points are to malign (and broadly at that) the character of men you do not name.

    As a PCA pastor myself I take personal offense at your continued accusations against my pastoring and the pastoring of other PCA men in general.

    Again, no problem debating. But you go way beyond that.

    I challenge you to bring this to your pastors, as I believe they will agree you are over the edge and owe apologies to all here at Green Bagginses.

    Regardless, strike two. If you choose to post another comment like this, save us all the truoble of listening to your sin and just stay away.

  106. Elder Hoss said,

    June 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Reed – If you track back through this and related, threads, I think you’ll find I’ve been called a number of things, though I don’t recall you blowing the whistle at any of those junctures.

    But it’s a free country so we let it go, and we can come back to my prior assertion, which was/is simply this: Paul uses a series of terms in Romans 10, interchangeably, to describe the initial reception of the gospel, such as “believing the report”, “calling on the Name of the Lord”, and “obeying the gospel.”

    Do you object to that assertion?

    Best Wishes,

    Hoss

  107. its.reed said,

    June 15, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    Ref. 108:

    To quote what I’m sure you learned at mom’s knee, “two wrongs do not make a right.”

    Further, justifying your behavior in maligning a whole class of people, indiscriminantly, by referencing the single person here and there who may have likewise gone over the edge is in no way commensurate.

    Following Lane’s wishes and example, I try to allow individuals here to give and take as they seem able to handle without losing it. Admittedly its not an exact rule, and occassionally an individual will clearly step over the line in addressing others.

    I have challenged you however, because you have taken what you believe is a disagreement in one area of principle for you and leveraged into a wholesale accusation of ungodliness on the part of a group of people. Instead of sticking with a dueling sword to fence with those who have chosen to engage you, its as if you decided to walk around indiscriminantly pulling the trigger of a sawed-off shotgun.

    As to your particuilar query about Romans 10, a review of the posts here will show I never posted a comment about your assertion. I did not do so because your assertion did not interest me. I neither thought you were making a point in opposition to Lane’s original focus, nor did I think you advanced the discussion by that observation.

    Quite frankly, I found your comment insignifigant. To me, that makes the intensity with which you beat this drum seem so much more sad. You worry about other heresy-hunters going after your pastors because of your statements. Frankly, I think you have too high an opinion of your opinion.

    No intention to be offensive. I’m responding with some more focused clarity and criticism because it appears that you believe my leveling warnings at you has something to do with a principle difference, re. Rom. 10. It does not. I’m not bothered by your opinion and don’t think it necessary to respond to it.

    I am bothered by you maligning people, by your willingness to let a discussion on a small innocuous point be a leverage point for laying charges of ungodliness against a whole class of people for a whole host of supposed sins on their part.

    The former discussion is appropriate here (matters pertaining to Rom. 10). The latter is not. Hopefully you will understand my point and differentiate between the two.

  108. Elder Hoss said,

    June 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Reed – I think you would agree with me that trends/principles are more germane than attacking individual ministers by name. Admittedly, I’m driving at a constant refrain voiced by men far more capable than I am, re the direction of our denomination. As noted before, I know very capable URC and OPC men who are fairly down on the FV who have left the PCA not for THAT, but bc. they question whether the Reformed sense of the word “Church” applies to not a few of our congregations.

    As I know nothing of where you personally stand on these issues, you ought not conclude there is any kind of rebuke of your “pastoring.” To be frank, I was not even aware, until you mentioned it, that you were a pastor (may God use you in your labors).

    From where I sit, the grave danger facing my 12 yr old covenant kiddo parishioners is not this or that book by Douglas Wilson or Steve Wilkins. In fact, they would be greatly benefitted by reading say, FUTURE MEN, though at times Wilson likes to elevate his personal predelictions about clear Scripture warrant (like who doesn’t?). Rather, it’s our denomination’s failure to take up Dr. Kennedy’s courageous and terribly relevant motion censuring public education on the part of the covenant people.

    The same holds for seeker-sensitive worship services, re-baptizing people (in direct violation of WCF, the magisterial reformers, and – well – the universal church), and related errata such as ordaining unqualified men to office, that simply run the risk of demolishing us.

    In my writings at http://www.reformedcatholicism.com I have sought to underscore that the reactionary theologizing of many in the FV does not necessarily answer these problems either, such that, rather than a “tempest in the teapot” (as Ron characterized my position) I rather fear that “both teapots” are in disrepair and in need of massive reconceptualizing, or as the late William F Buckley said of the Conservative movement, the need to “utterly remobilize our axioms.”

    Well, I have already shared this, and will leave off.

