# Excellent Article On the Current Issues Surrounding Sanctification and Justification



## Backwoods Presbyterian

This is especially geared towards a lot of the questions surrounding some of the teachings emanating from Westminster Calfornia and the recent discussions between Tullian Tchividjian and Kevin DeYoung surrounding Sanctification.

Sanctification and the Nature of the Gospel - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## dudley

Thank you Ben. I will read the article tonight. I am very interetsed in the topic of Sannctification, Justification and the Nature of the Gospel.


----------



## Zach

Thanks for sharing that Rev. Glaser. Sanctification is a difficult topic (in more ways than one) and this was really helpful for me, especially since I have been wanting to see more fruit and sanctification in my walk with Christ and have often looked for that "silver bullet" the blog post talks about. Thanks again for sharing.


----------



## Pilgrim

Thanks for the heads up, Benjamin. 

This article is the best recent presentation I have seen of the Biblical teaching on this issue and the current controversy in Reformed and Calvinistic circles over it. As I noted previously, there is a visceral reaction against the idea of any kind of Biblical imperative, even though the Scriptures are filled with them. This pattern is perhaps most clearly seen in Paul's epistles. The mention of post-fundamentalism may be spot on. I too have wondered how many people who are attracted to this teaching have come from legalistic Pentecostal or Fundamentalist backgrounds. Similarly, it's not uncommon to encounter folks who have been under some kind of unbiblical overbearing "shepherding" who overreact into rejecting basically any pastoral shepherding at all. 

Perhaps most interesting and indeed, troubling, is the fact that some of the "Gospel-driven" types will link approvingly to the kind of posts that are criticized in this article and will then turn around the next day and tout J.C. Ryle's _Holiness_, which basically teaches the polar opposite! One wonders the thought behind promoting both and evidently not seeing the contradiction. Confusion and overreaction to false teaching is at the root, I think. The other day I saw a woman quote Horatius Bonar's _God's Way of Holiness_ in an attempt to rebut criticism of "Gospel-driven" views of sanctification. This was despite the fact that Bonar, like Ryle, has a strong emphasis on striving. Maybe the fact that Bonar clearly taught justification by grace alone by faith alone through Christ alone leads to an assumption by those who don't read closely that he must also agree with those who appear to teach nothing but the indicatives.


----------



## Pilgrim

I significantly expanded what I wrote above and posted it to my blog. What Should We Think About “Gospel-Driven” Sanctification? « One Pilgrim’s Progress 

Questions, corrections, criticisms, attaboys etc. are welcomed, whether here or there.


----------



## Rufus

I found this not long after I read the sanctification chapter of _Holiness_ by J.C. Ryle. It's an interesting topic and I'm looking forward to seeing everybody's input on the issue.


----------



## jfschultz

Thanks for the link. Dr. Thomas mentioned this during class this weekend at RTS Memphis, but I had trouble finding it.


----------



## KMK

That's all well and good, Rev Glaser, but what about a good article on what happened to the Pittsburgh Pirates this year...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Jerry Meals happened. The Atlanta Braves, as usual, destroyed our season.


----------



## Marrow Man

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> The Atlanta Braves, as usual, destroyed our season.



View attachment 2204


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It was good article over all but I thought he distracted from the main point of criticism with point 2 where he highlighted this:


> And along these lines, we may also question whether this sort of ministry emphasis addresses the real needs of an emerging post-modern culture that is both indifferent to and largely ignorant of the law of God, and for which any proclamation of biblical imperative is likely to be deemed "judgmental." How can people embrace the "radical grace" of God in justification when they see no need for it in the first place? In other words, biblical imperatives are needful, and that's why the Bible is full of them!
> 
> But if this is the case, why is this sort of thing so appealing to some. The answer may lie less in theology or exegesis and more in personal autobiography and social location. My impression that many of these conservative Reformed grace champions have come out of very conservative Evangelical and fundamentalist backgrounds, and that they found the negative morality and legalism common in those contexts unsatisfying. In short, we may be dealing here with yet another species of post-fundamentalism. Nevertheless, reaction against one's past can only take one so far, and it is always a bit risky to generalize from the limited perspective of one's own personal experience to the task and message of the broader church. Or, to phrase it a bit differently, this particular construal of grace may well speak to the individualistic therapeutic felt needs of conservative baby-boomer Evangelicals, but its applicability to the broader context is questionable.


I agree with him that one of the dire problems in our Churches is that people "feel" justified but have never understood the Gospel. Nevertheless, if some are preaching too much indicative and not enough imperative then it doesn't really solve the problem of the unconverted soul to simply change the "balance" of the conversation to more imperative. It's an odd criticism, in other words, because he seems to be arguing that in our day we need a greater balance of imperative in order to correct the emphasis on cheap grace that is so common.


But this is a problem of conversion and fundamental presentation of the gospel and not a "balance" issue. One needs to fully preach the threat of the Law and our deadness in sins and trespasses and then the power, death, and resurrection of Christ on the other as the Word presents it. I assume he wasn't trying to say otherwise but this section left the impression that there was too much indicative going on and, consequently, people needed more imperative.

What followed in his article about the definitive nature of sanctification was what I believe he should have stuck with as it was very good. I really do try to listen to the WHI and cast it in the best possible light (and there's much that I thoroughly enjoy) but Mike's recent interview with Tullian was disappointing. I cannot recall the specific statements that made me wince but it always seems to drive back to reflecting on what Christ has done rather than taking any stock as to how Christ is progressing _us_ in the area of sanctification. It's ironic because there's an acknowledgement that _our_ wills need to be the ones to change. It's not Christ that is yelling at his wife too much. It's me. I'm then given an imperative(!) by the proponents of this view that I need to think more about Christ's finished work. There's also an implied (and often explicit) criticism that any internal reflection or heaing what the Law would tell me to do is driving me to legalism.

Owen's work on Sin and Temptation is much more rich and nuanced than anything I ever hear on the WHI. They get great grades in my book for clarity on what Christ accomplished but when it comes to sanctification they're good at criticizing what they don't like but very poor at positively defining what definitive sanctification looks like in a believer's life.

I found myself floundering in battles with indwelling sin until I read Owen's work a few years ago. Unless we study the nature of sin and temptation we are left defenseless in the battle. The exhortations to simply think about what Christ has done leaves our own failings and predilections left unstudied. We don't ever reflect upon what situations led to the "high noon" of our temptation that we might avoid them or steel our minds (in Christ) against them. I simply don't see a serious interaction with the nuts and bolts of definitive sanctification other than giving it a short treatment on the WHI and then returning to railing against those who get it completely wrong rather than establishing a positive case for how the whole of Scripture treats it.

The more I have studied on the area of sanctification, I agree with the author that our consideration of our union with Christ is instrumental in our growth in Christ. When you exhort a young man about his sin being conquered on the Cross of Christ and his life being raised together with Him, that's powerful stuff. It's existential. It gets into the marrow of everyday living. Simply telling him that Christ never looked at p0rnography and neglecting to tell him that sin as power was put to death on the Cross is leaving out critical Truth about the Gospel. Failing to tell the young man that Christ rose again with an indestructible life and that we, in union with Him, _will_ obey is leaving out crticial Truth about the Gospel.

It's not simply about what Christ has done (glory be to God that He did) but it's also the glory that we, who are in union with Him, are dead to sin and alive to righteousness. We walk into the battle armed against an enemy that no longer enslaves us.


----------



## Philip

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This is especially geared towards a lot of the questions surrounding some of the teachings emanating from Westminster Calfornia and the recent discussions between Tullian Tchividjian and Kevin DeYoung surrounding Sanctification.



To my ears, at least, the two positions presented are not mutually exclusive. I agree with the criticisms of Tchividjan's position, which is why I think DeYoung's is a helpful balance (and vice versa).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Marrow Man said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Atlanta Braves, as usual, destroyed our season.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2204
Click to expand...


Even Prince Fielder agrees with me.

Prince Fielder: Ump's missed call still stings for Bucs - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review


----------



## CharlieJ

Whether or not I have understood Reformed people such as Horton and TT, what I have gotten from them is that there is no *naked* law. When an unbeliever encounters the gospel, he does so only through the guiding hand of the law; conversely, a believer encounters the law only through the message of the gospel. That is, every time I encounter the law's demands, I am to undergo a threefold movement: 1) recognition of the fullness of the law and my damnable failure to keep it; 2) trust in the finished work of Christ, who fulfills and obliterates the law's condemnation; 3) grateful imitation of my Savior in the power of the Spirit. 

I think we need to go through all 3 in our personal lives and in our teaching and preaching. Since the article mentioned post-fundamentalism, I'll note that in fundamentalism, there are mostly naked imperatives. After a person "gets saved," justification (or adoption, or union) never plays any further role. Sanctification is just, "This is what God says, so do it." For many fundamentalists or disaffected ex-fundamentalists, hearing that sanctification is vitally connected to what God has done for us in the gospel is overwhelmingly good news. The contrast is quite stark.

Back to Reformed people, such as WHI and TT. They can't really not be preaching the imperatives at all, can they? I mean, do they just skip Eph. 4-6? I haven't heard enough of them to know, I guess, but I have a hard time believing they simply omit all the commands in the Bible.


----------



## Marrow Man

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Even Prince Fielder agrees with me.
> 
> Prince Fielder: Ump's missed call still stings for Bucs - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review



Wow. It's just one game. And it's not like they were guaranteed to win the game either without that call (the game would have still been tied). You've got to shake that off and go out and win the next day. If they can't let go of one game in the middle of a 162 game, that says a lot (a bad call in a short playoff series is a different matter).

The fact that Neil Walker has about 3 hits since the All-Star break might have more to do with it. He's killing my fantasy team right now...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

By the way thanks for Charlie Morton.


----------



## Marrow Man

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> By the way thanks for Charlie Morton.



The Braves have been good at this lately. What they gave up for Texiera a few years ago helped put the Rangers in the World Series.


----------



## yoyoceramic

The exposition on Romans 6 was very helpful. While both sides are acknowledging the normative truth of the believer's union with Christ, it seems that one camp places the emphasis on how this union flows into my sanctification as I understand it (the union) better, while the other camp emphasizes how the union must be practically applied to life through exertion.

If Christ struggled in the garden to obey the will of the Father, do we have any grounds to expect not to struggle? I think not. Being united with Christ, we know that we will overcome that which is contrary to the will of God even if it requires us to sweat drops of blood.


----------



## mvdm

Semper Fidelis said:


> The more I have studied on the area of sanctification, I agree with the author that our consideration of our union with Christ is instrumental in our growth in Christ. When you exhort a young man about his sin being conquered on the Cross of Christ and his life being raised together with Him, that's powerful stuff. It's existential. It gets into the marrow of everyday living. Simply telling him that Christ never looked at p0rnography and neglecting to tell him that sin as power was put to death on the Cross is leaving out critical Truth about the Gospel. Failing to tell the young man that Christ rose again with an indestructible life and that we, in union with Him, will obey is leaving out crticial Truth about the Gospel.
> 
> It's not simply about what Christ has done (glory be to God that He did) but it's also the glory that we, who are in union with Him, are dead to sin and alive to righteousness. We walk into the battle armed against an enemy that no longer enslaves us.



