# Let's play a little game...



## luvroftheWord (Mar 3, 2004)

A day or so ago I stumbled across this statement concerning the basis or ground of the believer's assurance of salvation. I liked it pretty well and I thought it would be fun to see if you guys could guess who made this statement:

[quote:8f6a418c8c]
The ground of our salvation is Christ's righteousness, plus nothing. The instrument of our salvation is faith, which itself is a gift from God, lest any man should boast. And when you put those two things together, you are not supposed to take it under your own authority to examine the quality of your faith and rummage through it like a muckraker. As Luther said, if you doubt your salvation, then say your prayers, man.
[/quote:8f6a418c8c]

Any takers? Who said this?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 3, 2004)

I'm with Paul. Was it Wilson?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 3, 2004)

Craig,

I hate to be a spoil sport, but the practice of taking quotes out of context and throwing them out is not very helpful or edifying. A great example of this was that done by Bahnsen's son this year.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 3, 2004)

Be that as it may....... who said this?


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 3, 2004)

Sorry, this post used to be a rant. I deleted it because I don't feel like being angry or making anyone else angry.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 4, 2004)

Craig,

I hope that it was not my post that made you angry, I really wasn't intending to scold you, only expressing my disinterest in guessing at the question. If others want to, then fine.


----------



## BobVigneault (Mar 4, 2004)

*My Guess*

Was the quote from Keith Green?


----------



## Gregg (Mar 4, 2004)

Actually some of us who aren't as theologically advanced as Fred might be interested in knowing.

Craig I do not know, but would be intersted in finding out.


----------



## Gregg (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:9983a45ec6][i:9983a45ec6]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:9983a45ec6]
Sorry, this post used to be a rant. I deleted it because I don't feel like being angry or making anyone else angry.

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:9983a45ec6]

Reply...

How about a little Bouncimania to cheer you up?

:spin::spin::spin::spin:



:tumble::tumble::tumble::tumble:

[Edited on 3-4-2004 by Gregg]


----------



## heartoflesh (Mar 4, 2004)

Charles Finney?

No, that would be impossible.


----------



## dswatts (Mar 4, 2004)

okay Craig....out with it! :bigsmile:

who said it?

Dwayne


----------



## dswatts (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:771a920034][i:771a920034]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:771a920034]
oooooooooo [/quote:771a920034]

uzzled:


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 4, 2004)

Okay... it was Douglas Wilson. It was a word for word response to the question, &quot;Given the requirement of covenant faithfulness, what is the basis or ground of the believer's assurance of salvation in glory?&quot; This answer was given at the 2002 AAPC, the conference that began the whole controversy.

Now I ask all of you, what is wrong with Wilson's answer?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 4, 2004)

The initial answer is that it is NOT the Confession's answer, which is a better representation of Scripture:

[quote:4f6e1bfb01]This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; (Heb. 6:11,19) but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, (Heb. 6:17-18) the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, (2 Pet. 1:4-5,10-11, 1 John 2:3. 1 John 3:14, 2 Cor. 1:12) the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, (Rom. 8:15-16) which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption. (Eph. 1:13-14, Eph. 4:30, 2 Cor. 1:21-22)[/quote:4f6e1bfb01]

The Scripture describes BOTH the objective (the promises of God) and the subjective (inward evidences) and the combination of the two (the Spirit witnessing to our Spirit) as the ground of [b:4f6e1bfb01]assurance.[/b:4f6e1bfb01]

Wilson has avoided the question for most of his answer. See what he says:

The question was: &quot;Given the requirement of covenant faithfulness, what is the basis or [b:4f6e1bfb01]ground of the believer's assurance[/b:4f6e1bfb01] of salvation in glory?&quot;

And yet Wilson answers: &quot;The [b:4f6e1bfb01]ground of our salvation[/b:4f6e1bfb01] is Christ's righteousness, plus nothing. The [b:4f6e1bfb01]instrument of our salvation[/b:4f6e1bfb01] is faith, which itself is a gift from God, lest any man should boast&quot;

It is singularly unhelpful, unnecessarily deviating from the confession (at best, it restates the Biblical position in a confusing and indirect manner, rather than being easier to understand) and does not even address the question head on.

A good follow up question(s) would be:

Can the believer have assurance?

Does assurance consist solely in objective criteria, namely baptism?

If so, how is that different from the Pharisees placing their assurance in their lineage and circumcision.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 4, 2004)

Fine, I'll grant the point that Wilson did not specifically address our assurance. But he did address the ground or basis of our salvation. What is wrong with what he said about that?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:7f840c55ac][i:7f840c55ac]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:7f840c55ac]
Fine, I'll grant the point that Wilson did not specifically address our assurance. But he did address the ground or basis of our salvation. What is wrong with what he said about that? [/quote:7f840c55ac]

Craig,

Two things. First, I have maintained in the past that Wilson has given the most orthodox statements of all of the &quot;Auburn Four.&quot; 

Second, the statement you gave is perfectly orthodox [i:7f840c55ac]as far as it goes.[/i:7f840c55ac] But the doctrine of forensic justification by an alien righteousness imputed by Christ to us must go beyond that statement in this day. The New Perspective gets the gospel half-right: it states that one gets into the covenant by grace, but stays in by works (covenant faithfulness). It declares that the &quot;righteousness of God&quot; in Romans 1 and Romans 3 is not the righteousness of Christ, and that the righteousness of Christ is not imputed to us. Having heard basically that from Schlissel and Wilkins, I would want to hear greater clarity from Wilson.

For the life of me - why can't these men simply articulate the doctrine of justification in the clear fashion that EVERY reformed and Lutheran theologian has for 400+ years?? Why do we need to innovate? Why do we need confusing statements?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 4, 2004)

[quote:21d35e82a5][i:21d35e82a5]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:21d35e82a5]
[quote:21d35e82a5]
For the life of me - why can't these men simply articulate the doctrine of justification in the clear fashion that EVERY reformed and Lutheran theologian has for 400+ years?? Why do we need to innovate? Why do we need confusing statements? 
[/quote:21d35e82a5]

part of it may be because they wan't to get rid of the notion of merit. I'm not supporting any side here, just trying to speak to their concerns. This of course gets into the denial of &quot;covenant of works.&quot; They want it to be totally grace and so they deny active obedience and covenant of works.

-Paul [/quote:21d35e82a5]

I think you are right Paul. The irony here is that the only way to keep our merit out of justification is with the Biblical covenant of works/covenant of grace scheme.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:ec9933ff30][i:ec9933ff30]posted by Fred Greco[/i:ec9933ff30]
For the life of me - why can't these men simply articulate the doctrine of justification in the clear fashion that EVERY reformed and Lutheran theologian has for 400+ years?? Why do we need to innovate? Why do we need confusing statements?[/quote:ec9933ff30]

Maybe because a lot of people want to be on the cutting edge of truth, and forget that truth is also mundane, like 1+1=2 is mundane to the mathematical system. It is so &quot;old hat&quot;, but that's because it is truth that has been clear for a very, very long time. Except, of course, to those who are out there muddying up the waters all the time.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:4bad54feaa][i:4bad54feaa]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:4bad54feaa]
[quote:4bad54feaa][i:4bad54feaa]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:4bad54feaa]
[quote:4bad54feaa]
For the life of me - why can't these men simply articulate the doctrine of justification in the clear fashion that EVERY reformed and Lutheran theologian has for 400+ years?? Why do we need to innovate? Why do we need confusing statements? 
[/quote:4bad54feaa]

part of it may be because they wan't to get rid of the notion of merit. I'm not supporting any side here, just trying to speak to their concerns. This of course gets into the denial of &quot;covenant of works.&quot; They want it to be totally grace and so they deny active obedience and covenant of works.