    Best Wishes,

    H

  109. Roger Mann said,

    June 15, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    106: Elder Hoss wrote,

    …you and others may persist in characterizing that as “cowardice” but that ought be very difficult to do in light of the 2 factors I have just underscored.

    Well, since I don’t know your motive, I shouldn’t have characterized it as “cowardice.” That was clearly wrong, and I apologize for saying it. I was tired and irritable at the time (which isn’t an excuse), and I should have checked myself before posting it.

    On 3-4 occasions (to Reed’s consternation I’m sure) I drew attention to the fact that in Romans 10, the beloved and inspired Apostle uses “believing the report”, “calling upon the Name of the Lord”, and “obeying the gospel” interchangeably.

    Actually, I agree with you on this point, which is why I wrote the following in an earlier thread (“Where in Paul” #16):

    If everyone would be honest enough to use the phrase “obeying the gospel” as equivalent to “believing the gospel,” as Paul clearly does (e.g., Romans 10), then there wouldn’t be any controversy. But, as you well know, there are many who “want to pervert the gospel of Christ” by teaching that belief in the gospel alone (apart from works of any kind) is not sufficient for one’s justification, but that one must also continue to “obey” the commands and moral precepts of the law in order to obtain “future” justification at the last day — which is justification by “works” no matter how you want to slice it.

    No response really was forthcoming, save for a tacit acknowledgement that while this may have been the case in Paul…various apriori polemical concerns make it necessary for us to still maintain, CONTRA Paul, that “works of law” and “obedience” are the same thing, and that Paul “never uses obedience” in the context of justifying faith.

    I also responded to a very similar point as this in an earlier thread (“More Puzzled” #6):

    Ron, the “faith” spoken of in WCF 11 is faith in relation to justification not sanctification. And the Confession specifically refers to it as an “evangelical obedience.”

    “Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth…not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness.” (WCF 11.1)

    Indeed, as Sean pointed out, the faith spoken of here is the “alone instrument of justification” (WCF 11.2). Thus, there’s no problem in saying that saving faith is an act of “evangelical obedience.” The problem only arises when one makes “evangelical obedience” (whether faith or subsequent good deeds) a partial ground of our justification before God — as our “legal obedience” would have done under the Law viewed as a covenant of works. That’s all the Confession is guarding against when it says, “not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness.” If that’s all Lane is trying to say, then I would agree wholeheartedly with him. But I think he needs to be a little more precise in the language he’s using — for the Confession plainly states that justifying faith is an act of “evangelical obedience.”

  110. Roger Mann said,

    June 16, 2008 at 2:10 am

    105: Mark Chambers wrote,

    The problem Mann is with your reasoning. How does one come to faith? How does one believe? How does one DO faith?

    “Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us…The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.” Acts 16:14

    This verse pretty much sums it up. “The Lord opened her heart” is how one comes to “faith,” and “to heed the things spoken by Paul” is how one “believes” the gospel or “obeys” the command to believe. This really isn’t difficult stuff.

    Faith is something one has, repentance is something one does. There is a categorical difference there Mann which your conflation indicates you are missing.

    No, you are simply confused. Both repentance and faith are “something one has,” since they are both “granted” as gifts of God’s grace (Acts 11:18; Philippians 1:29). Yet they are also “something one does,” since we both repent and believe in response to God’s “commands” to do so (Acts 17:30; 1 John 3:23)

    Furthermore you misread Acts 20:21. There is an unwarranted inference in your use of the verse…There is no command [to have faith] there.

    There’s no “command” to repent in Acts 20:21 either! So what’s your point? That God doesn’t “command” us to repent? Of course He does — “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). He also quite clearly “commands” us to have faith or to believe in His Son — “And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ” (1 John 3:23). Therefore, there is no “unwarranted inference” on my part; this is the explicit teaching of Scripture!

    Again Mann, how does one DO belief? How does it come about?

    Since God “commands” us to believe on His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 3:23), we “DO belief” by obeying His command and placing our faith in Christ alone for our justification/salvation. The only alternative is to disobey His command, which is a heinous sin called “unbelief!”

    Once again Mann, how does one obey the command to believe? You confuse the evidences of faith and belief (repentance for example) with belief itself. The latter is condition (a matter of ontology) out of which the former proceeds.

    I’ve already explained how one comes to faith, and how one obeys the command to believe, so I won’t waste my time repeating myself. Needless to say, I’m not “confusing” anything here; you’re simply not making any sense. Both repentance and faith are “conditions” in the sense that they are imperatives that we are “commanded” to obey. The fact that God grants us the ability to obey these commands does not negate the fact that they are “commands” that we “obey” upon our conversion.