Amen!


----------



## Jack K

From the article:



> Of course, Tchividjian is by no means alone in these sentiments. He is part of a significant group of ministers, centered especially in the "missional wing" of the Presbyterian Church in America, that has been profoundly influenced by the so-called "Sonship" theology of the late Jack Miller and to a lesser extent by a Lutheranized version of Reformed theology emanating from people such as Michael Horton at Westminster Seminary in California.



I think the article is right in pointing out the influence of the Sonship movement. But it makes the all-too-common mistake of associating it with a lack of interest in Christian obedience. If it emphasizes grace it must be antinomian, right? Wrong.

I was around for the start of the Sonship movement and knew Jack Miller. I've been involved, off and on, in adapting Sonship materials for use with kids. I can say with much certainty that when it comes to fighting sin in one's life the Sonship teaching is among the most challenging and convicting stuff I've ever been exposed to, right up there with many of the Puritans. Sonship is not just about having been declared a son, but also about diligently living as befits a son. Mostly, it's about never separating one from the other. Sonship people tend to be sin-aware and constantly repentant even as they are Christ-aware and constantly joyful. The fact that they battle sin in their lives with their eyes trained on Christ and on the justification, union and sonship he has won for them is a good thing, not a fault. It's called faith.

Surely many take the message of radical grace and turn it into an excuse to not take obedience seriously, just as others take God's law and turn it into legalism. But the solution is not to de-emphasize either, nor to strike a "balance." The answer is to teach both full barrel and unflinchingly.


----------



## Pilgrim

Rich,

You are right that it's a problem with conversion. That was what was so frustrating with Tullian's post on perfectionism that Randy (puritancovenanter) posted about a few months ago. At least some of the people described therein appeared to be unconverted, yet he appears to blame the problems they had on perfectionistic views of sanctification (not justification) and then says that Christians are "free to fail" etc. At best, it is very confusing because it seems to indicate that the examples (which were from Steve Brown) are Christians, which possibly goes a step further than Brown did. If someone's idea about how one goes to heaven is genuinely perfectionistic, legalistic or moralistic (i.e. simply being a good person) then it is a conversion issue and is not merely a problem with Christians just beating themselves up. 

In fairness, I think it does need to be noted that Tchividjian and WHI appear to be primarily speaking to professing believers at large rather than to a largely Reformed audience. In itself, that's commendable and necessary. (I think that sometimes my posts contain too much jargon and inside baseball so as to be largely unintelligible to the uninitiated.) But speaking to a wider audience doesn't excuse being confusing, even if you're not aiming to go through the confessions or systematics texts line by line. As you note, the problem seems to be doctrinal and not merely a case of not communicating clearly enough. 

What seems to be missed at times is what role imperatives might play in conversion, in conjunction with indicatives. I'm not sure that a formulaic law before grace method a la Ray Comfort is required in every case. But I think an argument can be made that this balance (for lack of a better term) especially with regard to the injunctions we see in the NT, could be helpful. If a man doesn't look the way a Christian is described in the Bible, maybe he's not converted! I know that some have been converted by the means of emphasizing those imperatives. On the other hand, we can't conform to that solely by our own power and we need to emphasize that in our teaching.

Related to this is the idea of "dead orthodoxy," which Dr. Clark and others have emphatically claimed cannot exist. I agree up to the point that those who can make mental assent to the Gospel yet appear dead evidently haven't reckoned with the whole counsel of God. But there are those who appear to be heavily influenced by WHI, etc. who, as you note, "feel" justified. The biblical message is not "do this and live" but "live and do this" but some reject even the latter as being legalistic and "performance based." 

But false professors are a problem in most every church, regardless of the message preached. Some who can practically recite the Westminster Standards (or some similar orthodox confession) from memory, including the proper emphasis on effort, may yet be unregenerate. And all of us are likely confused and/or lacking understanding on any number of issues.

---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:25 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> Surely many take the message of radical grace and turn it into an excuse to not take obedience seriously, just as others take God's law and turn it into legalism. But the solution is not to de-emphasize either, nor to strike a "balance." The answer is to teach both full barrel and unflinchingly.



I can't speak for others, but teaching both full barrel and unflinchingly is what I mean by balance. Do some conceive the mention of balance to mean something else? We get out of balance and fail to do justice to the whole counsel of God when we fail to do teach both unflinchingly.

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 PM ----------

*FYI, two more posts appeared on the Ref. 21 site today, a rejoinder by Sean Michael Lucas and a post by Richard Phillips: 
*
A Rejoinder on Sanctification and the Gospel - Reformation21 Blog

Seven Assertions Regarding Justification and Sanctification - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> Nevertheless, if some are preaching too much indicative and not enough imperative then it doesn't really solve the problem of the unconverted soul to simply change the "balance" of the conversation to more imperative. It's an odd criticism, in other words, because he seems to be arguing that in our day we need a greater balance of imperative in order to correct the emphasis on cheap grace that is so common.



Exactly. As I've looked at the unfolding discussion, it seems that it could be reduced to a debate as to which imbalance is more appropriate to commit in our times. But the answer is that it is not appropriate to be imbalanced in either direction. There will be individuals or congregations that may need to hear about one more than the other in order for the total commitment to both truths to be brought out; but it would seem best that every minister, at least, be prepared to apply indicatives or imperatives as appropriate in each distinct situation.


----------



## Myshkin

I agree with what CharlieJ, Jack, and Ruben posted above and what Joshua highlighted from the WLC. I personally don't see the WSC/WHInn denying that portion of the WLC, but in fact I consistently read them promoting it.

This is not meant to be provocative or to step on toes, I genuinely would like to ask in all seriousness:
To what degree or percentage do those of the WSC/WHInn "school" have to mention the law as part of sanctification in order for their critics to believe that they are serious about sanctification and the third use of the law? For their critics to believe that they are not anti-imperatives? What would suffice for a proper amount of talk regarding law/imperatives in sanctification? I read their materials almost daily, and the law is strongly promoted in them. So I get really confused with some of these claims that they are against imperatives in the christian life. I would even say, that it wasn't until I was exposed to their emphasis on the gospel that I then became serious about the law. Until then, my focus on the law was exposed for what it really was: my attempt to please God outside of his gospel and/or my attempt to turn sanctification into an obedience that "keeps me in" justification.

To date, the WSC/WHInn "school" has in some form or another, been accused of being or connected to in some degree, the following:
antinomian, "Sonship", Keswick, Lutheran, Dispensationalist, revisionist. In my experience, those who make these claims have either been FV proponents, Theonomists, ex-dispensationalist baptists, neo-kuyperians, those who elevate biblical theology over systematic theology, those who look at the confessions and the Reformed faith progressively rather than traditionally, those who pit Calvin against the Calvinists, and those who seem to think union with Christ is the material principle of the reformation.

Is there anyone who does not fall into any of these categories that agrees with their critique of the WSC/WHInn "school"? 

It is really confusing to me when WSC/WHInn is considered "Lutheran" on these issues by their critics, yet on the other hand I read where Lutherans think WSC/WHInn types confuse law and gospel/justifcation and sanctification. It is especially confusing when the position I hold (the "WSC" position), I learned from prominent Reformed non-WSC types (Berkhof comes to mind) before I had ever even heard of M. Kline or those associated with WSC/WHInn. It seems to me that so much of this debate comes down to one's view of John Murray. He seems to be the fountainhead of where the Reformed have diverged on all of these issues. That's my guess anyways.

I guess I (simplistically?) look at it this way: the more I hear of law to the neglect of the gospel, the more I lose sight of the gospel and the law seems to only be functioning for me in its second use. But ironically the more I hear of the gospel the more I desire and attempt to obey the law as its third use. It seems to me that those who emphasize/focus on the gospel yet also entirely avoid the law, are not guilty of over emphasizing the gospel to the neglect of the law, but rather are probably not regenerate. For the regenerate are motivated (by the gospel and the HS in connection with the law) to serve in gratitude the Lord who saved them. A focus on the gospel, for me, actually brings the law more front and center. Yet a focus on the law ironically leads to my neglect of both gospel and law; the law becomes replaced by my own new laws and the gospel becomes assumed/taken for granted, thus leading to cheap grace and "sinning it up". I believe that legalism and antinomianism are not two opposite sides of a horse we should not fall off of, but rather they are strange bedfellows that go hand in hand even though they are distinct in substance. That is to say, legalism and antinomianism are not cured by swinging back to some golden mean middle on a spectrum; rather when one denies God's law (antinomianism) one also is simultaneously setting up their own law (legalism). I grew up in both types of churches, and WSC/WhInn teaching has helped me out of both modes of thought. When they are criticized for flirting with or promoting anti-law tendencies, I do not recognize the caricature, for in my experience it has been the opposite.


----------



## Marrow Man

Pilgrim said:


> FYI, two more posts appeared on the Ref. 21 site today, a rejoinder by Sean Michael Lucas and a post by Richard Phillips:
> 
> A Rejoinder on Sanctification and the Gospel - Reformation21 Blog
> 
> Seven Assertions Regarding Justification and Sanctification - Reformation21 Blog



From Phillips' (no relation) article, this is helpful:



> 1. Justification and Sanctification are twin benefits that flow from union with Christ through faith.
> 
> 2. Justification and Sanctification are distinct but simultaneous.
> 
> 3. Justification and Sanctification are both necessary and intrinsic to salvation.
> 
> 4. Justification is logically prior to progressive Sanctification.
> 
> 5. Justification does not cause Sanctification, but Christ both justifies and sanctifies his people.
> 
> 6. In Justification faith is passive and receptive (Gal. 2:16), whereas in Sanctification faith is active.
> 
> 7. The law of God functions differently with respect to Justification and Sanctification.


----------



## DMcFadden

I seem to remember hearing more than one WHI commentator claiming that unless you are accused of being antinomian, you are "probably not" preaching the Gospel. 
Just as all stereotypes are not untrue, so much "misunderstanding" of positions originates in the hyperbole or imprecision of the original speakers. I agree with Ruben's (et. al.) post above regarding the need for a balanced presentation of truth. However, I tire of hearing folks (e.g., WHI, FV, theonomists, WSCal, Driscoll, Klineans, anti-Klineans, neo-kuyperians, Piperites, Tea Party, Move-on, Ron Paulistas, whatever) complain that they are being "misrepresented" and "misunderstood." If we were a bit more careful in our statements of our positions, we might not need to spend so much time correcting the misreadings of them by others.


----------



## Jack K

Pilgrim said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely many take the message of radical grace and turn it into an excuse to not take obedience seriously, just as others take God's law and turn it into legalism. But the solution is not to de-emphasize either, nor to strike a "balance." The answer is to teach both full barrel and unflinchingly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for others, but teaching both full barrel and unflinchingly is what I mean by balance. Do some conceive the mention of balance to mean something else? We get out of balance and fail to do justice to the whole counsel of God when we fail to do teach both unflinchingly.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it depends on what you mean by "balance." It just seems to me that some preachers are concerned not to make God's law seem too demanding, nor the gospel sound too amazingly free to sinners, lest people get the wrong idea. That's a bad approach.