-Paul [/quote:4bad54feaa]

I think you are right Paul. The irony here is that the only way to keep our merit out of justification is with the Biblical covenant of works/covenant of grace scheme. [/quote:4bad54feaa]

Exactly. While I'm not extremely familiar with the Auburn Four and all the supporters of the New Perspective, from what I've read about it from various sources, it seems like in trying to totally get rid of the notion of merit in the theoretical realm, they've given it center stage in the practical implications (and eventually even the theoretical as well)!

Chris

[Edited on 3-5-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 5, 2004)

John Calvin


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 5, 2004)

:saint:


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 5, 2004)

Greg Bahnsen


----------



## pastorway (Mar 5, 2004)

Oh, oh.....I've got one!

Who said this:

[quote:71b539f8a0]The meritorious cause of justification is Christ through his obedience and righteousness, who may, therefore, be justly called the principal or outwardly moving cause. In his obedience and righteousness, Christ is also the material cause of our justification, so far as God bestows Christ on us for righteousness, and imputes his righteousness and obedience to us. In regard to this two-fold cause, that is, the meritorious and the material, we are said to be constituted righteous through the obedience of Christ. 

The object of justification is man, a sinner, acknowledging himself, with sorrow, to be such an one, and a believer, that is, believing in God who justifies the ungodly, and in Christ as having been delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification. As a sinner, man needs justification through grace, and, as a believer, he obtains justification through grace. 

Faith is the instrumental cause, or act, by which we apprehend Christ proposed to us by God for a propitiation and for righteousness, according to the command and promise of the gospel, in which it is said, &quot;He who believes shall be justified and saved, and he who believeth not shall be damned.&quot; [/quote:71b539f8a0]

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 5, 2004)

Paul,

Thanks for proving my earlier point. The author is of course John Calvin, from his sermons on Deuteronomy, as quoted from the Covenant Media web page. But of course the quote is laid out there in an attempt to try and link performance of the condition with the fulfillment of the promise. But what Calvin is actually saying (as intimated by the last sentence) is that our covenant obedience is [b:97a34e8859]evidence[/b:97a34e8859] that we are in the covenant. A few other quotes from the Institutes will suffice for this:

[quote:97a34e8859]2. For this reason, the promises offered in the law would all be null and ineffectual, did not God in his goodness send the gospel to our aid, since the condition on which they depend, and under which only they are to be performed-viz. the fulfillment of the law, will never be accomplished. Still, however the aid which the Lord gives consists not in leaving part of justification to be obtained by works, and in supplying part out of his indulgence, but in giving us Christ as in himself alone the fulfillment of righteousness. For the Apostle, after premising that he and the other Jews, aware that "a man is not justified by the works of the law," had "believed in Jesus Christ," adds as the reason, not that they might be assisted to make up the sum of righteousness by faith in Christ, but that they "might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law," (Gal. 2:16). If believers withdraw from the law to faith, that in the latter they may find the justification which they see is not in the former, they certainly disclaim justification by the law. Therefore, whose will, let him amplify the rewards which are said to await the observer of the law, provided he at the same time understand, that owing to our depravity, we derive no benefit from them until we have obtained another righteousness by faith. Thus David after making mention of the reward which the Lord has prepared for his servants (Ps. 25 almost throughout), immediately descends to an acknowledgment of sins, by which the reward is made void. In Psalm 19, also, he loudly extols the benefits of the law; but immediately exclaims, "Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults," (Ps. 19:12). This passage perfectly accords with the former, when, after saying, "the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies," he adds, "For thy name's sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity: for it is great," (Ps. 25:10, 11). Thus, too, we ought to acknowledge that the favor of God is offered to us in the law, provided by our works we can deserve it; but that it never actually reaches us through any such desert. (Institutes of the Christian Religion. III.xvii.2)[/quote:97a34e8859]

[quote:97a34e8859]6. Here, by the way, it is of importance to observe how those forms of expression differ from legal promises. By legal promises, I mean not those which lie scattered in the books of Moses (for there many Evangelical promises occur), but those which properly belong to the legal dispensation. All such promises, by whatever name they may be called, are made under the condition that the reward is to be paid on the things commanded being done. [b:97a34e8859]But when it is said that the Lord keeps a covenant of mercy with those who love him, the words rather demonstrate what kind of servants those are who have sincerely entered into the covenant, than express the reason why the Lord blesses them.[/b:97a34e8859] The nature of the demonstration is this: As the end for which God bestows upon us the gift of eternal life is, that he may be loved, feared, and worshipped by us, so the end of all the promises of mercy contained in Scripture justly is that we may reverence and serve their author. [b:97a34e8859]Therefore, whenever we hear that he does good to those that observe his law, let us remember that the sons of God are designated by the duty which they ought perpetually to observe, that his reason for adopting us is, that we may reverence him as a father.[/b:97a34e8859] Hence, if we would not deprive ourselves of the privilege of adoption, we must always strive in the direction of our calling. [b:97a34e8859]On the other hand, however, let us remember, that the completion of the Divine mercy depends not on the works of believers, but that God himself fulfill the promise of salvation to those who by right conduct correspond to their calling, because he recognizes the true badges of sons in those only who are directed to good by his Spirit.[/b:97a34e8859] To this we may refer what is said of the members of the Church, "Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart," &amp;c. (Ps. 15:1, 2). Again, in Isaiah, "Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously," &amp;c. (Isa. 33:14, 15). For the thing described is not the strength with which believers can stand before the Lord, but the manner in which our most merciful Father introduces them into his fellowship, and defends and confirms them therein. For as he detests sin and loves righteousness, so those whom he unites to himself he purifies by his Spirit, that he may render them conformable to himself and to his kingdom. Therefore, if it be asked, What is the first cause which gives the saints free access to the kingdom of God, and a firm and permanent footing in it? the answer is easy. The Lord in his mercy once adopted and ever defends them. But if the question relates to the manner, we must descend to regeneration, and the fruits of it, as enumerated in the fifteenth Psalm.
(III.xvii.6)[/quote:97a34e8859]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 5, 2004)

Hmmm, that Calvin quote sounds like stuff I've heard out of the mouth of Doug Wilson. But of course, Wilson is obviously being dishonest, right?

By the way, Fred, I'm glad you believe that Wilson isn't as bad as he's often made out to be.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by luvroftheWord]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:cc01090a65][i:cc01090a65]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:cc01090a65]
Hmmm, that Calvin quote sounds like stuff I've heard out of the mouth of Doug Wilson. But of course, Wilson is obviously being dishonest, right?

