Doug has continued the conversation. And I think we’re making some progress. We’re getting closer on the issue of the place of obedience in relation to justification. We agree that the ground of our justification is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Doug seems to be saying that it is the sole ground of our justification. I would agree with that, although I am not sure that Doug is entirely consistent on this point. I see four issues that need addressing.
First up is faith’s aliveness again. I am willing to say that faith must be alive to justify. We are not justified by a dead faith. The aliveness of faith is hence a state of faith that is always present in a justifying faith. To take up Doug’s analogy, a dead eye cannot see (although the analogy breaks down, because an eye really cannot be said to have life in itself, whereas a God-given faith most definitely does have life in itself). But in what does faith’s aliveness consist? Does it not consist in sanctification? Does it not consist in good works? Faith’s aliveness means that faith does something. This is why faith’s aliveness is not directly relevant to justification, because in justification, faith is receptive and therefore passive. Faith’s aliveness, always accompanying justification, consists in sanctification.
Second topic: words that would describe faith’s response in justification better than obedience. Ephesians 2 describes faith’s response as the gift of God. Doug will no doubt respond that it is not an either/or here, and that faith can be a gift and yet obedient. In one sense (that of sanctification) this is true. However, the problem here is that our obedience is not part of justification. Period. If we are talking about the whole of salvation, including everything from justification to sanctification to glorification, then obedience can be used, as long as it is understood that it does not apply to justification. Another example of a better way to describe faith’s response: the righteousness of God (Romans 1:17). The righteousness of God is revealed in our faith. In an apophatic way, faith can be described as “not works of the law” (as is plain in Rom. 3:21-22). Oftentimes, an apophatic way of describing something is quite helpful. Romans 4:5 is parallel in saying that faith does not work but trusts in justification. So, there are three examples of better language.
Third topic: I am very grateful that Doug stated this with regard to Romans 3: “So I exclude Spirit-filled ‘works’ from justification because the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, and not by works of the law.” This seems to be saying that ALL our works are excluded from justification, and not merely some (such as boundary markers), or merely “rebellious” works. However, questions still remain. The way he put his puzzlement does not adequately describe my position. What does “Spirit-filled faith” mean? Do we have to be sanctified in order to be justified? What I am trying to get at here is that the eye, while having to be part of the body in order to see, does not see because it is part of the body (which is rather an always accompanying necessity, and a sine qua non), but because neural signals are sent from the eye to the brain. The mechanism of seeing is not “belonging to the body,” or else hands could see. The mechanism of seeing is what is parallel to justification in the analogy. To Tim Prussic, I would add that this very well might be the exact same thing that Wilson is trying to say. But clarity and avoidance of over-generalized terms is quite vital to a discussion on justification.
Fourth topic: Romans 6 is not talking about justification in any way, shape, or form. “Righteousness” is the word in verse 17, not justification. There is more than one kind of righteousness. There is imputed righteousness and there is infused righteousness. Romans 6:16 is most definitely talking about the latter, and not the former. There are many, many exegetical reasons for this. Firstly, the whole context is about how we live (verse 1). The emphasis in on continuance. That right there takes us out of the realm of justification and into the realm of sanctification. Secondly, the contrast between εἰς θάνατον and εἰς δικαιοσύνην indicates the continual purpose and goal of living in such a way. It is a telic use of εἰς. Such a use would be foreign to Paul’s treatment of justification, but finds an easy home in Paul’s treatment of sanctification. The tenses of the verbs also support this understanding of Romans 6. They are not aorist, but either future or present, indicating a continual process (not a one time event, such as justification would require). Verse 16 answers the future tense question of verse 15 “shall we sin?” The present tense “you are” in verse 16 also points in this direction. The righteousness is explicitly linked to sanctification in verse 19, which describes this righteousness as leading to holiness. Then, verse 21 describes the fruit of the previous way of life as contrasted with the fruit of the present way of life. Fruit is sanctification language, not justification language.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
jared said,
June 18, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Lane,
You say,
This is why faith’s aliveness is not directly relevant to justification, because in justification, faith is receptive and therefore passive. Faith’s aliveness, always accompanying justification, consists in sanctification.