----------



## Zach

Are there any resources you would recommend to someone who wants greater understanding of our Union with Christ, particularly as it pertains to sanctification? I'm thinking of reading On the Mortification of Sin in the Believer, but any other recommended resources would be appreciated.


----------



## Jack K

RAS said:


> the more I hear of law, the more I lose sight of the gospel. But ironically the more I hear of the gospel the more I desire and attempt to obey the law....
> 
> A focus of the gospel, for me, actually brings the law more front and center. Yet a focus on the law ironically leads to my neglect of both gospel and law; the law becomes replaced by my own new laws and the gospel becomes assumed/taken for granted



Yes, many people experience this, which is why being gospel-centered _is_ critically important to sanctification, even if it's not a "magic bullet," nothing-else-allowed thing.




RAS said:


> I believe that legalism and antinomianism are not two opposite sides of a horse we should not fall off of, but rather they are strange bedfellows that go hand in hand even though they are distinct in substance. That is to say, legalism and antinomianism are not cured by swinging back to some golden mean middle on a spectrum; rather when one denies God's law (antinomianism) one also is simultaneously setting up their own law (legalism).



Right. This is what I mean by not taking a "strike a balance" approach. There is no balance between "Obey God!" and "Christ has canceled your debt!" Neither can truly grow in a believer's life without the other increasing also, and both are opposed to an unbelieving, self-directed life.


----------



## py3ak

DMcFadden said:


> I seem to remember hearing more than one WHI commentator claiming that unless you are accused of being antinomian, you are "probably not" preaching the Gospel.



I don't know if this was their source (it would be mildly ironic, if so), but didn't Lloyd-Jones say something along those lines? Pointing out that it was an accusation made against Paul himself, if I remember correctly.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Joshua: 

I have not looked at the WLC in forever. Am I correct that the "Moral law" is the 10 commandments, and not the general "mosiac law?" I will look for myself this evening.

Thanks~!


----------



## timmopussycat

py3ak said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember hearing more than one WHI commentator claiming that unless you are accused of being antinomian, you are "probably not" preaching the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this was their source (it would be mildly ironic, if so), but didn't Lloyd-Jones say something along those lines? Pointing out that it was an accusation made against Paul himself, if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely correct about Lloyd-Jones. He says at great length (Romans, Exposition of chapter 6: The New Man pp. 8-10):

"true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matte what you do . . . If my preaching and my presentation of the gospel does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel [that I am preaching. It is this sense] in which the doctrine of justification by faith only is a very dangerous doctrine . . . in the sense it can be misunderstood."

But the Doctor goes on to point out at greater length – the rest of the book–that our being under the reign of grace rather than under sin does not free us from our calling to put to death the sin that remains in our bodies.

---------- Post added at 01:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------



---------- Post added at 01:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 PM ----------




GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Joshua:
> 
> I have not looked at the WLC in forever. Am I correct that the "Moral law" is the 10 commandments, and not the general "mosiac law?" I will look for myself this evening.
> 
> Thanks~!



Quite right. If you review WCF 19:1-3 you will see that the Divines defined the term "moral law" as the decalogue alone.


----------



## CharlieJ

There is a logical problem at work in some people, though. I do believe that those who preach true doctrine will be called antinomians by some others. However, some people are called antinomians because they are antinomians. So, you cannot take allegations of antinomianism as *proof* of orthodoxy, since at least some accusations of antinomianism are accurate.

So,

1. If no one would ever accuse you antinomianism, you probably don't aren't preaching truth.

2. Just because someone accuses you of antinomianism doesn't mean you're preaching truth.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

First off I am not so sure that anyone is attaching the name antinomian in a manner that suggests that sanctificaton shouldn't take place. I have had some problems with some teaching concerning the dichotomy of law and gospel but I don't think I have ever called anyone an antinomian. I also believe that we have an incomplete definition of grace when we narrow the teaching down to just unmerited favor as the Greek seems to include much more than just some free pass. Especially in light of clear passages such as Titus 2:11,12 and 2 Corinthians 12:9. 


Strongs Greek 5485
especially the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the life; 

Harpers Bible Dictionary: Grace; ... Grace in the classical greek applied to art, persons, speech, or athletics, as well as to the good forune, kindness and power bestowed by the gods upon divine men, moving them to miraculous deeds. 



> (Tit 2:11) For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
> 
> (Tit 2:12) Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;





> (2Co 12:9) And he said unto me, My *grace* is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the *power* of Christ may rest upon me.



"God's grace is not a static attribute whereby he passively accepts hardened, unrepentant sinners. God's grace does not change a person's standing before God yet leave his character untouched... Clearly, grace does not grant permission to live in the flesh; it supplies power to live in the Spirit." John MacArthur, Gospel According to Jesus. p. 31

By nature, Grace and law are attached as the Law is also God's words of life. Even for the Christian as we are to live in the Spirit and fulfill them. 


> (Rom 13:8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
> 
> (Rom 13:9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
> 
> 
> (Rom 13:10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.



Try not walking by this rule of life and see how far you get. So I would say that there are two principles that are true for the christian as well in both the Mosaic and the New Testament. Live and do This. Do this and Live. Both are applicable to the Christian in both the Old and New Covenant and I believe this is actually the teaching of the Reformers as one article I have read points out. 

Try not Doing this and living life and see what happens. There is excommunication and deadness that is attributed to not living by this rule. We are truly justified by faith alone but salvation includes more than justification. 

Here is a good article on it. 
Here is a great thesis on Good Works in the Reformed Tradition. I hope everyone takes some time to look at it. Here are a few small portions of it. 

Good Works in the Reformed Tradition | Patrick’s Pensees



> Concerning the obedience required or more accurately accepted in the covenant of grace, three distinctions need to be kept in mind. First, we need to distinguish between gospel and legal obedience.[34] Legal obedience is an antecedent condition that merits or causes and so is the ground for blessings or rewards received. Gospel obedience, on the other hand, is from faith and thus by the justified in the power of the Spirit, which is why it is a consequent or subsequent condition. It is not meritorious or legalistic. The good works of believers do not constitute the ground for acceptance before God or any blessing received since all is of grace.[35] Yet, as we have already alluded to and shall discuss more fully in the next section, they are the necessary means and way to obtain, possess and experience salvation both in this life and in the life to come.[36] Thus, when Turretin says that good works are necessary to salvation because according to the covenant of grace obedience is required to partake of the blessings of the covenant, he understands the requirement of obedience in the sense of “the means and way for possessing salvation,” and not in the sense of “merit, causality and efficiency.”[37] This key, yet fine distinction between gospel and legal obedience is what differentiates the role of obedience in the covenant of grace from that in the covenant of works.[38] As John Ball says: “In the Covenant of Nature obedience and workes were commanded as the cause of life and justification: in the Covenant of Grace, Faith is required as the instrumental cause of Remission and Salvation, obedience as the qualification of the party justified, and the way leading to everlasting blessedness.”[39]Second, we need to distinguish between sincere and perfect obedience. No doubt following John Calvin,[40] Ball states that God in the covenant of grace requires perfect obedience, yet in His mercy accepts sincere, imperfect obedience. He writes:
> 
> “The Covenant of Grace calleth for perfection, accepteth sincerity, God in mercy pardoning imperfections of our best performances. If perfection was rigidly exacted, no flesh could be saved: if not at all commanded, imperfection should not be sin, nor perfection to be laboured after… In the Covenant man doth promise to repent of his sinnes, and repenting to cleave unto the promise of mercy made in Jesus Christ, and in faith to yield willing, cheerefull and continuall obedience. In contracts amongst men, one may aske more, and the other bid lesse, and yet they may strike agreement: But it is altogether bootlesse, for men to thinke of entering into Covenant with God, if they be not resolved to obey in all things. The practice of all God’s people, who ever made Covenant with his Highness, doth expressely speake thus much, when they solemnly entred into, or renewed their Covenant [Ball then cites Ex. 24:3, 7; Josh. 24:23; 2 Chron. 15:12, 13; 34:31; 2 Kings 23:3; Neh. 10:29; Josh. 22:5].”[41]
> 
> 
> ​That God accepts sincere imperfect good works in the covenant of grace indicates that they are not meritorious and contribute nothing to the acquisition of salvation. It also means that falling into sin is distinct from falling away from Christ and the covenant. A believer may fall into sin, even grievous sin for a time, and yet not fall away from justification and salvation. Perseverance in the faith, which is akin to sincere obedience, is required, while apostasy must at all costs be avoided.[42]
> 
> Third, we need to distinguish between the promise of obedience and the promise to obedience. God promises his elect that He will write His law upon their hearts and grant them His Spirit so that they might be careful to keep His commandments. God also promises grace and blessing to those who obey. In other words, the requirement of obedience is both a benefit and a condition of the covenant.[43] God works in us and we work out our salvation. The fact that God enables us to obey does not detract from our duty to pursue holiness and righteousness.
> 
> In sum, from the perspective of the covenant, good works are necessary to salvation because they are a condition of the covenant and thus of salvation....
> 
> .....
> 
> Thomas Boston, in his sermon on Hebrews 4:11, says that there is a five-fold entering into “heaven and life, for which we must labour.”[53] The fourth entering is obedience. God’s commands are called everlasting life because they land the soul in heaven. Indeed, the pathway of obedience is the only one that leads to heaven. Boston writes:
> 
> “They that would enter heaven, but not by the way of obedience, must resolve to get in over the walls, but come not in by the door; that is, they shall never see it; ‘for without holiness no man shall see the Lord.’ We must follow the footsteps of our blessed Lord and the flock, who all entered heaven this way; though in different respects, he by, and they in, obedience.”[54]
> 
> 
> ​The southern Presbyterian theologian, James Henley Thornwell, uses a different analogy, a ladder instead of a road: “The successive rounds in the ladder must be passed before we can reach the top.”[55] The point, however, remains the same. Good works are necessary for heaven. Hence, they may properly be called an antecedent condition of glorification.[56]
> 
> A similar expression used by some was working for life. The legal principle of the covenant of works was sometimes expressed by the phrase: “Do this and live.” By contrast, the principle of gospel obedience was: “Live and do this.”[57] Stating the difference this way was true enough but incomplete because the legal principle was also used evangelically to articulate the idea that progression in holiness is commensurate with experiencing life. Therefore, we do because we live and we do so that we may live.
> 
> Herman Witsius was compelled by the Apostle Paul’s commentary on Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10 and Galatians 3 to interpret it as a restatement—not a renewal or establishment—of the covenant of works.[58] Nevertheless, other verses in the Pentateuch urging obedience for life (e.g. Deuteronomy 8:1) he interpreted evangelically, concluding that saints are to work for life. Thus, it is not contradictory to say that the principles “Do this and live,” and “Live and do this,” equally apply to the believer. Witsius writes:
> 
> “In fine, it is not inconsistent to do something from this principle, because we live, and to the end, that we may live. No man eats but he lives, but he also eats that he may live. We both can and ought to act in a holy manner, because we are quickened by the Spirit of God. But we must also act in the same manner, that that life may be preserved in us, may increase, and at last terminate in an uninterrupted and eternal life.”[59]​



This is a great thesis on Good works in the Reformed Tradition. 