By the way, Fred, I'm glad you believe that Wilson isn't as bad as he's often made out to be.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by luvroftheWord] [/quote:cc01090a65]

Craig,

Context, context. As I said, a statement may be true [i:cc01090a65]as far as it goes[/i:cc01090a65]. Of course it is also the case that Calvin would disagree with Wilson's constant drumbeat against the concept of the visible/invisible church distinction, to wit:

[quote:cc01090a65]The judgment which ought to be formed concerning the visible Church which comes under our observation, must, I think, be sufficiently clear from what has been said. [b:cc01090a65]I have observed that [u:cc01090a65]the Scriptures[/u:cc01090a65] speak of the Church in two ways.[/b:cc01090a65] Sometimes when they speak of the Church they mean the Church as it really is before God-the Church into which none are admitted but those who by the gift of adoption are sons of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit true members of Christ. In this case it not only comprehends the saints who dwell on the earth, but all the elect who have existed from the beginning of the world. Often, too, by the name of Church is designated the whole body of mankind scattered throughout the world, who profess to worship one God and Christ, who by baptism are initiated into the faith; by partaking of the Lord's Supper profess unity in true doctrine and charity, agree in holding the word of the Lord, and observe the ministry which Christ has appointed for the preaching of it. [b:cc01090a65]In this Church there is a very large mixture of hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the name and outward appearance: of ambitious, avaricious, envious, evil-speaking men, some also of impurer lives, who are tolerated for a time, either because their guilt cannot be legally established, or because due strictness of discipline is not always observed.[/b:cc01090a65] Hence, as it is necessary to believe the invisible Church, which is manifest to the eye of God only, so we are also enjoined to regard this Church which is so called with reference to man, and to cultivate its communion.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion. IV, i, 7)

When in the {Apostles'} Creed we profess to believe the Church, reference is made [b:cc01090a65]not only to the visible Church of which we are now treating, but also to all the elect of God[/b:cc01090a65], including in the number even those who have departed this life.
(Institutes of the Christian Religion. IV, i, 2) 

68. The Church is regarded in two points of view; as Invisible and Universal, which is the communion of saints; and as Visible and Particular. The Church is discerned by the pure preaching of the word, and by the lawful administration of the sacraments. (One Hundred Aphorisms)
[/quote:cc01090a65]

contra Wilson, who takes Calvin to task for being a pietist who focuses on &quot;etherealism&quot;:

[quote:cc01090a65]The first error is that of individualistic pietism, assuming that invisible saints are the only saints, or rather, that invisible saintliness is the only kind. Advocates of the &quot;ethereal Church&quot; need to learn that, according to the Bible, a Christian is one who would be identified as such by a Muslim. Membership in the Christian faith is objective- it can be photograped and fingerprinted. (Reformed is Not Enough, p.21)[/quote:cc01090a65]


Poor Calvin, what an irrepressible Hellenist:
[quote:cc01090a65]This {distinction between the visible and invisible Church} can be very helpful, but it can create a few problems. We cannot encourage others to be faithful to the covenant if we are ignoring the covenant. In order to understand this, we have to refer to Hellenism again. The Hellenistic mind tends to see the ethereal, spiritual real as the &quot;real&quot; one...There is a religious version of this about, and this is the attitude which sees the &quot;invisible&quot;
Church as the &quot;true&quot; Church and the &quot;visible&quot; Church, at best, as only an approximation of the true Church. (Reformed is not enough, p. 69)[/quote:cc01090a65]

and speaking of WCF 25.2, Wilson takes the divines to task as well:

[quote:cc01090a65]And so here {WCF 25.2} is one of the rare places in which we would suggest an improvement on the language of the Confession. A problem is created when we affirm a belief in two Churches [i[i:cc01090a65]at the same moment in time[/i:cc01090a65], one visible and the other invisible. (Reformed is not Enough, p. 74)[/quote:cc01090a65]


I've said it many times; there is very little or no wheat at all in these &quot;new formulations&quot; but there is plenty of chaff. Maybe if we stop trying to be cute and smarter than Calvin, smarter than the divines, smarter than Luther, than the Three Forms of Unity, we can actually get to the work of the Church.

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## turmeric (Mar 5, 2004)

My problem with all of this is that I am by nature a covenant-breaker, I probably break it every day by a conservative estimate. Even in my best works, which are few &amp; far between, I break it. I could never function in the churches of the Auburn 4. This is getting back to a righteousness which I cannot perform, I need the active righteousness of Christ.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 5, 2004)

Fred,

I admire the fact that you are zealous for confessional Christianity, and particularly of REFORMED confessional Christianity. I don't want to minimize the importance of the WCF or the 3FU, or even such theologians as Calvin or the Westminster divines.

But having said all these things, I don't for a second believe God blessed these men of God and the documents they penned to the extent that they got everything right the first time. In fact, I think there could be many areas of improvement.

God has continued to bless his church with great teachers. Biblical Theologians such as Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, Kline, and others have made many theological breakthroughs that influence our exegesis of texts and our understanding of biblical themes. More recently, the development of Literary Theology through such men as Richard Pratt, Bruce Waltke, Tremper Longman, and others have led to more breakthroughs in exegesis and understanding. Are these breakthroughs &quot;chaff&quot;? I don't think they are. Perhaps if there had been breakthroughs in Ancient Near Eastern studies in Calvin's day, it would have been John Calvin and not Meredith Kline who was formulating ideas about the covenant that we consider more contemporary ideas today (ideas which are the seed of ideas like the conditionality of the covenant, etc). But of course, that would have been fine if Calvin had done it. But because Meredith Kline did it almost 500 years later, his scholarship is somehow inferior to the scholarship of Calvin. And because Richard Pratt, Doug Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Ken Gentry, and other men come to different conclusions than Calvin and the Westminster divines, their ideas should bow the knee to the &quot;real&quot; champions of our faith. This is wrong, in my estimation. I am definitely against historical bigotry. I don't believe for a second that our generation today is somehow more intellectually capable than past generations. But I am also against the idea that generations of the past were more capable than we are today. Its not a matter of trying to be smarter than Calvin. Indeed, trying to compare what men like Wilson et al are doing today to what Calvin did in Geneva or the Westminster divines did in England is not a fair comparison at all, since both Calvin and the divines were preparing a systematic statement of the Reformed faith. They were attempting to solidify the faith as a whole, while men like Wilson and others today are specializing in specific areas of theology.

Theological formulations are either true enough to be considered true, or false enough to be considered false, but ALL theological formulations can be improved, simply because we are fallen, and our knowledge is finite and incomplete. God has not imparted full perfect knowledge to anyone, not even Calvin or the Westminster divines.

Now I know, many questions could be raised at this point and much more could be said. But I digress. I'm kinda tired now.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 5, 2004)

By the way, Phillip, I'm not sure who said the quotation you gave.

And Paul, was I right on my guess for the second quote?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 5, 2004)

[quote:c9509ee01a][i:c9509ee01a]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:c9509ee01a]
Fred,

I admire the fact that you are zealous for confessional Christianity, and particularly of REFORMED confessional Christianity. I don't want to minimize the importance of the WCF or the 3FU, or even such theologians as Calvin or the Westminster divines.

But having said all these things, I don't for a second believe God blessed these men of God and the documents they penned to the extent that they got everything right the first time. In fact, I think there could be many areas of improvement.