I’m not sure how you can say this when the declaration of justification is dependent on two things: (1) the completed work of Jesus as a grounds and (2) the living faith of the individual as a means. A distinction needs to be drawn between faith as the grounds of justification and faith as that which results in justification. Only the person and work of Jesus can be the ground, the basis, the foundation of justification. However, that justification can’t be declared to one that has no faith. Also, faith doesn’t receive justification, it receives righteousness and justification is the result. And that justification can be obtained only by a living faith which itself is a gift. A man is not justified and then given faith, as your last sentence seems to imply. Faith’s aliveness doesn’t just accompany justification, rather it is through such faith that justification is declared. Without a living faith there can be no justification and I think that means the aliveness of faith certainly is directly relevant to justification because if faith isn’t alive then it can’t result in the declaration of justification.
David Gadbois said,
June 18, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Lane, you said
Faith’s aliveness means that faith does something. This is why faith’s aliveness is not directly relevant to justification, because in justification, faith is receptive and therefore passive.
I think Doug would probably say that receiving something *is* “doing something.”
Well, yes, ‘receiving’ is a verb. And in the sentence “Tom receives Christ’s righteousness”, Tom is the subject. He is doing something. But when we say that receiving is “passive”, we mean that it is not the ground of justification.
The righteousness of God is revealed in our faith. In an apophatic way, faith can be described as “not works of the law” (as is plain in Rom. 3:21-22). Oftentimes, an apophatic way of describing something is quite helpful. Romans 4:5 is parallel in saying that faith does not work but trusts in justification.
This is an important point. But FV’s response is to take the “out” of distinguishing between works and obedience. But then we are just left with the demands of Law-lite rather than “works of the Law.” You can’t have a law/gospel distinction that way.
P. Andrew Sandlin said,
June 19, 2008 at 12:44 am
The exclusive instrumental cause of justification is faith. That faith rests entirely on the redemptive work of Jesus on the Cross and from the empty tomb and grasps hard on Jesus as Savior and Lord. The issue is not sola fide, which (e.g.) Scott Clark and I both heartily affirm, but the nature of saving faith. Scott, like his colleague Mike Horton, has made clear his position that justifying faith is exclusively passive (trusting in and resting on Jesus) and never active (submitting to Jesus as Lord and as his disciple). I affirm that it is both simultaneously (in the distinct senses I have stated), and that a faith that is merely active is moralistic while a faith that is merely passive is antinomian.
On this point, I dissent from Clark and Horton and I agree with J. I. Packer in Evangelical Affirmations:
Packer believes what Clark and Horton do not: a saving faith defined only passively lends aid and comfort to antinomianism, and a saving faith defined both passively and actively does not lend aid and comfort to a moralistic works-righteousness and legalism. Justifying faith is both passive and active, and this is precisely what James denotes when he demands justification by works, which in no way violates sola fide but, rather, protects it.
David said,
June 19, 2008 at 11:43 am
I left this same comment over on Doug’s blog…
I think it would do well to consider this issue in terms of the passive & active obedience of an alive faith. As faith relates to our justification – it’s obedience is passive. Alive, just passive. Faith rests. It trusts. Faith is not “doing” anything do earn, merit or obligate God to us. We’re saved by grace through faith alone – apart from any works.
Yet, as that same alive faith immediately relates to sanctification – which begins at the very moment after our justification – faith becomes active in obedience in responding to the work of grace upon our heart. Thus faith does begin the process of Spirit-filled work, which works were prepared in advance that we should do them.
David said,
June 19, 2008 at 11:46 am
…and oddly enough, before I took time to read Mr. Sandlin’s comment.
markhorne said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:18 pm
The only way sanctification can begin exclusively after justification is if
1. One comes to faith after already being justified (eternal justification–declared and error in the Westminster standards.
2. The “old nature” is capable of justifying faith (pelagianism–declared and error by virtually everyone)
How can any Reformed believer claim that an unsanctified person is morally capable of believing the Gospel (and through faith being justified)?
Furthermore, while not a status, sanctification is just as much a gift “from outside” us. The faith that sanctifies does so only because it is receptive, not because it actively “acheives” much less “earns” sanctification. Sanctification comes through faith because it comes from Christ, the Holy One, who was put to death for the killing of our old man and raised up for us to be new men. Contrasting “passive faith” in justification with “active faith” in sanctification is wrong.
markhorne said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:21 pm
That Packer quotation is great common sense. I remember Tim Gallant quoting from Bannerman’s book on justification to the same effect. Wish I could find it.
once more with feeling » J. I. Packer pro active faith against antinomianism said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:25 pm
[…] tip: Andrew Sandlin Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and […]
David said,
June 19, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Are believers not first justified and then sanctified? It would seem at least in God’s ordering of salvation, that justification must needs preceed sanctification. And that in the sense that faith rest and trust solely in Christ alone – it is passive – our faith is not actively pursuing justification. Wheras with our sanctification – we are actively working out our salvation with fear and trembling.