    Faith itself is not a matter of obedience. Acts of faith; those things which proceed from the condition of faith; those things which people of faith do, are indeed matters of obedience. You’re confusing categories.

    Again, you’re not making any sense here. If you simply mean that the “grace of faith” (i.e., God’s gift of faith) is not an act of obedience, fine and dandy. Who ever said that it was? But the “grace of faith” is that “whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls” (WCF 14:1). It is our actual “belief” in Christ that is a “matter of obedience” to God’s command to believe in His Son. In other words, the “gift” of faith is passively received; the exercise of that gift is an act of obedience to God’s command to believe.

    You make saving faith a work. Saving Faith is not a work. It is not something you bring yourself to do. It is a condition, a constituent aspect of the regenerate mind. That is why it is right to say that Justification is by faith NOT WORKS, but also correct to say that Faith works.

    I do not make saving faith a “work.” I say that saving faith is an act of “evangelical obedience” (WFC 11.1), in agreement with the Confession. A problem only arises when one makes “evangelical obedience” (whether faith or subsequent good deeds) a partial ground of our justification before God — as our “legal obedience” would have done under the Law viewed as a covenant of works. Scripture declares:

    “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, ‘The man who does those things shall live by them.’ But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Romans 10:4-10)

    In other words, “obedience” to the gospel command to believe in Christ is of an entirely different nature than “obedience” to the commands of the Law as a covenant of works. The latter contributes to our justification before God; the former contributes precisely nothing to our justification, but merely receives the “abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness…through the One, Jesus Christ” (Romans 5:17).

    I don’t believe you understand the confession Mann. You appear to proof text it the same as you do Scripture. 14:1 The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls (Heb_10:39), is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. You would do well to understand why the divines made the distinction they did. Until you (and others like you) are able to distinguish between being and doing these confused arguments will continue on ad infinitum. There is nothing more to say on the matter.

    I understand the Confession quite well. It makes a clear distinction between the “grace of faith” (which is passively received) and the “exercise” of that faith (which is an act of “evangelical obedience” to God’s command to believe). It is you who do not understand the distinction made here by the Westminster divines.

  111. Mark Chambers said,

    June 16, 2008 at 7:33 am

    Does one will to see light Mann? Is the will exercised in receiving light on the retina? Did Lazarus will to know he was alive when he left the tomb? One does not will to know that Christ died for their sins Mann. No, when God opens the eyes of the sinner to know and believe what Christ has done it is wholly monergistic and there is no exercise of the will. One does not will to believe. One does not will to understand.

    Sorry Mann you don’t understand and you are closer to Arminianism than Calvinism.

  112. Robert Harris said,

    June 16, 2008 at 8:52 am

    If you check out Elder Hoss’ writings, you’ll see that broadsiding is his modus operandi. He maligns the motives of seminary students and pastors that don’t line up with his standards. Check out his thoughts on Westminster West, very complimentary (that was sarcasm).

    Fair Warning…

  113. its.reed said,

    June 16, 2008 at 9:33 am

    Ref. 114:

    Be that as it may, this is not germaine to the discussion of this post.

    Thanks for understanding.

    Elder Hoss, thanks for not responding.

  114. Roger Mann said,

    June 16, 2008 at 1:05 pm

    113: Mark Chambers wrote,

    No, when God opens the eyes of the sinner to know and believe what Christ has done it is wholly monergistic and there is no exercise of the will. One does not will to believe. One does not will to understand.

    Yes, when God grants us (His elect people) the “grace of faith” in regeneration, it is a wholly monergistic act of His will. It is not a response to our prior willing or working: “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who has mercy” (Romans 9:16). As Christ plainly declares, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him” (John 6:44). But this in no way negates the fact that those whom God has enlightened do indeed “come” to Christ willingly (Revelation 22:17), in an act of “evangelical obedience” (WCF 11.1) to God’s “commandment” to believe in His Son (1 John 3:23). The opposite is also true. Those who reject Christ do so because they are unwilling to come to Him, and they disobey God’s “commandment” to believe in His Son. That’s why Jesus told the reprobates who refused to believe in Him, “But you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have life” (John 5:40).

    Sorry Mann you don’t understand and you are closer to Arminianism than Calvinism.