God has continued to bless his church with great teachers. Biblical Theologians such as Vos, Ridderbos, Gaffin, Kline, and others have made many theological breakthroughs that influence our exegesis of texts and our understanding of biblical themes. More recently, the development of Literary Theology through such men as Richard Pratt, Bruce Waltke, Tremper Longman, and others have led to more breakthroughs in exegesis and understanding. Are these breakthroughs &quot;chaff&quot;? I don't think they are. Perhaps if there had been breakthroughs in Ancient Near Eastern studies in Calvin's day, it would have been John Calvin and not Meredith Kline who was formulating ideas about the covenant that we consider more contemporary ideas today (ideas which are the seed of ideas like the conditionality of the covenant, etc). But of course, that would have been fine if Calvin had done it. But because Meredith Kline did it almost 500 years later, his scholarship is somehow inferior to the scholarship of Calvin. And because Richard Pratt, Doug Wilson, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Ken Gentry, and other men come to different conclusions than Calvin and the Westminster divines, their ideas should bow the knee to the &quot;real&quot; champions of our faith. This is wrong, in my estimation. I am definitely against historical bigotry. I don't believe for a second that our generation today is somehow more intellectually capable than past generations. But I am also against the idea that generations of the past were more capable than we are today. Its not a matter of trying to be smarter than Calvin. Indeed, trying to compare what men like Wilson et al are doing today to what Calvin did in Geneva or the Westminster divines did in England is not a fair comparison at all, since both Calvin and the divines were preparing a systematic statement of the Reformed faith. They were attempting to solidify the faith as a whole, while men like Wilson and others today are specializing in specific areas of theology.

Theological formulations are either true enough to be considered true, or false enough to be considered false, but ALL theological formulations can be improved, simply because we are fallen, and our knowledge is finite and incomplete. God has not imparted full perfect knowledge to anyone, not even Calvin or the Westminster divines.

Now I know, many questions could be raised at this point and much more could be said. But I digress. I'm kinda tired now. [/quote:c9509ee01a]

Craig,

I'm not arguing (as you know) that Calvin and the divines had some revelatory insights. What I am arguing is that they, rather than Wilson, Wilkins, Frame and any other who disagrees with them on critical doctrines, are the ones faithfully interpreting the Scriptures.

Isn't at least somewhat troubling to you that basically all that has come out of many of those you mention is confusion? I mean confusion from both supporters and detractors. Why is it that all of the Auburn 4's arguments basically hinge around - we aren't being understood - even when they have written books, given lectures, follow up lectures, follow up-follow up colloquia, and so on? Have we lost sight of the fact that one of the major requirements for a teacher in Christ's church is to be understood by LAYMEN? If professors at leading Reformed seminaries can't understand what you are teaching, how can the average elderly woman in the church? And if the laymen and seminary profs can't understand what you are teaching, what use is it?

Again, my point is not simply chronological bigotry. The Reformed understanding of justification has been held by men in its most refined form for over 400 years (and in its less refined form since the days of Augustine) . It has been held by Americans, Europeans, missionaries, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, pastors, professors, Greek scholars, and Hebrew scholars for centuries. It is not simply Calvin and Westminster we are talking about here. It is Beza, a Brakel, Witsius, Warfield, Hodge, Davies, Dabney, Bunyan, Owen, Stott, Spurgeon, Cunningham, Dagg, Henry, Poole, Berkhof, Pink, Machen, Watson, Buchanan, Henry Martyn, Piper, Sproul, Gerstner, Al Moehler, Vos, Ridderbos, Ladd, Doriani, and on and on.

How can all of them be so clear, and no all of a sudden everything is so muddy? And remember we are not talking about advancement along the same line of trajectory on a secondary subject - this is justification, the article on which the church stands or falls. Kline's advancement, for example, while helpful, did not &quot;revolutionize&quot; covenant theology. It merely gave additional proof and insight to support the classical covenantal theology formulation (Kline himself would admit as much). Somehow we forget when we get all giddy over Ridderbos and Vos that Owen wrote a Biblical Theology three centuries earlier, and Edwards had a massive treatment of Biblical theology and redemptive history.

So I must respectfully disagree with you. There are men today who desire to be innovative for the sake of being innovative. It is not helpful, and they should think more about the church then themselves.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 5, 2004)

My quote is from the works of [b:379a187d07]Jacob Arminius[/b:379a187d07]. 

:shocked2:


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 6, 2004)

Fred,

[quote:3f6054af09]
I'm not arguing (as you know) that Calvin and the divines had some revelatory insights. What I am arguing is that they, rather than Wilson, Wilkins, Frame and any other who disagrees with them on critical doctrines, are the ones faithfully interpreting the Scriptures. 
[/quote:3f6054af09]

That depends on who you ask. 

[quote:3f6054af09]
Isn't at least somewhat troubling to you that basically all that has come out of many of those you mention is confusion? I mean confusion from both supporters and detractors. Why is it that all of the Auburn 4's arguments basically hinge around - we aren't being understood - even when they have written books, given lectures, follow up lectures, follow up-follow up colloquia, and so on? Have we lost sight of the fact that one of the major requirements for a teacher in Christ's church is to be understood by LAYMEN? If professors at leading Reformed seminaries can't understand what you are teaching, how can the average elderly woman in the church? And if the laymen and seminary profs can't understand what you are teaching, what use is it? 
[/quote:3f6054af09]

Confusion can be due to a lot of reasons. There are a lot of people, even in the Presbyterian church, that do not understand baptism. But as for the AAPC, I know for a fact that at least SOME of the people that are critical of them are critical because they hear what they want to hear, and not what is really being said. Our presuppositions can often cloud our understanding.

[quote:3f6054af09]
Again, my point is not simply chronological bigotry. The Reformed understanding of justification has been held by men in its most refined form for over 400 years (and in its less refined form since the days of Augustine) . It has been held by Americans, Europeans, missionaries, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, Anglicans, pastors, professors, Greek scholars, and Hebrew scholars for centuries. It is not simply Calvin and Westminster we are talking about here. It is Beza, a Brakel, Witsius, Warfield, Hodge, Davies, Dabney, Bunyan, Owen, Stott, Spurgeon, Cunningham, Dagg, Henry, Poole, Berkhof, Pink, Machen, Watson, Buchanan, Henry Martyn, Piper, Sproul, Gerstner, Al Moehler, Vos, Ridderbos, Ladd, Doriani, and on and on. 
[/quote:3f6054af09]

Right, and I'm not suggesting that the classic Reformed view of justification is something we abandon, and neither is Doug Wilson. He has said this numerous times. I know you say context is everything, but is it really necessary that Wilson lay out his ENTIRE systematic theology when explaining his view on justification? Maybe we should start treating him as a Christian brother and actually BELIEVE what he says when he says he affirms what the confessions say about justification, rather than constantly thinking he has something up his sleeve every time he opens his mouth.

[quote:3f6054af09]
How can all of them be so clear, and no all of a sudden everything is so muddy? And remember we are not talking about advancement along the same line of trajectory on a secondary subject - this is justification, the article on which the church stands or falls. 
[/quote:3f6054af09]

I agree. It is important to be clear on this subject. Without justification, there is no gospel. I think Wilson has been clear enough. Now Schlissel on the other hand....