David Gadbois said,
June 19, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Mark Horne said The only way sanctification can begin exclusively after justification is if
Everything said here only follows if you fail to distinguish between regeneration and definitive sanctification, as contrasted with progressive sanctification – the *latter* of which involves our actively obeying God’s law (in the Third Use sense).
Both Mark and Andrew Sandlin still don’t understand that the position of FV critics like Horton and Godfrey is that faith is passive *in the act of justification*, while being active *in the person justified*. Lane has made that point many, many, MANY times on this blog. The Packer quote presents no problem if this is kept in mind.
Andrew Sandlin said
The exclusive instrumental cause of justification is faith.
and
Justifying faith is both passive and active, and this is precisely what James denotes when he demands justification by works, which in no way violates sola fide but, rather, protects it.
As Lane has pointed out before, the FVers and Shepherdites have not lifted a single exegetical finger to disprove Calvin’s interpretation of James 2. They simply dismiss it.
The only logical way to reconcile the two statements above is to consider works constituent of faith, rather than something faith *does* or a quality of faith. Make no mistake, we can say that faith is active. But in that sentence “active” is a predicate adjective, not a predicate nominative. It is a pattern of FV/Shepherdite error to constantly confuse the two, and make works to constitute faith in its essential nature, not merely describe it. This mistake, unfortunately, leads to the unfortunate and sub-Protestant conclusion that Scripture “demands justification by works.”
markhorne said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Sure, we can distinguish between regeneration and sanctification like we distinguish between conception and fetal development. But regeneration is simply the beginning of sanctification and sanctification is simply the continuance of regeneration. You only have to look at the chapter on effectual calling in the WCF and compare it to the content of the chapter on sanctification.
There is no difference in substance, the two are only distinct in chronology and development.
“if you fail to distinguish between regeneration and definitive sanctification, as contrasted with progressive sanctification”
to equate “regeneration” with “definitive sanctification” and then the “further sanctified” of the WCF with “progressive sanctification” is to make my point. Regeneration is simply the definitive beginning of what continues to progress. And we are justified by it (or one aspect of it) initially.
“the *latter* of which involves our actively obeying God’s law (in the Third Use sense).”
The Law of God commands sinners to repent and believe. Initial faith is no less obedient to God’s law than almsgiving or refraining from adultery.
If you like the Packer quotation, then we agree. Stop manufacturing accusations.
markhorne said,
June 19, 2008 at 4:37 pm
#11
When people hear of the wrath of God on sin and flee to Christ for refuge they are being passive? They are not “actively pursuing” right standing with God?
How does this comport with the Gospel preaching and demanded result in Acts 2. Or anywhere else in the Bible?
Seth Foster said,
June 19, 2008 at 5:28 pm
There is a big difference between obedience to the law (OT) and yielding to the Spirit (NT). One is works and the other is grace. One leads to death and the other leads to life. One does not justify or sanctify; the other does. One is the work of man which condemns; the other is the work of God which convicts and brings forgiveness and cleansing.
The struggle in this debate is that one group believes that the visible church and its ministers and ordinances can confer that grace on an individual. The other group believes that God alone confers that grace in His sovereignty. In other words it’s the age old struggle of fighting for control over an individual’s destiny. Read John 3 – a very frustrating chapter for control freaks vs. God’s Spirit.
P. Andrew Sandlin said,
June 19, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Dave,
Sorry, if you’ll get Shepherd’s lectures from the Chicago conference, you’ll find he lifted more than a finger to refute Calvin’s James exegesis. The DVD’s are available, and the chaps. will be published in due time. Check them out.
I agree fully that “active” in “active faith” is adjective, not nominative or appositive. That distinction does not help Clark’s cause, however.
If regeneration generates [!] faith, and if faith is the instrumental cause of justification, and if regeneration initiates the process of sanctification, then the one God justifies is already in the process of sanctification — a fact that has nothing at all to do with merit, synergism, or “justification by works.”
Ron Henzel said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Andrew,
In your view, what is the ground of justification?
Bruce said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I affirm … a faith that is merely passive is antinomian.
On this point, I dissent from Clark and Horton
Quoted: Andrew Sandlin.