Good Works in the Reformed Tradition | Patrick’s Pensees


----------



## Mushroom

So, a comment from the peanut gallery: It appears the consensus here is that salvation is monergistic, but sanctification is synergistic. And it has been correctly stated that the essence of the moral law is contained in the command to love the Lord with all one's heart soul and mind, and to love one's neighbor as oneself. 

I would submit that all forms of disobedience derive from a lack of love for the Lord. When one finds that he does not love the Lord as he ought, what then is the solution to this problem? Try harder? Or look to Christ as our substitutionary atonement, our covenant-keeping Elder Brother, our Advocate before the throne, our wisdom from God, our "righteousness and sanctification and redemption"?


----------



## Philip

Brad said:


> I would submit that all forms of disobedience derive from a lack of love for the Lord. When one finds that he does not love the Lord as he ought, what then is the solution to this problem? Try harder? Or look to Christ as our substitutionary atonement, our covenant-keeping Elder Brother, our Advocate before the throne, our wisdom from God, our "righteousness and sanctification and redemption"?



Yes---in reverse order.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

RAS said:


> To what degree or percentage do those of the WSC/WHInn "school" have to mention the law as part of sanctification in order for their critics to believe that they are serious about sanctification and the third use of the law?


I don't think it is a "percentage" thing Allan but an issue of what the Law/Gospel distinction is. If you listen to WHI then I'm certain you would agree that they believe that Law=Imperative and Gospel=Indicative in their view. Furthermore, they will regularly note that law does not really sanctify or build up but only the Gospel does. They will regularly note that no imperative carries with it any power to accomplish it but it is only the Gospel, which will do so.


RAS said:


> Is there anyone who does not fall into any of these categories that agrees with their critique of the WSC/WHInn "school"?


I'm not sure what the question is here. I do think that the article points out that there is a long-running "debate" _within_ the Reformed tradition on this issue. Mike even noted the same to me personally in dialogue. I'm not bringing this up to tear down WSC but to note that I agree with some of the problems inherent in this school of thinking. It doesn't mean that I throw out or disregard everything good they have to say. We can discuss these things without getting into a party spirit and paint a view in the worst possible light.

What I tried to note earlier about definitive sanctification and union with Christ is something I simply have not heard or read emphasized. The third use of the Law is more than "I am grateful for what Christ has done and so I obey out of a sense of gratitude for what He has already accomplished." This is one important aspect of the equation but, if one studies Romans 6 (and passages like it) there is something much more profound in the Gospel than our gratitude as an "impelling" motive. That is to say that if I stop at the idea that I'm being motivated to obey out of my gratitude then my sense of gratitude is what enables me to more and more obey. Yet Romans 6 teaches us that much more is going on than my gratitude:

1. Christ has put sin as power to death on the Cross for all who are united to Him by faith. We are dead to sin and its enslaving power.
2. Christ was raised again with an indestructible life and I have that life by my union with Him.

There is a fullness to the many things that Paul enjoins upon us to "consider" throughout the Book of Romans and I see the emphasis on the WHI to "consider" a subset of the whole aspect of what we are to "consider" that Christ has done as well as what our union with Him empowers us to accomplish. I do not agree with the notion that "imperative=Law" and that an imperative grants me nothing but only the "Gospel=indicative" which grants power. The Gospel includes imperatives which create the life which they enjoin if we have been transported from this age to the age to come.

Thus, I wouldn't say that WHI has ever been "anti-Law" but it is their definition of Law=imperative and Gospel=indicative or treating the Gospel as limiting itself to Justification or the kerygma that I find problematic. Again, they do much good and I support them financially because I believe they do good, but I'm also troubled by the fact that they tend to treat the historical Reformed distinction of the Gospel ("live and do") as crossing the line into legalism or FV-variants.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brad said:


> I would submit that all forms of disobedience derive from a lack of love for the Lord. When one finds that he does not love the Lord as he ought, what then is the solution to this problem? Try harder? Or look to Christ as our substitutionary atonement, our covenant-keeping Elder Brother, our Advocate before the throne, our wisdom from God, our "righteousness and sanctification and redemption"?


Yes, look to Christ and, as Paul enjoins in Romans 6:



> 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
> 
> 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self [1] was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free [2] from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.



Consider:
1. _You_ have died to sin in Him. Sin as power has been crucified with Christ on the Cross.
2. If we have died with Christ, we will also _live_ with him. Consider yourself alive to God in Christ Jesus.

In other words, it is not only a consideration of what Christ has accomplished but also a consideration of _yourself_ as dead to sin and alive to God. It is not merely a consideration that Christ was able to obey but that _you_ will obey because you are united to Christ. This is not perfectionism or a "I'll try harder on my own steam" but a recognition that I need not sin because sin no longer enslaves me and also that obedience to God's commands is not something foreign to us as new creations but is part and parcel of our union with Christ.


----------



## Jack K

Semper Fidelis said:


> Consider:
> 1. You have died to sin in Him. Sin as power has been crucified with Christ on the Cross.
> 2. If we have died with Christ, we will also live with him. Consider yourself alive to God in Christ Jesus.



Very good and helpful, Rich. And it still fits the description of being gospel-centered, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jack K said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consider:
> 1. You have died to sin in Him. Sin as power has been crucified with Christ on the Cross.
> 2. If we have died with Christ, we will also live with him. Consider yourself alive to God in Christ Jesus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very good and helpful, Rich. And it still fits the description of being gospel-centered, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. One of the chief exegetical arguments against any idea that restricts the Gospel to a single aspect of what we enjoy in Christ is how Paul refers to his entire letter to the Romans as "my Gospel". Whether he's speaking about Justification, Sanctification, or any other consequences of the finished and ongoing work of the Savior in this lives of His own, they are all contained under the header of the Gospel.


----------



## Myshkin

Rich-

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your tone. There is a lot here so I will just try to answer with brief points, in number format for a clearer read on the screen.

1. I want to make clear that I mentioned WSC/WHInn only because the original post tied them in as did the article this thread is based on. I do not speak for those mentioned nor pretend to be their defender. 

“I don't think it is a "percentage" thing Allan but an issue of what the Law/Gospel distinction is.”

2. Rich, to you it may not be a “percentage” thing, but that is not the impression given by others. Seeking a percentage is not the best way to get an answer, but I thought it would make the point that even though WSC/WHI does speak about following imperatives, they are still accused of being against imperatives. I understand that some think they do not emphasize imperatives enough, but there are those who continue to falsely claim that they do not encourage following the imperatives of God’s law at all. My question was to force others to declare at what point is speaking about imperatives enough proof that one is not anti-imperatives? 

3. I personally don’t think it is simply about what the law/gospel distinction is. To me there is a bigger picture behind all of this that dictates how one defines the distinction. I also humbly submit that many do not understand the differences between a confusion, a distinction, and a separation, on this issue. If it was simply about what the distinction actually is, then there would not be insinuations that WSC/WHI are at least opening the door to antinomianism by supposedly denying imperatives.

“If you listen to WHI then I'm certain you would agree that they believe that Law=Imperative and Gospel=Indicative in their view. Furthermore, they will regularly note that law does not really sanctify or build up but only the Gospel does. They will regularly note that no imperative carries with it any power to accomplish it but it is only the Gospel, which will do so.”

4. I do not listen to the WHI at all these days due to availability in my area. When it was available I listened almost every week. I also don’t put much stock into the show (one: because it is edited for time, and two: because it is geared for an “evangelicalism” audience) and have always focused on Modern Reformation, books, internet articles, etc. To your point, I do agree that they teach those things and I agree with them and all of those from the Reformation on who have taught them. I would point out that it is the Holy Spirit who uses law and gospel to accomplish our salvation, not an inherent power in either. And I do not see the problem with saying that even though the law does not build us up, it still nonetheless is required for salvation. The law is our curb, mirror, and guide. I have never heard of the law being in a fourth category/use of empowering obedience. The law certainly works with the gospel and is in harmony with the gospel, but it is not the gospel specifically or gospel generally. They are distinct but always in harmony. The Lutherans pit the two against each other not just in justification, but also in sanctification (even though they confess the third use). I fail to see how WSC/WHI distinguishing law and gospel yet keeping them in harmony is the same thing as Lutherans pitting them against each other.

“ 'Is there anyone who does not fall into any of these categories that agrees with their critique of the WSC/WHInn "school" ?' I'm not sure what the question is here. I do think that the article points out that there is a long-running "debate" within the Reformed tradition on this issue. Mike even noted the same to me personally in dialogue. I'm not bringing this up to tear down WSC but to note that I agree with some of the problems inherent in this school of thinking. It doesn't mean that I throw out or disregard everything good they have to say. We can discuss these things without getting into a party spirit and paint a view in the worst possible light.”

5. Here I was simply asking if there is anyone here on the PB, or elsewhere, that does not fall into one or more of these categories, yet still holds the same criticisms of WSC/WHI? This simply points out where the criticisms are coming from, and that may or may not be relevant to some people. It is not intended to imply a party spirit. I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that’s what I am doing. Of course, I doubt that you are. 

6. I have met Dr. Horton at a conference and spoke very briefly with him on this issue. I also have an acquaintance that is a former student and a friend of his. Dr. Horton just happens to be one of several who teach the “WSC position”, so I was not referring directly to him. I would prefer to leave individuals out of this discussion

“What I tried to note earlier about definitive sanctification and union with Christ is something I simply have not heard or read emphasized.”

7. From what I understand, there is debate within regarding definitive sanctification. I have virtually no knowledge of this debate other than to say that some question Murray on this issue. So I am not sure of the importance of definitive sanctification on these matters. Regarding union, try some back issues of Modern Reformation, or Horton’s systematic. So you may not have heard or read it, but it is there. And as I am sure you know, there is debate over the place of union and justification. So I am not sure a perceived lack of emphasis on union is cause for concern, unless of course one thinks union is primary over justification.

“The third use of the Law is more than ‘I am grateful for what Christ has done and so I obey out of a sense of gratitude for what He has already accomplished‘.
This is one important aspect of the equation but, if one studies Romans 6 (and passages like it) there is something much more profound in the Gospel than our gratitude as an "impelling" motive. That is to say that if I stop at the idea that I'm being motivated to obey out of my gratitude then my sense of gratitude is what enables me to more and more obey.”

8. I believe this is a total caricature. You would have to show me where they have equated gratitude with the third use itself. They do not say that gratitude is our motivation. The point is that Christ and his work is our motivation to obedience. We obey out of gratitude to Christ, not because we have gratitude. This is basic to the Heidelberg catechism. Can I ask if you think the HC also is deficient in these areas? Is it fair to equate the harmony of motivation and gratitude with operating based on one’s sense of gratitude? I have never heard of anyone teaching this.