[quote:3f6054af09]
Kline's advancement, for example, while helpful, did not &quot;revolutionize&quot; covenant theology. It merely gave additional proof and insight to support the classical covenantal theology formulation (Kline himself would admit as much). Somehow we forget when we get all giddy over Ridderbos and Vos that Owen wrote a Biblical Theology three centuries earlier, and Edwards had a massive treatment of Biblical theology and redemptive history. 
[/quote:3f6054af09]

Actually, the Biblical Theology of Owen and Edwards is not the same as that of Vos and his following. As Charles Hodge had said, Biblical Theology [pre-Vos] was simply proof-texting Systematic Theology. Modern day BT is much different, and has led to many theological breakthroughs (I would consider Kline's work as well as that of his followers to be breakthroughs in understanding). Again, I think if Calvin or the divines had access to the breakthroughs of Kline and other BT's and LT's, I think some of their conclusions may have been different. Maybe that's just me.

[quote:3f6054af09]
So I must respectfully disagree with you. 
[/quote:3f6054af09]

That's cool, as long as its respectfully.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 6, 2004)

Phillip,

I think that any evangelical theologian, whether Calvinist or Arminian, would agree with that quotation. Arminius came out of the Reformed tradition, remember?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:5d9a9f551f][i:5d9a9f551f]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:5d9a9f551f]
Phillip,

I think that any evangelical theologian, whether Calvinist or Arminian, would agree with that quotation. Arminius came out of the Reformed tradition, remember? [/quote:5d9a9f551f]
Actually Craig, most arminian theologians that I now of would follow with Wesley and completely deny imputed righteousness. To them Christ only atoned for sin. He did not give us righteousness. But then again, most arminians are more arminian the Arminius himself.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:efa31ecacd][i:efa31ecacd]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:efa31ecacd]
Craig,

You got it right...I said, &quot;somebody has been visiting cmfnow.

[b:efa31ecacd]Now, back to the game...who said THIS?:[/b:efa31ecacd]

[quote:efa31ecacd]
&quot;The believer cooperates with God the Spirit in the use of the means of sanctification. Sanctification is both grace and duty....'work out your own salvation with fear and trembeling.' Hence sanctification is the subject of a command....Regeneration, being the sole work of God, is a grace but not a duty. It is nowhere enjoyned upon man as a duty to regenerate himself.&quot;
[/quote:efa31ecacd]

now who said it? (never gonna guess). And, do you agree?

-Paul [/quote:efa31ecacd]

Paul,

Is justification a duty? There is a command involved - repent and believe.

[quote:efa31ecacd]As thus defined, repentance is, like faith, an evangelical grace, given to us for Christ's sake, as well as a duty obligatory upon us. What is here said of repentance is equally true of every characteristic experience of the subject of regeneration and sanctification. Christ is the vine; we are the branches. But we see also free, accountable agents. Every Christian duty is therefore a grace; for without him we can do nothing. (John 15:5). And equally every Christian grace is a duty; because the grace is given to us to exercise, and it finds its true result and expression only in the duty.[/quote:efa31ecacd]

I'm not sure who said this, but knowing the rules of the game - give a citation with a buzzword that is troublesome (here, &quot;duty&quot; ) and will make someone knee-jerk to condemn the statement, and then viola! it is Calvin, or Hodge or Owen or some sort - my guess is either R.C. Sproul or Robert Reymond. The language is too modern to be a Puritan or Calvin. 

They key is to take a quote with no context, none of the qualifications and try and elicit a response. (The reverse works equally well - to take a seemingly orthodox quote and the viola! it is NT Wright)

Let me ask this, is the following true:
[quote:efa31ecacd]Here we come to the doctrine of sanctification. Let us consider how this gradual work relates to regeneration, the destruction of sin, the entirety of man, perfection and grace. 
1. God, having implanted in regeneration a new spiritual nature in the subject of his grace, always continues to foster and develop that principle, by the indwelling of his Word and Spirit, until it attains full perfection.
The word "to sanctify" is used in two different senses in Scripture.
(1) To consecrate, or set apart from a common to a sacred use. (John 10:36; Matt. 23:17.)
(2) To render morally pure or holy. (1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 13:12.) In the latter sense of the word, regeneration is the commencement of sanctification, and sanctification is the completion of the work commenced in regeneration. As regeneration is an act of God's free grace, so sanctification is a gracious work of God, and eminently of the Holy Spirit. It is attributed to God absolutely (1 Thess. 5:23); to the Son (Eph. 5:25,26); and pre-eminently to the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13), whose special office in the economy of redemption it is to apply the grace secured through the mediation of the Son.
The means of sanctification are of two distinct orders-(a) inward and (b) outward.
The inward means of sanctification is Faith. Faith is the instrument of our justification-and hence of our deliverance from condemnation and communion with God-the organ of our union with Christ and fellowship with his Spirit. Faith, moreover, is that act of the regenerated soul whereby it embraces and experiences the power of the truth, and whereby the inward experiences of the heart and the outward actions of the life are brought into obedience to the truth.
The outward means of sanctification are-
(1) The truth as revealed in the inspired Scriptures: "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." (John 17:17,19.) "As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (1 Pet. 1:22; 2:2.) The truth, as the outward means of sanctification, stands in correlation to faith, the inward means of it. Conf. Faith, chap. 14., s. 2: This faith "acteth differently upon that which every particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come," By this means the truth nourishes and exercises the principles of grace implanted in the soul.[/quote:efa31ecacd]

or this?

[quote:efa31ecacd]The infallible certainty of the Divine operations on behalf of and within His saints and the mode of their working cannot be insisted upon too emphatically or repeated too often. On the one hand, the crown of honor and glory must be ascribed to the King Himself; and on the other hand, the response and concurtence or loyalty of His subjects is to be made equally plain. God preserves His people by renewing them in the inner man day by day (2 Cor. 4:16), by quickening them according to His Word, by granting them fresh supplies of grace, and also by moving them to heed His warnings and respond to His exhortations; in a word, by working in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). Thus our portrayal of some of the benefits and fruits of this doctrine will be governed by our viewpoint: whether we trace out what follows faith's appropriating of the Divine promises or what follows from faith's appropriation of the Divine precepts. God has promised to carry forward in sanctification and complete in glorification the work begun in regeneration, yet not without requiring us to perform the duties of piety and avoid everything contrary thereto.[/quote:efa31ecacd]

or what about this?

[quote:efa31ecacd]The end of the Divine calling is to convert sinners into saints or holy persons. Their sanctification is not an eternal or figurative consecration, as that of Israel was, but a real consecration by which they are made to give themselves to God. It arises from union with Jesus Christ, which is the source of the sanctification of His people; and it consists in internal purity of heart, for God purifies the heart by faith. It supposes a real change of heart and disposition, a new creation, for "if any man be in Christ he is a new creature." "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." They were not then saints by natural birth, nor did they make themselves saints either in whole or in part; but they were made so altogether by sovereign grace resulting from sovereign love. All believers are saints, and in one sense all of them are equally sanctified. They are equally separated or consecrated to God, and equally justified, but they are not all equally holy. The work of sanctification in them is progressive. There are babes, and young men, and fathers in Christ. Some are weak in faith, and some are strong; but none of them are yet perfect, neither have they attained to that measure of holiness at which it is their duty constantly to aim, Philippians 3:12. They are therefore to forget those things which are behind, and to reach forth unto those things which are before, and are commanded to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." "The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." "Certainly, according to Paul," says Calvin on this place, "the praise of our salvation does not depend upon our own power, but is derived entirely from the fountain of God's love to us. What other cause but His own goodness can, moreover, be assigned for His love? On this also depends His calling, by which, in His own time, He seals the adoption in those who were first gratuitously chosen by Him. From these premises the conclusion follows, that none truly associate themselves with the faithful who do not place a certain degree of confidence in the Lord's kindness to them: although undeserving and wretched sinners, being called by His goodness, they aspire to holiness. For He hath not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness."[/quote:efa31ecacd]

or this?