Of course, the last sounds remarkably akin to the accusation against Paul the Apostle. Paul was being accused of antinomianism by 1st century errorists (Rom. 3:8; 6:1; etc.), on account of his thoroughgoing repudiation of any of our works respecting justification. So if Scott Clark, et al., are being accused of antinomianism on the self-same grounds, then I am inclined to think it highly plausible that the latter are exhibiting the true Pauline affinity.
Manlius said,
June 19, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Could someone point out where Scripture ever speaks of a “passive” faith? I’m not following this.
re: comment #12
Mr. Gadbois, if you’re right, then James 2:24 would read, “You see that a person is who is justified has works and not faith alone.” But the verse clearly states that we are justified BY works, and NOT BY faith alone, does it not? It says nothing about what is present in a justified person (although by implication we could throw that in there as well).
I’m not advocating as Protestants that we throw in the towel on this an concede to our RC friends. What I am saying, though, is that our conviction of faith alone had better be consistent with the biblical concept of of a faith that can be shown only by the works its produces.
P. Andrew Sandlin said,
June 19, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Ron, 17
Jesus’ redemptive work, nothing more, nothing less.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 19, 2008 at 9:13 pm
#11
David,
Sanctification must precede justification if for no other reason than regeneration precedes faith. Are there any who are regenerate who are not definitively sanctified through regeneration? Or is it man who generates justifying faith from an unsanctified / unregenerate posture? (I believe that was one of Mark’s points to you.)
Moreover, those who think that faith must be exercised by embracing gospel propositions in order for it to be justifying faith (leaving infants no way to be justified by faith) should have little problem appreciating that sanctification must precede justification. After all, given such a theology that does not allow infants to be justified through the seed of faith, not only would sanctification precede justification logically speaking, it would also precede justification in a temporal sense (since regenerate infants would have to wait until they comprehended the gospel) making the order of sanctification preceding justification even more pronounced.
#14
Mark,
A sinner who can comprehend the warning of wrath can only flee to Christ with a regenerate heart or out of enlightened self-interest. When the latter occurs, obviously no obedient justifying faith is present. When the former occurs, the one doing the fleeing is already justified by grace through faith, hence the action to flee with a believing heart.
Since there is no temporal order between regeneration, faith and justification (see link below), we must maintain that whoever is alive in Christ is justified through faith, even the seed of faith. Accordingly, the fruit of obedience to the commands and / or warnings of Christ indeed must follow in a temporal sense from the gift of life, which is always logically (not temporally) accompanied by justifying faith. In a word, although it may appear as if men are obedient when they receive justifying faith, a faith that is imparted effectually by God does not obey at the logical moment it is granted; yet certainly obedience follows in the case of non-infants with their wits, most immediately.
What I find passing strange in discussions such as these is that those who would affirm that infants can be justified by faith are quick to call faith obedient. Whereas those who do not allow for infants to have justifying faith often want to call faith passive!
Ron
For a discussion on whether regeneration must entail justification, go here:
Mark said,
June 19, 2008 at 10:46 pm
#15
Seth, I’m a presbyterian minister, and therefore, in line with my vows to agree with the WCF and Catechisms, believe the Bible teaches of that the sacraments are means of grace, that they confer grace, that they apply Christ to believers, that they are effectual means of salvation for the elect.
I would not be able to pastor in a denomination in the Westminsterian tradition if I thought your false dichotomies were true and Biblical.
Ken Christian said,
June 20, 2008 at 9:43 am
Ref. #15 – Seth, I’m curious. Are you an elder (teaching or ruling) in the the PCA?
Mark said,
June 20, 2008 at 9:57 am
#21
Change of subject, one with less fireworks maybe?
I don’t understand how there can be enlightened self-interest without faith. Otherwise, a person will pursue self-destruction rather than submit to the Lordship of Christ.
Rahab gave a testimony to the two spies that showed nothing but self-interest. She knew she was as good as dead unless she cut a deal with the Israelites. Yet James says she was justified in her works, which I assume interprets them as fruit of a true faith.
I don’t have my verses in memory, but we are told at one point in the book of Joshua that God hardened the hearts of the Canaanites so that none tried to make peace with Israel but were instead destroyed. This means, by implication, that the Gibeonites deception, by which they tricked Joshua into accepting them, was the result of God’s work in their hearts. They were and are believers.
I realize that temporary faith is not true faith. Perhaps that is the work you are doing with “enlightened self-interest” as an explanation for that temporary loyalty. I appreciate the need, but I’m not sure it really works.