“Yet Romans 6 teaches us that much more is going on than my gratitude:
1. Christ has put sin as power to death on the Cross for all who are united to Him by faith. We are dead to sin and its enslaving power.
2. Christ was raised again with an indestructible life and I have that life by my union with Him.
There is a fullness to the many things that Paul enjoins upon us to "consider" throughout the Book of Romans and I see the emphasis on the WHI to "consider" a subset of the whole aspect of what we are to "consider" that Christ has done as well as what our union with Him empowers us to accomplish. I do not agree with the notion that "imperative=Law" and that an imperative grants me nothing but only the "Gospel=indicative" which grants power. The Gospel includes imperatives which create the life which they enjoin if we have been transported from this age to the age to come.”

9. I don’t see how this is different from what you are arguing against. 1 and 2 are indicatives, they are gospel. Again, its not our gratitude that motivates us, it’s the indicatives of all that Christ is and has done, is doing, and will do for us. We are grateful for these indicatives/gospel truths, its not that we are grateful for being grateful. Maybe we just don’t listen to the same episodes or read the same materials ( I have read almost all of them, over and over), but I do see them saying what you are saying, consistently. So it goes back to my earlier question, how much do they need to talk about these things in order for it to be considered an acceptable amount of emphasis?

10. If by gospel including imperatives you mean: commands are in harmony with, alongside of, work with the gospel than I agree with you and I think it would be difficult to find WSC/WHI saying differently. If you mean by gospel, all the indicatives of salvation and/or the CoW, then same as above. But if you mean that the law _is_ gospel, then that is where the controversy is. To say law is gospel is to equate them and confuse them. That is not the same thing as saying the law and the gospel work together despite their total distinction in content. So there is no disagreement that gospel includes law, in that sense.

“Thus, I wouldn't say that WHI has ever been "anti-Law" but it is their definition of Law=imperative and Gospel=indicative or treating the Gospel as limiting itself to Justification or the kerygma that I find problematic. Again, they do much good and I support them financially because I believe they do good, but I'm also troubled by the fact that they tend to treat the historical Reformed distinction of the Gospel ("live and do") as crossing the line into legalism or FV-variants.”

11. Clearly, you do not make the accusation of anti-law, but many others do, and if I am not mistaken that accusation is made on this board often, at least implicitly. Unless I am totally out of my mind, I think it is even stated in this thread. 

12. Again, I am not so sure that they limit the gospel to justification in the sense you state here. I must have been taught wrong long ago in the beginning, but I was taught that justification is _the_ gospel. The article on which salvation turns. But I was also taught that all indicatives are gospel even if they are not _the_ gospel. Again, I read WSC/WHI materials often and I fail to see where they limit gospel to only justification. I consistently see them promote all indicatives as gospel, and only limit _the_ gospel to justification. I thought this was pure Reformation basic 101. Perhaps I have missed something after all these years?

13. Thanks for the discussion Rich


----------



## Peairtach

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> This is especially geared towards a lot of the questions surrounding some of the teachings emanating from Westminster Calfornia and the recent discussions between Tullian Tchividjian and Kevin DeYoung surrounding Sanctification.
> 
> Sanctification and the Nature of the Gospel - Reformation21 Blog



Thanks for this, Ben.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Allan,

I have so little time to correct all your misunderstanding of what I wrote. I really would encourage you to read more carefully. I think much of your confusion/questions stems from a lack of apprehension of the concern as I could not have stated much more clearly what you clearly misunderstood at times. Please also try to learn to use the quote feature as it is very confusing trying to follow you.



RAS said:


> 2. Rich, to you it may not be a “percentage” thing, but that is not the impression given by others. Seeking a percentage is not the best way to get an answer, but I thought it would make the point that even though WSC/WHI does speak about following imperatives, they are still accused of being against imperatives. I understand that some think they do not emphasize imperatives enough, but there are those who continue to falsely claim that they do not encourage following the imperatives of God’s law at all. My question was to force others to declare at what point is speaking about imperatives enough proof that one is not anti-imperatives?


But, again, if you don't understand the core issue then you don't understand the criticism. The nature of these kind of debates is that you'll always get parties on either side that will boil things down into unhelpful ways. Some try to boil the issue down against WSC as if they have nothing good to say or are against the Law or do not speak about the Law. Yet, it is not in the caricatures that one should look for the heart of the difference. Your own question about "percentage" is actually an example of an unhelpful way of asking the question. You're boiling down all criticism of WSC on the Law to the idea that all criticism has been of the same sort. Again, you need to study the issue to get through the dross of childish or party-spirit criticism to see where the concern lies from a historical Reformed debate on the issue.



> 3. I personally don’t think it is simply about what the law/gospel distinction is. To me there is a bigger picture behind all of this that dictates how one defines the distinction. I also humbly submit that many do not understand the differences between a confusion, a distinction, and a separation, on this issue. If it was simply about what the distinction actually is, then there would not be insinuations that WSC/WHI are at least opening the door to antinomianism by supposedly denying imperatives.


I don't think you've been paying much attention to the debate if you're not aware of the discussion on this issue. Even some of WSC's most unfair critics acknowledge that they are _distinguishing_ the Law and Gospel. Again, you are boiling things down in a way that makes all critics pretty unsophisticated if they cannot even tell the difference between a distinction, difference, and separation. Again, one has to spend some time looking at things to see the underlying issue as to why people are disagreeing but the consequences of this distinction create all sorts of consequences for how one emphasizes certain things.



> 4. I do not listen to the WHI at all these days due to availability in my area. When it was available I listened almost every week. I also don’t put much stock into the show (one: because it is edited for time, and two: because it is geared for an “evangelicalism” audience) and have always focused on Modern Reformation, books, internet articles, etc. To your point, I do agree that they teach those things and I agree with them and all of those from the Reformation on who have taught them. I would point out that it is the Holy Spirit who uses law and gospel to accomplish our salvation, not an inherent power in either. And I do not see the problem with saying that even though the law does not build us up, it still nonetheless is required for salvation. The law is our curb, mirror, and guide. I have never heard of the law being in a fourth category/use of empowering obedience. The law certainly works with the gospel and is in harmony with the gospel, but it is not the gospel specifically or gospel generally. They are distinct but always in harmony. The Lutherans pit the two against each other not just in justification, but also in sanctification (even though they confess the third use). I fail to see how WSC/WHI distinguishing law and gospel yet keeping them in harmony is the same thing as Lutherans pitting them against each other.


I would encourage you to keep studying if you fail to see this. Are you only reading Modern Reformation and material from WSC? I only ask because your questions again are not very penetrating. Whether you agree with the critics or not, it doesn't seem like you can even articulate the concern if you don't know why the Law/Gospel distinction is consequential. You also don't seem to understand the Lutheran distinction if you think they are pitted against each other in their theology.



> 5. Here I was simply asking if there is anyone here on the PB, or elsewhere, that does not fall into one or more of these categories, yet still holds the same criticisms of WSC/WHI? This simply points out where the criticisms are coming from, and that may or may not be relevant to some people. It is not intended to imply a party spirit. I sincerely hope you are not suggesting that’s what I am doing. Of course, I doubt that you are.


Actually, I am now. I think your broad-brushing of criticism has the character of "party spirit". Seriously, any criticism of WSC/WHI most likely falls into one of those categories? I feared that is what you were asking when I asked it and, again, would encourage you to try to learn more about the historic debate on this issue.



> 7. From what I understand, there is debate within regarding definitive sanctification. I have virtually no knowledge of this debate other than to say that some question Murray on this issue. So I am not sure of the importance of definitive sanctification on these matters. Regarding union, try some back issues of Modern Reformation, or Horton’s systematic. So you may not have heard or read it, but it is there. And as I am sure you know, there is debate over the place of union and justification. So I am not sure a perceived lack of emphasis on union is cause for concern, unless of course one thinks union is primary over justification.


It seems to me, Allan, that you need to get more that "virtually no knowledge" before you start offering any criticism on this point. I would encourage you learn rather than offer opinion and judgment from a place of admitted ignorance.




> “The third use of the Law is more than ‘I am grateful for what Christ has done and so I obey out of a sense of gratitude for what He has already accomplished‘.
> This is one important aspect of the equation but, if one studies Romans 6 (and passages like it) there is something much more profound in the Gospel than our gratitude as an "impelling" motive. That is to say that if I stop at the idea that I'm being motivated to obey out of my gratitude then my sense of gratitude is what enables me to more and more obey.”
> 
> 8. I believe this is a total caricature. You would have to show me where they have equated gratitude with the third use itself. They do not say that gratitude is our motivation. The point is that Christ and his work is our motivation to obedience. We obey out of gratitude to Christ, not because we have gratitude. This is basic to the Heidelberg catechism. Can I ask if you think the HC also is deficient in these areas? Is it fair to equate the harmony of motivation and gratitude with operating based on one’s sense of gratitude? I have never heard of anyone teaching this.


Did you read what I wrote before you called it a caricature?

Here's what I said: ‘I am grateful for what Christ has done and so I obey out of a sense of gratitude for what He has already accomplished‘.
Here is what you said: "The point is that Christ and his work is our motivation to obedience. We obey out of gratitude to Christ..."

If I am guilty of caricature then you have just convicted yourself of the thing you accused me of.

I am not denying that they state that gratitude to Christ is our motivation. This is where your admitted ignorance on the issue of sanctification is coming into play.

I continue here describing how there is more to obedience than motivation. There is also the fundamental question of power to carry out what we desire to do:



Semper Fidelis said:


> “Yet Romans 6 teaches us that much more is going on than my gratitude:
> 1. Christ has put sin as power to death on the Cross for all who are united to Him by faith. We are dead to sin and its enslaving power.
> 2. Christ was raised again with an indestructible life and I have that life by my union with Him.
> There is a fullness to the many things that Paul enjoins upon us to "consider" throughout the Book of Romans and I see the emphasis on the WHI to "consider" a subset of the whole aspect of what we are to "consider" that Christ has done as well as what our union with Him empowers us to accomplish. I do not agree with the notion that "imperative=Law" and that an imperative grants me nothing but only the "Gospel=indicative" which grants power. The Gospel includes imperatives which create the life which they enjoin if we have been transported from this age to the age to come.”



You seem to miss the point by responding:


RAS said:


> 9. I don’t see how this is different from what you are arguing against. 1 and 2 are indicatives, they are gospel. Again, its not our gratitude that motivates us, it’s the indicatives of all that Christ is and has done, is doing, and will do for us. We are grateful for these indicatives/gospel truths, its not that we are grateful for being grateful. Maybe we just don’t listen to the same episodes or read the same materials ( I have read almost all of them, over and over), but I do see them saying what you are saying, consistently. So it goes back to my earlier question, how much do they need to talk about these things in order for it to be considered an acceptable amount of emphasis?


It's not a matter of listening to or reading different things Allen but understanding what you're reading. You didn't understand what I wrote. Again, I didn't state that anyone claims we are grateful for being grateful. I stated that gratitude for Christ's work is what they believe impels us. Read what I wrote again and read it again and then read it again. There is something fundamentally _additive_ to what I wrote than mere gratitude.

Yes, these are indicatives (that's what definitive sanctification is) but they are indicatives not merely about what Christ has accomplished but what _I_ am able to accomplish _in Christ_. If you do not understand this, Allen, then you do not understand the Gospel and you really need to get definitive sanctification into your bloodstream.