[quote:efa31ecacd]Herein, indeed, is a humbling truth, yet a fact it is that Christians are, in themselves, incapable of discharging their duty. Though the love of God has been shed abroad in their hearts and a principle of holiness (or new nature) communicated to them, yet they are unable to perform the good they ardently desire to do. Not only are they still very ignorant of many of the requirements of God's revealed will, but indwelling sin ever opposes and seeks to incline their hearts in a contrary direction. Thus it is imperative that they daily seek from God fresh supplies of grace. Though assured that God shall surely complete His good work in us (Phil. 1:6), that does not render needless our crying to Him "that performeth all things for me [us]" (Ps. 57:2, brackets mine). Nor does the privilege of prayer release us from the obligation of obedience.Rather, in prayer we are to beg Him to quicken us to the performance of those duties He requires. The blessing of access to God is not designed to discharge us from the regular and diligent use of all the means God has appointed for our practical sanctification, but is meant to provide for our seeking of the Divine blessing on our use of all the means of grace. Our duty is this: to ask God to work in us "both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13); to avoid quenching His Spirit by slothfulness and disobedience, especially after we have prayed for His sweet influences (I Thess. 5:19); and to use the grace He has already given us.[/quote:efa31ecacd]

how about this?

[quote:efa31ecacd]They were elect through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. The end and last result of election is eternal life and salvation; but, before this can be accomplished, every elect person must be sanctified by the Spirit, and justified by the blood of Jesus. God's decree for man's salvation always operates through sanctification of the Spirit and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. By sanctification here understand, not a federal sanctification only, but a real one, begun in regeneration, whereby we are renewed after the image of God and made new creatures, and carried on in the daily exercise of holiness, mortifying our sins more and more, and living to God in all the duties of a Christian life, which is here summed up in one word, obedience, comprehending all the duties of Christianity. By the Spirit some would have the apostle to mean the spirit of man, the subject sanctified. The legal or typical sanctification operated no further than the purifying of the flesh, but the Christian dispensation takes effect upon the spirit of man, and purifies that. Others, with better reason, think that by spirit is meant the Holy Ghost, the author of sanctification. He renews the mind, mortifies our sins (Rom. 8:13), and produces his excellent fruits in the hearts of Christians, Gal. 5:22, 23. This sanctification of the Spirit implies the use of means. Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth, Jn. 17:17. Unto obedience. This word, as it is pointed in our translation, is referred to what goes before it, and denotes the end of sanctification, which is, to bring rebellious sinners to obedience again, to universal obedience, to obey the truth and gospel of Christ.[/quote:efa31ecacd]
lastly, this?

[quote:efa31ecacd]Christ is not only made to them righteousness, but sanctification; by sanctification, I do not mean a bare hypocritical attendance on outward ordinances, though rightly informed Christians will think it their duty and privilege constantly to attend on all outward ordinances. Nor do I mean by sanctification a bare outward reformation, and a few transient convictions, or a little legal sorrow; for all this an unsanctified man may have; but, by sanctification I mean a total renovation of the whole man: by the righteousness of Christ, believers come legally, by sanctification they are made spiritually, alive; by the one they are entitled to, by the other they are made meet for, glory. They are sanctified, therefore, throughout, in spirit, soul, and body. 
Their understandings, which were dark before, now become light in the Lord; and their wills, before contrary to, now become one with the will of God; their affections are now set on things above; their memory is now filled with divine things; their natural consciences are now enlightened; their members, which were before instruments of uncleanness, and of iniquity into iniquity, are now new creatures; 'old things are passed away, all things are become new', in their hearts: sin has now no longer dominion over them; they are freed from the power, though not the indwelling of being, of it; they are holy both in heart and life, in all manner of conversation: they are made partakers of a divine nature, and from Jesus Christ, they receive grace; and every grace that is in Christ, is copied and transcribed into their souls; they are transformed into his likeness; he is formed within them; they dwell in him, and he in them; they are led by the Spirit, and bring forth the fruits thereof; they know that Chris is their Emmanuel, God with and in them; they are living temples of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, being a holy habitation unto the Lord, the whole Trinity dwells and walks in them; even here, they sit together with Christ in heavenly places, and are vitally united to him, their Head, by a living faith; their Redeemer, their Maker, is their husband; they are flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone; they talk, they walk with him, as a man talketh and walketh with his friend; in short, they are one with Christ, even as Jesus Christ and the Father are one. 
Thus is Christ made to believers sanctification.[/quote:efa31ecacd]

Notice as well that I have given more context than any of the previous quotes. Context is always the key.

Was the one who said this orthodox? [quote:efa31ecacd]He shall give His angels charge over you[/quote:efa31ecacd]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:569946dc65][i:569946dc65]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:569946dc65]
Fred,

All I was asking was who said it. I never gave any views of my own. And, it is not a modern theologian. In fact, for a hint, he is one of the guys who you said was a good resource for a systematic theology source. Without getting into anything else...we can agree that, as I have read the whole thing in context...jsut don't want to type twp pages, that he does say man COOPERATES in sanctification...to ad further, he goes on to say that man does nothing in regeneration...implying that he does in sanctification.

Regarding your question, in a sense justifiaction is a duty, as you have pointed out that we have a duty to repent and believe...but when we speak of justification not being a duyt we are talking about forensic justification.

-Paul

and was the one who said this orthodox:

[quote:569946dc65]
&quot;if you do these things you shall never fall&quot;
[/quote:569946dc65]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:569946dc65]

Paul,

I'm betting somewhere in those two pages that there is clear evidence that there is no merit in works of sanctification, and that the author also affirms what Cavin said:

[quote:569946dc65]Therefore, whenever we hear that he does good to those that observe his law, let us remember that the sons of God are designated by the duty which they ought perpetually to observe, that his reason for adopting us is, that we may reverence him as a father. Hence, if we would not deprive ourselves of the privilege of adoption, we must always strive in the direction of our calling. On the other hand, however, let us remember, that the completion of the Divine mercy depends not on the works of believers, but that God himself fulfill the promise of salvation to those who by right conduct correspond to their calling, because he recognizes the true badges of sons in those only who are directed to good by his Spirit[/quote:569946dc65]

and what Hodge said:
[quote:569946dc65]In the latter sense of the word, regeneration is the commencement of sanctification, and sanctification is the completion of the work commenced in regeneration. As regeneration is an act of God's free grace, so sanctification is a gracious work of God, and eminently of the Holy Spirit. It is attributed to God absolutely (1 Thess. 5:23); to the Son (Eph. 5:25,26); and pre-eminently to the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13), whose special office in the economy of redemption it is to apply the grace secured through the mediation of the Son.[/quote:569946dc65]

Here's what I don't understand. Every Reformed divine is more than willing to affirm that we must indeed work in our sanctification, [b:569946dc65]so long as he gives the proviso[/b:569946dc65] that our sanctification in no way [u:569946dc65]depends[/u:569946dc65] on our works. That is the sum of it. But that is not what the New Perspective and Auburn theology wants us to see. They want us to be kept in the covenant by our works, and the implication is that if we &quot;don't do those things&quot; we will &quot;fall.&quot; Funny that would be the implication from the guy who blew it bigger than anyone else in the history of mankind (except probably Adam), and yet was restored to grace by HIs Lord.