My 2 cents.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 20, 2008 at 10:55 am
“I don’t understand how there can be enlightened self-interest without faith.”
Mark,
I’m not sure this is helpful. The point is, if someone tries to flee wrath for some sinful motive, which I called enlightened self-interest, then obviously there would be an absence of justifying faith, leaving the question of obedient or passive moot. The only question that would remain is: when one flees by saving grace, does the action of fleeing come from a believing heart? Of course it does, otherwise the heart would be unbelieving! Accordingly, the one who would act according to a believing heart must already be justified. The believing heart precedes the action of fleeing, both logically and temporally.
Ron
Mark said,
June 20, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Does any sinner flee to Christ with pure motives?
tim prussic said,
June 20, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Some distinguish ‘twixt “enlightenment,” a common work of the Spirit, in which He shows men their peril, and “regeneration,” a special work, in which He renews men in the inner man and gives faith. Enlightened self-interest seems to tie in with the Puritan doctrine of “seeking,” on which John Gerstner has done plenty of work.
Ron Henzel said,
June 20, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Andrew,
Regarding you comment 20: so then, do you disagree with Packer when he identifies the ground of justification as both Christ’s active righteousness and His redemptive work (cf. God’s Words, [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1981], 141-143)?
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 20, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Mark,
It’s this sort of cryptic evasiveness that has come to be expected of FV proponents. It’s actually shameful. This discussion has nothing to do with whether anyone flees to Christ with perfectly pure motives. The point you have yet to interact with is that if one obeys Christ out of a regenerate heart, then the obedience would come from a person already justified. Accordingly, your thesis fails because it requires a temporal order of regeneration, good works and then justification.
Ron
tim prussic said,
June 20, 2008 at 10:22 pm
#29, you beg the question of the last two weeks of post by saying “if one obeys Christ out of a regenerate heart, then the obedience would come from a person already justified.” If believing is an act of obedience (which is think is clearly is), then that statement is clearly false. I suppose what you mean by “obedience” is sanctification, but even then the statement is, I think, misleading. For regeneration is called definitive sanctification for some good reasons. In any event, Ron, the ordo isn’t so much in chronological order as logical. That said, without faith (a heart purified by faith), good works are entirely impossible.
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 21, 2008 at 6:39 am
Tim,
Please articulte back to me my position with respect to logical and temporal moments.In that articulation, please speak to the question of whether one can be regenerate and granted the gift of faith at separate temporal moments. If faith comes with regeneration, then actions that are born out of faith must temporally follow from justification, obviously making the act one that must proceed from a person already justified. Let me make it even easier. Can’t God regenerate a man in his deep sleep and thereby grant the gift of faith then too? Accordingly, wouldn’t all acts of “fleeing” follow from one already justified. Most importantly and finally, the question on this thread is not whether believing is an act of faith. The question is whether fleeing comes from a man who has already believed!
Ron
markhorne said,
June 21, 2008 at 10:26 am
#29
Ron, God will deal with your false accusations.
But if one is justified by faith then there is no way to claim that the one who believes does so because he was already justified. And his belief, being commanded, is tautologically an act of obedience (as well as a gift of grace).
Ron DiGiacomo said,
June 22, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Mark,
For some reason you won’t stay on track. We were talking about fleeing out of a believing heart, which presupposes that the believing heart was already justified because the fleeing took place due to a pre-existing condition of a believing heart, which believed the promise and warning of God – hence the action to flee! Then you moved the target to that of the act of believing, not fleeing. In any case, I’ll play along, a little longer anyway – but not much longer. Just appreciate that we’re talking about something entirely different now. Since you are now equating faith with act of believing, are you willing to say that infants when granted the gift of faith are obedient in responding to a command to believe? That would be silly. God grants faith and it is “by this faith one believes”. Moreover, when one believes propositions and then in turn acts in accordance to those beliefs, the action follows from the belief – and the action that comes from belief is not belief itself as you have tried to make it out to be (prior to moving the target that is). If I believe the net will catch me, then I flee to the net and out of the burning building. The jump is not the belief, it’s merely the evidence of the belief.
As for what you consider an accusation, why do you suppose God will deal with me? Is it not so that the movement you got tangled up in brought nothing new to the church yet caused church splits and confusion among God’s people? Frankly, I truly loathe the entire movement and am exceedingly glad that it’s lost it’s steam and become a bad word. I suspect the movement will go down in the annals of church history as nothing more than a few bad theologians who tried to hijack the Reformed faith and make a name for themselves but failed.
So long,
Ron