> 12. Again, I am not so sure that they limit the gospel to justification in the sense you state here. I must have been taught wrong long ago in the beginning, but I was taught that justification is _the_ gospel. The article on which salvation turns. But I was also taught that all indicatives are gospel even if they are not _the_ gospel. Again, I read WSC/WHI materials often and I fail to see where they limit gospel to only justification. I consistently see them promote all indicatives as gospel, and only limit _the_ gospel to justification. I thought this was pure Reformation basic 101. Perhaps I have missed something after all these years?
> 
> 13. Thanks for the discussion Rich


I think you have missed some things. Don't misunderstand my motives here. I'm really trying to help you out but some of the hardest people to help are those that think they have things worked out already. I noted that you're engaging in a party spirit not to sting you but to point out that your lack of undertanding of these things is leading you to caricature criticism. I don't know if you read my own post too quickly but it is pretty serious when you accuse a person of caricature. Your misapprehension of this very basic point ought to give you some internal caution that you're having some sort of trouble understanding these things. You need to be asking questions and not making charges against others until you understand these issues more clearly.


----------



## Mushroom

Again from the peanut gallery: This is something I've struggled with comprehending. In the past I've seen some folks confuse the concept of union with Christ as a cover for antinomianism; "My life is hid in Christ, so I don't need to repent - it's all covered." That's obviously error, so I can easily reject it.

But I'm unclear on how to incorporate it as a motivation to obey, and perhaps that's my problem. As a temptation approaches, I have a choice as to which path to take, choose the good and eschew the evil, or vice-versa. Too often, my choice is made without any thought, whether gratitude or a consideration of my union with Christ. When I look back on that crossroads and see that I've made the wrong choice, I am disgusted with myself and brokenhearted towards Jesus, that I have failed Him once again. (This sounds as though it is infrequent, but in fact is constant.) In that looking back, I search for the source of my failure; is it that I didn't try hard enough? That I was not grateful enough? Or that I was not remaining cognizant of my union with Christ and deadness to sin? Or all of the above?

Or, from another perspective, what_ would_ have had the power to motivate me to choose the good and eschew the evil? Why is it so often not present with me, whatever it is? And is my desire to have it a desire for perfectionism, which if I did find, would be a stumbling block to me? The profundity arrests me.

So, is WHI/WSC attempting to address the looking forward to help find the motivation to choose the good, or is it addressing the looking back - how to understand our failings and press on?

Regardless of which, it a subject I would like to understand properly, both for looking back and for looking forward, in striving against sin.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brad,

I'd almost like to start a new thread because I don't want this to turn into a WSC "bash fest". I'm not anti-WSC and my comments and concerns are addressed to a concern on emphasis and not on the fact that they dismiss these concepts altogether. In some cases they restate the same concepts in different language but I do believe there is a help in understanding the distinctions properly. Let me ignore the issue of how WSC may or may not address the issue and simply answer your concern.

In short, there is sort of a false dichotomy set up between whether I'm reflecting on my union with Christ or not and whether I'm trying hard enough. By this I mean that Paul is calling us to consider certain things so we can appropriate the reality of what we possess. 

For instance, if I'm _only_ convinced that I'm a wretch and that Christ has covered all my sins then, when I am tempted, I might be motivated to try to resist but there's sort of a built in idea that resistance is sort of futile. It's like I suit up for the battle but at the first blow I fall down. I also don't study my opponent because he's simply too fierce. I'll go back to Christ and thank Him for the fact that I'm still saved in spite of my many losses but I'm sort of play-acting in the battle because I don't really think of it as a battle but a foregone conclusion that I will fail. Now, let me make clear, that I'm not accusing anyone of directly proposing that this is how the battle is supposed to work but many people practically treat the issue of the battle in this way.

As I read Romans 6, however, Paul is telling a person (who he knows is going to be imperfect, yes): "Look, this battle is not a foregone conclusion. Sin is powerful but Christ has put its power to enslave to death. You _can_ resist." It sort of "pumps up" the Christian going into battle to realize that I have Christ's indestructible life and, in the moment of temptation, I may cry out to Him for rescue. It's sort of like that battle where Elisha helps his scared companion to see the Armies of the Living God and, suddenly, his perspective on the battle may change. It's not a "well I'm going to go into this battle in faith to my certain doom" but I understand the nature of the forces on the side of the King and we will succeed.

Now, Paul does follow up in Romans 7 with an acknowledgment that we fail. Our awareness of spiritual things waxes and wanes. Faith is keeping these things fixed in our thinking and nobody does. Paul, throughout Romans, is telling people to "consider" what Christ's death and resurrection means because we do tend to forget. When we fail, then, Romans 7 speaks to our frustration but he again returns to call us to consider Christ and not spend time in self-flagellation but to turn to Him Who delivers us from this body of sin and death.

Thus, it's not an either I obey or I reflect upon Christ or either I do it on my own steam or Christ does it all. It's always a both-and of the Christian life. In view of what Christ has done I am justified and Christ is iin me, the power of salvation. I go into battle in knowledge of His power and, when I fail, it's a failure of my own but I also remember that Christ saved me and befriended me while I was dead in sins and trespasses and He doesn't cast off those whom He loves.


----------



## Mushroom

Rich,

Thank you. My son and I read through your response, and it engendered a valuable conversation from which we both derived great benefit. This is, I believe, the crux of the matter that has precipitated the discussion in this thread and in the wider Reformed community. In some ways I think the sides are talking past each other, which is often the case when such important subjects are addressed. But I'm not interested in defending or attacking camps - I really need to grasp this because I think it is the fulness of the gospel, and I for one confess that too much of my walk in this faith is hampered by an incomplete comprehension (or apprehension?) of it. So if a new thread would help get to the heart of the matter and avoid division, please do so.

I really do often feel like that guy you describe in your third paragraph, and I fear that it is the example my children are learning from me. Any further discussion will be edifying. To be honest, I don't feel capable of digesting books or long dissertations on this or any subject. Whether it is simple laziness or a depleted mental capacity, I can't say, but my head starts to hurt and my comprehension wanes quickly these days, so short exhortations in simple terms like the one above work best for me, if that's possible. Thanks again.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would also add Romans 8 into the mix as Romans 6, 7, and 8 all deal with this. 



> (Rom 8:1) THERE is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
> 
> (Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:4) *That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.*
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:5) For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:6) For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:7) Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:8) So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:9) But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:10) And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:11) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:12) Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:13) * For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.*
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:14) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:15) * For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.*
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:16) The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
> 
> 
> (Rom 8:17) And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.



A big part of this discussion for me is seen in this. Some want to make the Christian life a total separation from the law as an inward grace. Some seem to want to make the law a legal obedience only as in a Covenant of Works scheme. The Law is not associated with the Gospel or Covenant of Grace except in some revelatory way concerning what God's will is. It really isn't used in a reconciling way or in a gracious (gospel) way. Some want to make the law in the Mosaic Covenant the same way. It only condemns as in a Covenantal setting. I don't see it like that. The law set up as a legality only leads to bondage and fear. I freely admit that. But we who are in Christ are not in bondage to the condemnation of the law, but to it's discipline. God by His grace uses the Law Graciously to place us in Christ and guide us in Him. In Adam the Law only leads to condemnation. In Christ and the Covenant of Grace it leads to freedom and a life of submission to God as Father. The Law teaches us what love and being loving is. As a Father he guides and disciplines us with it. He doesn't condemn us. He disciplines us. We should fear that discipline. We should fear hurting others and ourselves. As the old saying goes, "He who goes against the grain of God's law shouldn't complain when he gets splinters." But it is in no way a letter that Condemns us who are in Christ. We have been bought and paid for. We now have the Spirit of God and grace. We have a new principle and nature that we didn't have before. But if we do not listen to His wonderful loving gracious voice in the law and if we harden ourselves against His word it only brings death. There are a few places that sin is said to bring death to us. * Therefore I would like to say that I affirm there are two principles in the Covenant of Grace and Gospel that apply in our salvation. Live and Do this and Do this and live are both true for the Christian. Some are saying that only the Live and do this is applicable for the Christian. I disagree. * Now have I made muddied things up for us? lol We do fulfill the law of righteousness by obeying. I believe it is called gospel obedience. It is a grace and shines God's glorious love and reconciliation of the world to Himself. The Law truly does show his beauty and sacrifice. 

The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord sure making wise the simple. Psalm 19:7



> (Rom 13:8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
> 
> (Rom 13:9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
> 
> 
> (Rom 13:10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Also as a side note. The Law, that some pronounce to be set up in a covenantal works way only, is the thing that pointed me to the goodness of God. If I only saw my sinfulness in it I wouldn't have flown to Christ. For the Law showed me the Grace of Christ also. It showed me his trustworthiness and His beauty and what Love was. So it is much more than some are saying. The Law showed me what goodness was. I wanted it. God used it to pull me toward him. For the goodness of God leads us to repentance as Romans 2:4 states. The Law is gracious in that it reveals God's goodness.


----------



## py3ak

Semper Fidelis said:


> That is to say that if I stop at the idea that I'm being motivated to obey out of my gratitude then my sense of gratitude is what enables me to more and more obey. Yet Romans 6 teaches us that much more is going on than my gratitude:
> 
> 1. Christ has put sin as power to death on the Cross for all who are united to Him by faith. We are dead to sin and its enslaving power.
> 2. Christ was raised again with an indestructible life and I have that life by my union with Him.



It seems that no matter how much gratitude might be emphasized as the motivation for new obedience, experience should force you to recognize that this is not enough. According to Calvin, ingratitude is like an abyss that absorbs all the fulness of God's blessings (on Lamentations 1:7).

So how is it that knowing what Christ has done for me stirs gratitude in my heart? It is because Christ has put the power of ingratitude to death. If sin still reigned, gratitude would never arise, and would have no power against sin.


----------



## py3ak

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Therefore I would like to say that I affirm there are two principles in the Covenant of Grace and Gospel that apply in our salvation. Live and Do this and Do this and live are both true for the Christian. Some are saying that only the Live and do this is applicable for the Christian. I disagree. Now have I made muddied things up for us?



This sounds like it depends on an equivocation with regard to the meaning of the word "live". Because if "live, and do this" has come first, then either that life is uncertain, and must be kept by obedience (which is problematic, for obvious reasons) or else "do this and live" really doesn't mean _live_ in quite the same way as "Live, and do this".


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Yes, and I was thinking that I did a poor job of acknowledging that also. But both are tied to the Covenant. The first one is regeneration that causes us to embrace justification by faith alone. The second, 'do this and live,' has to do with abiding in the Covenant of Grace with our Covenant God. It does cling to that life of regeneration. He does bless us for obedience and bring chastisement upon us for disobedience as Galatians states. I really just assumed others read the statement I posted before along with the thesis by Pastor Ramsey which explains it quite more effectively than I do. 
http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/good-works-in-the-reformed-tradition/



> (Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
> 
> (Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
> 
> 
> (Gal 6:9) And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.