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 6, 2004)

Paul,

Agreed. I should have been much clearer. I really did not mean to impugn you. I was really focused more still on the whole NP/A4 thing. I am of the belief that if the Church (in this case OPC/PCA) does not address this issue, we will be dead-letter inside of 25 years. By dead I don't mean no subscription, or no-presuppositionalism, or no-6 literal days (all I of which I hold dear), but no-gospel.

That is why I am in such a dander about these things.

We can affirm, I think with O Palmer Robertson, when he was asked:

&quot;Is the covenant unilateral or bilateral?&quot; and &quot;Is sanctification monergistic or synergistic?&quot;

And he answered: &quot;Yes.&quot;

There are important qualifications and context to these questions, that the A4 tend to ignore and give short-shrift (Schlissel is particularly abominable here in his attempts to be as blunt and annoying as possible):

On the side of the fulfillment of the conditions, the covenant is monergistic &uml; it is Godfs power that fulfills them

On the side of the requirements of the covenant, the covenant is synergistic (asymmetrical synergism)

For example: faith &uml; we are required to believe, but God provides the faith

Sanctification &uml; we are required to obey the imperatives (it is interesting that there are actually more imperatives in the NT than the OT), but God is the One Who sovereignly enables us to obey

I think we are in complete agreement here, aren't we?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 6, 2004)

[quote:6a30bf1cd3][i:6a30bf1cd3]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:6a30bf1cd3]
[quote:6a30bf1cd3]
I think we are in complete agreement here, aren't we?
[/quote:6a30bf1cd3]

yes we are!

-Paul [/quote:6a30bf1cd3]

Forgetta 'bout it. We gotta be, 'caus we're gumbas.


----------



## pastorway (Mar 7, 2004)

My quote from Arminius was to show that even a heretic can get a few things right from time to time.

(I also had quotes that we all would agree with taken from Charles Taze Russell who founded the JWs and one from the Koran that was similar...lost them though....they are somewhere around here) 

:shocked2:


----------



## turmeric (Mar 7, 2004)

[quote:b86d9a8e24][i:b86d9a8e24]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:b86d9a8e24]
[quote:b86d9a8e24][i:b86d9a8e24]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:b86d9a8e24]
Craig,

You got it right...I said, &quot;somebody has been visiting cmfnow.

[b:b86d9a8e24]Now, back to the game...who said THIS?:[/b:b86d9a8e24]

[quote:b86d9a8e24]
&quot;The believer cooperates with God the Spirit in the use of the means of sanctification. Sanctification is both grace and duty....'work out your own salvation with fear and trembeling.' Hence sanctification is the subject of a command....Regeneration, being the sole work of God, is a grace but not a duty. It is nowhere enjoyned upon man as a duty to regenerate himself.&quot;
[/quote:b86d9a8e24]

now who said it? (never gonna guess). And, do you agree?

-Paul [/quote:b86d9a8e24]

Paul,

Is justification a duty? There is a command involved - repent and believe.

[quote:b86d9a8e24]As thus defined, repentance is, like faith, an evangelical grace, given to us for Christ's sake, as well as a duty obligatory upon us. What is here said of repentance is equally true of every characteristic experience of the subject of regeneration and sanctification. Christ is the vine; we are the branches. But we see also free, accountable agents. Every Christian duty is therefore a grace; for without him we can do nothing. (John 15:5). And equally every Christian grace is a duty; because the grace is given to us to exercise, and it finds its true result and expression only in the duty.[/quote:b86d9a8e24]

I'm not sure who said this, but knowing the rules of the game - give a citation with a buzzword that is troublesome (here, &quot;duty&quot; ) and will make someone knee-jerk to condemn the statement, and then viola! it is Calvin, or Hodge or Owen or some sort - my guess is either R.C. Sproul or Robert Reymond. The language is too modern to be a Puritan or Calvin. 

They key is to take a quote with no context, none of the qualifications and try and elicit a response. (The reverse works equally well - to take a seemingly orthodox quote and the viola! it is NT Wright)

Let me ask this, is the following true:
[quote:b86d9a8e24]Here we come to the doctrine of sanctification. Let us consider how this gradual work relates to regeneration, the destruction of sin, the entirety of man, perfection and grace. 
1. God, having implanted in regeneration a new spiritual nature in the subject of his grace, always continues to foster and develop that principle, by the indwelling of his Word and Spirit, until it attains full perfection.
The word "to sanctify" is used in two different senses in Scripture.
(1) To consecrate, or set apart from a common to a sacred use. (John 10:36; Matt. 23:17.)
(2) To render morally pure or holy. (1 Cor. 6:11; Heb. 13:12.) In the latter sense of the word, regeneration is the commencement of sanctification, and sanctification is the completion of the work commenced in regeneration. As regeneration is an act of God's free grace, so sanctification is a gracious work of God, and eminently of the Holy Spirit. It is attributed to God absolutely (1 Thess. 5:23); to the Son (Eph. 5:25,26); and pre-eminently to the Holy Spirit (2 Thess. 2:13), whose special office in the economy of redemption it is to apply the grace secured through the mediation of the Son.
The means of sanctification are of two distinct orders-(a) inward and (b) outward.
The inward means of sanctification is Faith. Faith is the instrument of our justification-and hence of our deliverance from condemnation and communion with God-the organ of our union with Christ and fellowship with his Spirit. Faith, moreover, is that act of the regenerated soul whereby it embraces and experiences the power of the truth, and whereby the inward experiences of the heart and the outward actions of the life are brought into obedience to the truth.
The outward means of sanctification are-
(1) The truth as revealed in the inspired Scriptures: "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." (John 17:17,19.) "As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (1 Pet. 1:22; 2:2.) The truth, as the outward means of sanctification, stands in correlation to faith, the inward means of it. Conf. Faith, chap. 14., s. 2: This faith "acteth differently upon that which every particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life and that which is to come," By this means the truth nourishes and exercises the principles of grace implanted in the soul.[/quote:b86d9a8e24]

or this?

[quote:b86d9a8e24]The infallible certainty of the Divine operations on behalf of and within His saints and the mode of their working cannot be insisted upon too emphatically or repeated too often. On the one hand, the crown of honor and glory must be ascribed to the King Himself; and on the other hand, the response and concurtence or loyalty of His subjects is to be made equally plain. God preserves His people by renewing them in the inner man day by day (2 Cor. 4:16), by quickening them according to His Word, by granting them fresh supplies of grace, and also by moving them to heed His warnings and respond to His exhortations; in a word, by working in them both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). Thus our portrayal of some of the benefits and fruits of this doctrine will be governed by our viewpoint: whether we trace out what follows faith's appropriating of the Divine promises or what follows from faith's appropriation of the Divine precepts. God has promised to carry forward in sanctification and complete in glorification the work begun in regeneration, yet not without requiring us to perform the duties of piety and avoid everything contrary thereto.[/quote:b86d9a8e24]

or what about this?