    That’s funny! I’m usually accused of being a “hyper-Calvinist” or “fatalist” for my unyielding allegiance to God’s absolute sovereignty and causation of all things (including sin and the unbelief of the reprobate). But it’s more than just funny; it’s an absolutely silly charge, as John Calvin himself taught precisely the same thing that I’ve been defending here:

    For the obedience of faith, etc. — That is, we have received a command to preach the gospel among all nations, and this gospel they obey by faith. By stating the design of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his office, as though he said, “It is indeed my duty to discharge the office committed to me, which is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear the word and willingly to obey it; you will otherwise make void the vocation which the Lord has bestowed on me.”
    We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to constrain us to obey God. We must also notice here what faith is; the name of obedience is given to it, and for this reason — because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence, “For the obedience of faith,” rather than, “In order that they may obey the faith;” for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it be found once in the Acts 6:7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel. (Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 1:5)

    So, Mark, is John Calvin himself also “closer to Arminianism than Calvinism?” Or does that slanderous charge only work against peons like me who post on this blog?

  115. Elder Hoss said,

    June 17, 2008 at 12:16 am

    Dear Roger – Re #111, no worries, and apology wholeheartedly accepted. We all joust at one level or another, and the blade occasionally lands in unintended places…

    There is clearly much on which we agree. An interesting consideration here as one considers this matter of “the obedience of faith” or whether “justifying faith” is an “obedient faith” would the historical-theological phenomena of the Regensberg Colloquy.

    There, Calvin, Melancthon, Eck (!) and other Roman Catholic theologians met to hammer out prospective concord around the doctrine of justification. Luther was utterly opposed to this, whilst Calvin later wrote of the Colloquy as a potentially watershed development.

    Peter Lillback references this in BINDING OF GOD, in a section where he underscores some of the divergence occurring between Luther and Calvin on the use of certain texts (Gal. 5:6) as well as the related issue of the believer’s “righteousness” in sanctification.

    As it is a rather unseemly hour, I have not the fortitude to track down the pagination this moment, but I believe it is in the 140’s of BINDING OF GOD.

    Blessings

    Hoss

  116. Mark Chambers said,

    June 17, 2008 at 8:02 am

    Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel. (Calvin’s Commentary on Romans 1:5)

    So, Mark, is John Calvin himself also “closer to Arminianism than Calvinism?” Or does that slanderous charge only work against peons like me who post on this blog?

    Fallacy of category. You don’t understand the difference between being and doing, faith being the condition out of which or by which we obey. You don’t think these things through Mann, you just parrot others whom you also misunderstand.

    because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence, “For the obedience of faith,” rather than, “In order that they may obey the faith;” for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it be found once in the Acts 6:7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel.
    (John Calvin on Romans 1:5)

    Sorry Mann, Calvin doesn’t make your mistake. You might try reading DiGiacomo in the most recent “Obedience” thread.

  117. its.reed said,

    June 17, 2008 at 8:20 am

    Roger and Mark:

    Not that you are losing tempers with one another, yet I’ve noted at least one comment (“peon”) which prompts me to give a friendly reminder to two brothers – seek to edify and love one another. Do so vigorously of course, but with an eye toward blessing one another.

    Thanks for receiving this encouragement, and giving me opportunity to so remind everyone else.

    Reed DePace
    moderator

  118. Roger Mann said,

    June 17, 2008 at 10:42 am

    Mark, Calvin plainly states that the name of “obedience” is given to faith for this reason — “because…we respond to his call by faith.” He also quite clearly states that “the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief.” Therefore, “unbelief” = “disobedience” to the gospel, while “belief” = “obedience” to the gospel. That’s why Calvin closed by saying, “Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel.” He says essentially the same thing here: “Seeing that (in speaking properly) our faith doth obey the doctrine of the gospel…” (Calvin’s Commentary on Acts 6:7). It truly cannot be stated any clearer than that. Faith is “obedient” in justification because it obeys the “commandment” to believe in Christ (1 John 3:23). If you are still unable to comprehend what Calvin is saying here, then I’m at a loss at to what else to say.

    By the way, I plan to respond to what DiGiacomo is saying in the “Obedience” thread as soon as I can find the time.

  119. Roger Mann said,

    June 17, 2008 at 10:55 am

    Reed, I was using the word “peon” in comparison of myself with Calvin. I’m not quite sure how that is out of line. I am most definitely a theological peon compared to Calvin! Nevertheless, I’ll keep your friendly reminder in mind when I post here.

  120. Mark Chambers said,

    June 17, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    If you are still unable to comprehend what Calvin is saying here, then I’m at a loss at to what else to say.

    Heh. Yes you are at a loss. Perhaps a class in elementary logic would benefit you?

    At any rate I’m relieved you’ve nothing left to say.

  121. its.reed said,

    June 17, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Roger, no, I didn’t say you said anything wrong. Rather your comment, in my opinion, was one which could easily be misunderstood and responded to emotionally rather than rationally. This flows more from cultural baggage around the word itself than your use of it.

    Hence, just a friendly reminder. Nothing more.


Leave a comment