The Mosaic and the New Covenant are of the same substance. They are purely of the Covenant of Grace in my opinion.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The second, 'do this and live,' has to do with abiding in the Covenant of Grace with our Covenant God.


 
Randy, dear brother, this is problematic on so many levels I hardly know where to begin to address it. "Doing" has a specific order in the covenant of grace which it does not have in the covenant of works. In the covenant of grace it is the fruit and effect of saving grace. It is never conditional for that grace either in its beginning, continuance, or completion. In the covenant of works "doing" is conditional. It must be conditional under that covenant because that covenant addresses man in a state of integrity with the ability to do. Fallen sinners, however, do not possess an ability to do and must be given life and salvation in order to be able to do. Restored sinners act out of the life they have been given in Christ. Please reflect on John 15 for a little time. That passage will make it plain that not only the beginning but also the continuance of Christian life depends upon union and communion with Christ. The covenant of grace is "live, and do this" from beginning to end. Fruitfulness and perseverance are blessings of the covenant. See Shorter Catechism answer 36. Blessings!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

A Response to Dr. Lucas' Response

Sanctification and the Gospel: A Surrejoinder to Sean Lucas - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## steadfast7

There is something troubling for me that we should need to seek "motivation" through psychological maneuvers like gratitude. In my sinfulness, I simply loose sight of what has been given to me all the time. I take things for granted. Many times I think upon the cross with no tears of sorrow and joy in my eyes. It is the Spirit and daily communion with Him in Christ that ought to draw and propel me to obedience and repentance and not the posturing of my psychological state at all. Mustering gratitude in my heart seems like a work - though not physical, but mental - that I must perform. But then is it all of grace? Any thoughts?


----------



## Mushroom

steadfast7 said:


> There is something troubling for me that we should need to seek "motivation" through psychological maneuvers like gratitude. In my sinfulness, I simply loose sight of what has been given to me all the time. I take things for granted. Many times I think upon the cross with no tears of sorrow and joy in my eyes. It is the Spirit and daily communion with Him in Christ that ought to draw and propel me to obedience and repentance and not the posturing of my psychological state at all. Mustering gratitude in my heart seems like a work - though not physical, but mental - that I must perform. But then is it all of grace? Any thoughts?


So, when standing before the fork in the road between obedience and sin, when as you state, you have lost sight of what has been given to you, and you commit sin without forethought, who has failed? You, or the Holy Spirit? Obviously not the Holy Spirit, so in what way have you failed, and why? And a related question is what could you have done, or can you do in the future, to prevent that failure?


----------



## steadfast7

Brad said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something troubling for me that we should need to seek "motivation" through psychological maneuvers like gratitude. In my sinfulness, I simply loose sight of what has been given to me all the time. I take things for granted. Many times I think upon the cross with no tears of sorrow and joy in my eyes. It is the Spirit and daily communion with Him in Christ that ought to draw and propel me to obedience and repentance and not the posturing of my psychological state at all. Mustering gratitude in my heart seems like a work - though not physical, but mental - that I must perform. But then is it all of grace? Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> So, when standing before the fork in the road between obedience and sin, when as you state, you have lost sight of what has been given to you, and you commit sin without forethought, who has failed? You, or the Holy Spirit? Obviously not the Holy Spirit, so in what way have you failed, and why? And a related question is what could you have done, or can you do in the future, to prevent that failure?
Click to expand...

 Therein lies the confusion which I need help with. Reformed theology teaches that perfection is _impossible_ in this life, but then we speak of being made alive in Christ and _capable_ of resisting sin. How do we reconcile?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> Therein lies the confusion which I need help with. Reformed theology teaches that perfection is impossible in this life, but then we speak of being made alive in Christ and capable of resisting sin. How do we reconcile?



To clarify, the _Bible_ teaches that perfection in this life is not possible (1 Joh 1:10, Rom 7:18, Phi 3:12). The _Bible_ teaches that we are capable of resisting sin (Rom 6:14, 1 Joh 5:4).

I believe I stated _by what power_ we are able to obey and that is Christ in us. We also, however, have a war within our members (Rom 7:23) that we are called to do battle with. As already cited, it is revealed to us that we _can_ resist by Christ's pwoer because He has put sin as power to death and so it no longer _enslaves_ us.

I don't know why it seems difficult to reconcile the idea that we are free from sin's enslavement and can obey by Christ's power but are not yet perfected. There is nothing at all contradictory in the idea that we are able to resist sin but that our wills are divided so that we sometimes do not resist it.


----------



## steadfast7

Semper Fidelis said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the confusion which I need help with. Reformed theology teaches that perfection is impossible in this life, but then we speak of being made alive in Christ and capable of resisting sin. How do we reconcile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, the _Bible_ teaches that perfection in this life is not possible (1 Joh 1:10, Rom 7:18, Phi 3:12). The _Bible_ teaches that we are capable of resisting sin (Rom 6:14, 1 Joh 5:4).
> 
> I believe I stated _by what power_ we are able to obey and that is Christ in us. We also, however, have a war within our members (Rom 7:23) that we are called to do battle with. As already cited, it is revealed to us that we _can_ resist by Christ's pwoer because He has put sin as power to death and so it no longer _enslaves_ us.
> 
> I don't know why it seems difficult to reconcile the idea that we are free from sin's enslavement and can obey by Christ's power but are not yet perfected. There is nothing at all contradictory in the idea that we are able to resist sin but that our wills are divided so that we sometimes do not resist it.
Click to expand...

 I certainly want to stay clear from attributing contradiction to God's holy word. My problem is not on the logic of it, but the practical workings out. If we will never attain perfection, even by the best efforts of living by the Spirit in the victory of Christ, then we cannot say we can resist sin in an absolute sense. When scripture speaks of resisting sin, it must be speaking of the theoretical, moment by moment _potential_ to resist.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The second, 'do this and live,' has to do with abiding in the Covenant of Grace with our Covenant God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, dear brother, this is problematic on so many levels I hardly know where to begin to address it. "Doing" has a specific order in the covenant of grace which it does not have in the covenant of works. In the covenant of grace it is the fruit and effect of saving grace. *It is never conditional for that grace either in its beginning, continuance, or completion.* In the covenant of works "doing" is conditional. It must be conditional under that covenant because that covenant addresses man in a state of integrity with the ability to do. Fallen sinners, however, do not possess an ability to do and must be given life and salvation in order to be able to do. Restored sinners act out of the life they have been given in Christ. Please reflect on John 15 for a little time. That passage will make it plain that not only the beginning but also the continuance of Christian life depends upon union and communion with Christ. The covenant of grace is "live, and do this" from beginning to end. Fruitfulness and perseverance are blessings of the covenant. See Shorter Catechism answer 36. Blessings!
Click to expand...




> *Q. 36. What are the benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, and sanctification?*
> A. The benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, Adoption, and sanctification, are, assurance of God's love,[SUP]100[/SUP] peace of conscience,[SUP]101[/SUP] joy in the Holy Ghost,[SUP]102[/SUP] increase of grace,[SUP]103[/SUP] And perseverance therein to the end.[SUP]104[/SUP]





> *Q. 79. May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away from the state of grace?*
> A. True believers, by reason of the unchangeable love of God,[SUP]342[/SUP] and his decree and covenant to give them perseverance,[SUP]343[/SUP] their inseparable union with Christ,[SUP]344[/SUP] his continual intercession for them,[SUP]345[/SUP] and the Spirit and seed of God abiding in them,[SUP]346[/SUP] can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace,[SUP]347[/SUP] but are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.[SUP]348[/SUP]



Thanks Rev. Winzer. I am still working this out. How does this work its way out in our thinking? I acknowledge that the 'Live and Do This' gives us all we need to accomplish and do all that we need. It also supplies and keeps us. It causes perseverance even after we have fallen into gross sin as the confession says we might even partake in. But even our Larger Catechism uses the terms that seem to be saying what I am trying to express. Repentance unto Life is used. Of course it is a grace and from grace. But without it there is no life. 



> *Q. 76. What is repentance unto life?*
> A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace,[SUP]320[/SUP] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[SUP]321[/SUP] and Word of God,[SUP]322[/SUP] whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger,[SUP]323[/SUP] but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins,[SUP]324[/SUP] and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent,[SUP]325[/SUP] he so grieves for[SUP]326[/SUP] and hates his sins,[SUP]327[/SUP] as that he turns from them all to God,[SUP]328[/SUP] purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.[SUP]329[/SUP]



So there is a sense in which 'Do This and Live' springs from Live and do this. At least it seems so from from what I am understanding. Especially in light of what I am seeing and what I wrote above and have quoted below. 



> Rev. Winzer...
> *It is never conditional for that grace either in its beginning, continuance, or completion.*



I totally agree with you in one sense here Rev. Winzer. But the conditions are different. There are *antecedent conditions* and *consequent or subsequent conditions as the article below states*.

There also seems to be a sense where we are called upon not to grieve the Spirit with warning and threatening. Gross disobedience seems to have many warnings even to the point of the Lord threatening removal of the candle stick and warnings even individually concerning the manner of our partaking of the sacraments in a sinful way. So there must be some form of do this and live principle associated in my thinking. 