[quote:b86d9a8e24]The end of the Divine calling is to convert sinners into saints or holy persons. Their sanctification is not an eternal or figurative consecration, as that of Israel was, but a real consecration by which they are made to give themselves to God. It arises from union with Jesus Christ, which is the source of the sanctification of His people; and it consists in internal purity of heart, for God purifies the heart by faith. It supposes a real change of heart and disposition, a new creation, for "if any man be in Christ he is a new creature." "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." They were not then saints by natural birth, nor did they make themselves saints either in whole or in part; but they were made so altogether by sovereign grace resulting from sovereign love. All believers are saints, and in one sense all of them are equally sanctified. They are equally separated or consecrated to God, and equally justified, but they are not all equally holy. The work of sanctification in them is progressive. There are babes, and young men, and fathers in Christ. Some are weak in faith, and some are strong; but none of them are yet perfect, neither have they attained to that measure of holiness at which it is their duty constantly to aim, Philippians 3:12. They are therefore to forget those things which are behind, and to reach forth unto those things which are before, and are commanded to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." "The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." "Certainly, according to Paul," says Calvin on this place, "the praise of our salvation does not depend upon our own power, but is derived entirely from the fountain of God's love to us. What other cause but His own goodness can, moreover, be assigned for His love? On this also depends His calling, by which, in His own time, He seals the adoption in those who were first gratuitously chosen by Him. From these premises the conclusion follows, that none truly associate themselves with the faithful who do not place a certain degree of confidence in the Lord's kindness to them: although undeserving and wretched sinners, being called by His goodness, they aspire to holiness. For He hath not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness."[/quote:b86d9a8e24]

or this?

[quote:b86d9a8e24]Herein, indeed, is a humbling truth, yet a fact it is that Christians are, in themselves, incapable of discharging their duty. Though the love of God has been shed abroad in their hearts and a principle of holiness (or new nature) communicated to them, yet they are unable to perform the good they ardently desire to do. Not only are they still very ignorant of many of the requirements of God's revealed will, but indwelling sin ever opposes and seeks to incline their hearts in a contrary direction. Thus it is imperative that they daily seek from God fresh supplies of grace. Though assured that God shall surely complete His good work in us (Phil. 1:6), that does not render needless our crying to Him "that performeth all things for me [us]" (Ps. 57:2, brackets mine). Nor does the privilege of prayer release us from the obligation of obedience.Rather, in prayer we are to beg Him to quicken us to the performance of those duties He requires. The blessing of access to God is not designed to discharge us from the regular and diligent use of all the means God has appointed for our practical sanctification, but is meant to provide for our seeking of the Divine blessing on our use of all the means of grace. Our duty is this: to ask God to work in us "both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13); to avoid quenching His Spirit by slothfulness and disobedience, especially after we have prayed for His sweet influences (I Thess. 5:19); and to use the grace He has already given us.[/quote:b86d9a8e24]

how about this?

[quote:b86d9a8e24]They were elect through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. The end and last result of election is eternal life and salvation; but, before this can be accomplished, every elect person must be sanctified by the Spirit, and justified by the blood of Jesus. God's decree for man's salvation always operates through sanctification of the Spirit and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus. By sanctification here understand, not a federal sanctification only, but a real one, begun in regeneration, whereby we are renewed after the image of God and made new creatures, and carried on in the daily exercise of holiness, mortifying our sins more and more, and living to God in all the duties of a Christian life, which is here summed up in one word, obedience, comprehending all the duties of Christianity. By the Spirit some would have the apostle to mean the spirit of man, the subject sanctified. The legal or typical sanctification operated no further than the purifying of the flesh, but the Christian dispensation takes effect upon the spirit of man, and purifies that. Others, with better reason, think that by spirit is meant the Holy Ghost, the author of sanctification. He renews the mind, mortifies our sins (Rom. 8:13), and produces his excellent fruits in the hearts of Christians, Gal. 5:22, 23. This sanctification of the Spirit implies the use of means. Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth, Jn. 17:17. Unto obedience. This word, as it is pointed in our translation, is referred to what goes before it, and denotes the end of sanctification, which is, to bring rebellious sinners to obedience again, to universal obedience, to obey the truth and gospel of Christ.[/quote:b86d9a8e24]
lastly, this?

[quote:b86d9a8e24]Christ is not only made to them righteousness, but sanctification; by sanctification, I do not mean a bare hypocritical attendance on outward ordinances, though rightly informed Christians will think it their duty and privilege constantly to attend on all outward ordinances. Nor do I mean by sanctification a bare outward reformation, and a few transient convictions, or a little legal sorrow; for all this an unsanctified man may have; but, by sanctification I mean a total renovation of the whole man: by the righteousness of Christ, believers come legally, by sanctification they are made spiritually, alive; by the one they are entitled to, by the other they are made meet for, glory. They are sanctified, therefore, throughout, in spirit, soul, and body. 
Their understandings, which were dark before, now become light in the Lord; and their wills, before contrary to, now become one with the will of God; their affections are now set on things above; their memory is now filled with divine things; their natural consciences are now enlightened; their members, which were before instruments of uncleanness, and of iniquity into iniquity, are now new creatures; 'old things are passed away, all things are become new', in their hearts: sin has now no longer dominion over them; they are freed from the power, though not the indwelling of being, of it; they are holy both in heart and life, in all manner of conversation: they are made partakers of a divine nature, and from Jesus Christ, they receive grace; and every grace that is in Christ, is copied and transcribed into their souls; they are transformed into his likeness; he is formed within them; they dwell in him, and he in them; they are led by the Spirit, and bring forth the fruits thereof; they know that Chris is their Emmanuel, God with and in them; they are living temples of the Holy Ghost. And therefore, being a holy habitation unto the Lord, the whole Trinity dwells and walks in them; even here, they sit together with Christ in heavenly places, and are vitally united to him, their Head, by a living faith; their Redeemer, their Maker, is their husband; they are flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone; they talk, they walk with him, as a man talketh and walketh with his friend; in short, they are one with Christ, even as Jesus Christ and the Father are one. 
Thus is Christ made to believers sanctification.[/quote:b86d9a8e24]

Notice as well that I have given more context than any of the previous quotes. Context is always the key.

Was the one who said this orthodox? [quote:b86d9a8e24]He shall give His angels charge over you[/quote:b86d9a8e24]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by fredtgreco]

[Edited on 3-6-2004 by fredtgreco] [/quote:b86d9a8e24]

Wesley? Sanctification by faith?


----------



## twogunfighter (Mar 8, 2004)

Did any of you gents read Wilson's recent Credenda Agenda articles dealing with this subject? If so did you find them helpful in clearing up the confusion? My position remains unchanged (Wilson suporter) but thought others might want to check out the articles.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Mar 9, 2004)

I agree with you, Chuck, though to be honest, I never was really confused by Wilson's position. I guess I just gave him the benefit of the doubt, and low and behold, I was right.


----------