> Concerning the obedience required or more accurately accepted in the covenant of grace, three distinctions need to be kept in mind. First, we need to distinguish between gospel and legal obedience.*[34] Legal obedience is an antecedent condition that merits or causes and so is the ground for blessings or rewards received. Gospel obedience, on the other hand, is from faith and thus by the justified in the power of the Spirit, which is why it is a consequent or subsequent condition. It is not meritorious or legalistic. The good works of believers do not constitute the ground for acceptance before God or any blessing received since all is of grace.[35] Yet, as we have already alluded to and shall discuss more fully in the next section, they are the necessary means and way to obtain, possess and experience salvation both in this life and in the life to come.[36] Thus, when Turretin says that good works are necessary to salvation because according to the covenant of grace obedience is required to partake of the blessings of the covenant, he understands the requirement of obedience in the sense of “the means and way for possessing salvation,” and not in the sense of “merit, causality and efficiency.”[37] This key, yet fine distinction between gospel and legal obedience is what differentiates the role of obedience in the covenant of grace from that in the covenant of works.*[38] As John Ball says: “In the Covenant of Nature obedience and workes were commanded as the cause of life and justification: in the Covenant of Grace, Faith is required as the instrumental cause of Remission and Salvation, obedience as the qualification of the party justified, and the way leading to everlasting blessedness.”[39]Second, we need to distinguish between sincere and perfect obedience. No doubt following John Calvin,[40] Ball states that God in the covenant of grace requires perfect obedience, yet in His mercy accepts sincere, imperfect obedience. He writes:
> 
> “The Covenant of Grace calleth for perfection, accepteth sincerity, God in mercy pardoning imperfections of our best performances. If perfection was rigidly exacted, no flesh could be saved: if not at all commanded, imperfection should not be sin, nor perfection to be laboured after… In the Covenant man doth promise to repent of his sinnes, and repenting to cleave unto the promise of mercy made in Jesus Christ, and in faith to yield willing, cheerefull and continuall obedience. In contracts amongst men, one may aske more, and the other bid lesse, and yet they may strike agreement: But it is altogether bootlesse, for men to thinke of entering into Covenant with God, if they be not resolved to obey in all things. The practice of all God’s people, who ever made Covenant with his Highness, doth expressely speake thus much, when they solemnly entred into, or renewed their Covenant [Ball then cites Ex. 24:3, 7; Josh. 24:23; 2 Chron. 15:12, 13; 34:31; 2 Kings 23:3; Neh. 10:29; Josh. 22:5].”[41]
> 
> 
> ​That God accepts sincere imperfect good works in the covenant of grace indicates that they are not meritorious and contribute nothing to the acquisition of salvation. It also means that falling into sin is distinct from falling away from Christ and the covenant. A believer may fall into sin, even grievous sin for a time, and yet not fall away from justification and salvation. Perseverance in the faith, which is akin to sincere obedience, is required, while apostasy must at all costs be avoided.[42]
> 
> Third, we need to distinguish between the promise of obedience and the promise to obedience. God promises his elect that He will write His law upon their hearts and grant them His Spirit so that they might be careful to keep His commandments. God also promises grace and blessing to those who obey. In other words, the requirement of obedience is both a benefit and a condition of the covenant.[43] God works in us and we work out our salvation. The fact that God enables us to obey does not detract from our duty to pursue holiness and righteousness.
> 
> In sum, from the perspective of the covenant, good works are necessary to salvation because they are a condition of the covenant and thus of salvation....
> 
> .....
> 
> Thomas Boston, in his sermon on Hebrews 4:11, says that there is a five-fold entering into “heaven and life, for which we must labour.”[53] The fourth entering is obedience. God’s commands are called everlasting life because they land the soul in heaven. Indeed, the pathway of obedience is the only one that leads to heaven. Boston writes:
> 
> “They that would enter heaven, but not by the way of obedience, must resolve to get in over the walls, but come not in by the door; that is, they shall never see it; ‘for without holiness no man shall see the Lord.’ We must follow the footsteps of our blessed Lord and the flock, who all entered heaven this way; though in different respects, he by, and they in, obedience.”[54]
> 
> 
> ​The southern Presbyterian theologian, James Henley Thornwell, uses a different analogy, a ladder instead of a road: “The successive rounds in the ladder must be passed before we can reach the top.”[55] The point, however, remains the same. Good works are necessary for heaven. Hence, they may properly be called an antecedent condition of glorification.[56]
> 
> A similar expression used by some was working for life. The legal principle of the covenant of works was sometimes expressed by the phrase: “Do this and live.” By contrast, the principle of gospel obedience was: “Live and do this.”[57] Stating the difference this way was true enough but incomplete because the legal principle was also used evangelically to articulate the idea that progression in holiness is commensurate with experiencing life. Therefore, we do because we live and we do so that we may live.
> 
> Herman Witsius was compelled by the Apostle Paul’s commentary on Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10 and Galatians 3 to interpret it as a restatement—not a renewal or establishment—of the covenant of works.[58] Nevertheless, other verses in the Pentateuch urging obedience for life (e.g. Deuteronomy 8:1) he interpreted evangelically, concluding that saints are to work for life. Thus, it is not contradictory to say that the principles “Do this and live,” and “Live and do this,” equally apply to the believer. Witsius writes:
> 
> ​“In fine, it is not inconsistent to do something from this principle, because we live, and to the end, that we may live. No man eats but he lives, but he also eats that he may live. We both can and ought to act in a holy manner, because we are quickened by the Spirit of God. But we must also act in the same manner, that that life may be preserved in us, may increase, and at last terminate in an uninterrupted and eternal life.”[59]



*BTW, I am a novice concerning this area of thought so please weigh everything I say with a big grain of salt!*


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therein lies the confusion which I need help with. Reformed theology teaches that perfection is impossible in this life, but then we speak of being made alive in Christ and capable of resisting sin. How do we reconcile?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, the _Bible_ teaches that perfection in this life is not possible (1 Joh 1:10, Rom 7:18, Phi 3:12). The _Bible_ teaches that we are capable of resisting sin (Rom 6:14, 1 Joh 5:4).
> 
> I believe I stated _by what power_ we are able to obey and that is Christ in us. We also, however, have a war within our members (Rom 7:23) that we are called to do battle with. As already cited, it is revealed to us that we _can_ resist by Christ's pwoer because He has put sin as power to death and so it no longer _enslaves_ us.
> 
> I don't know why it seems difficult to reconcile the idea that we are free from sin's enslavement and can obey by Christ's power but are not yet perfected. There is nothing at all contradictory in the idea that we are able to resist sin but that our wills are divided so that we sometimes do not resist it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly want to stay clear from attributing contradiction to God's holy word. My problem is not on the logic of it, but the practical workings out. If we will never attain perfection, even by the best efforts of living by the Spirit in the victory of Christ, then we cannot say we can resist sin in an absolute sense. When scripture speaks of resisting sin, it must be speaking of the theoretical, moment by moment _potential_ to resist.
Click to expand...

No, it NOT talking about theoretical ability to resist or potential ability to resist but _actual_ ability to resist sin as we are tempted. I will caution you to learn here and not propose un-Biblical concepts. Your use of reason is not only flawed but impious here. The reason for failure is found in our divided hearts. Though we are new creatures, we still have affection for sin. There's nothing theoretical about the fact that we love sin at times more than we love Christ in the moment. The process of sanctification is an ever-killing of our affection for our sin that we might learn to love it less. We can, however, say with the Apostle Paul that we are not slaves to sin and have Christ's indestructible life as our possession. We need not sin. Full stop. Any suggestion that this simply be turned into some sort of syllogism which argues against the Apostle's plain teaching is not from the Word but a cavil against it.


----------



## steadfast7

Rich, I'm very willing to work through this in a humble attitude of a learner. Bear with me. As you said,


Semper Fidelis said:


> the Bible teaches that perfection in this life is not possible (1 Joh 1:10, Rom 7:18, Phi 3:12). The Bible teaches that we are capable of resisting sin (Rom 6:14, 1 Joh 5:4).


 I ask, What is perfection, if not the sum aggregate of smaller moments in our life of gaining victory over sin? The Bible teaches that Christians will fail in some of those moments. I agree with you, this is not theoretical - it is the war at work in our members, some of the battles of which we will lose. I agree with you that "we need not sin." Having said that, the Bible teaches that we will sin. Logic is not the enemy of Scripture here; we need not throw our hands in despair and cry "mystery!" My proposal is simply that in an absolute sense, all is accomplished in the heavens that purchases our right to not sin. In this life, however, we still do battle and take our share of hits and losses, which will not cease as long as we are in the flesh. This is the principle at work throughout Scripture as it pertains to the eschaton, the kingdom of God, and our sanctification. If there is anything wrong with this proposal, I welcome gentle instruction.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I don't have a problem with that idea but the way you stated it earlier (theoretical, possible) are not helpful ways of viewing it. I obviously employ reason as GNC fro what is revealed. It is when it is used to speculate beyond revelation that I have a problem with. 


---
- Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## a mere housewife

Rich, could you explain more how what you are saying is consistent with what John Owen says below (I'm sure it is, I'm just getting confused, and in a way that tends to make me feel distressed: as if there is grace available for my perfect resistance of sin, but the problem is that I'm not doing enough; yet I can never do enough, or anything at all, apart from that grace). If this would be better in a different thread so as not to introduce an easily confused lay-person's confusion into this one, could you please move it? Thanks.

(from his commentary on Psalm 130, exposition of vv 1,2)



> First, THE nature of the covenant wherein all believers now walk with God, and wherein all their whole provision for obedience is inwrapped, leaves it possible for them to fall into these depths that have been mentioned. Under the first covenant there was no mercy or forgiveness provided for any sin. It was necessary, then, that it should exhibit a sufficiency of grace to preserve them from every sin, or it could have been of no use at all. This the righteousness of God required, and so it was. To have made a covenant wherein there was no provision at all of pardon, and not a sufficiency of grace to keep the covenanters from need of pardon, was not answerable to the goodness and righteousness of God. But he made man upright, who, of his own accord, sought out many inventions.
> 
> It is not so in the covenant of grace; there is in it pardon provided in the blood of Christ: it is not, therefore, of indispensable necessity that there should be administered in it grace effectually preserving from every sin. Yet it is on all accounts to be preferred before the other; for, besides the relief by pardon, which the other knew nothing of, there is in it also much provision against sin, which was not in the other:--
> 
> 1. There is provision made in it against all and every sin that would disannul the covenant, and make a final separation between God and a soul that hath been once taken into the bond thereof. This provision is absolute. God hath taken upon himself the making of this good, and the establishing this law of the covenant, that it shall not by any sin be disannulled: Jer. xxxii. 40, "I will," saith God, "make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." The security hereof depends not on any thing in ourselves. All that is in us is to be used as a means of the accomplishment of this promise; but the event or issue depends absolutely on the faithfulness of God. And the whole certainty and stability of the covenant depends on the efficacy of the grace administered in it to preserve men from all such sins as would disannul it.



(I love what he says later on, that 'This is the great mystery of the gospel in the blood of Christ, that those who sin every day should have peace with God all their days . . .')


----------



## Mushroom

a mere housewife said:


> (I love what he says later on, that 'This is the great mystery of the gospel in the blood of Christ, that those who sin every day should have peace with God all their days . . .')


Words of great comfort, dear sister, the contemplation of which 'maketh the water to stand in mine eyes'.


----------



## a mere housewife

Those theological books are the best tearjerkers.

'Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and you will find rest to your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.' When I read statements like those above that speak of this rest, and the meekness of our Lord, I want to obey; for I want to obey _Him_.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

a mere housewife said:


> Rich, could you explain more how what you are saying is consistent with what John Owen says below (I'm sure it is, I'm just getting confused, and in a way that tends to make me feel distressed: as if there is grace available for my perfect resistance of sin, but the problem is that I'm not doing enough; yet I can never do enough, or anything at all, apart from that grace). If this would be better in a different thread so as not to introduce an easily confused lay-person's confusion into this one, could you please move it? Thanks.
> 
> (from his commentary on Psalm 130, exposition of vv 1,2)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, THE nature of the covenant wherein all believers now walk with God, and wherein all their whole provision for obedience is inwrapped, leaves it possible for them to fall into these depths that have been mentioned. Under the first covenant there was no mercy or forgiveness provided for any sin. It was necessary, then, that it should exhibit a sufficiency of grace to preserve them from every sin, or it could have been of no use at all. This the righteousness of God required, and so it was. To have made a covenant wherein there was no provision at all of pardon, and not a sufficiency of grace to keep the covenanters from need of pardon, was not answerable to the goodness and righteousness of God. But he made man upright, who, of his own accord, sought out many inventions.
> 
> It is not so in the covenant of grace; there is in it pardon provided in the blood of Christ: it is not, therefore, of indispensable necessity that there should be administered in it grace effectually preserving from every sin. Yet it is on all accounts to be preferred before the other; for, besides the relief by pardon, which the other knew nothing of, there is in it also much provision against sin, which was not in the other:--
> 
> 1. There is provision made in it against all and every sin that would disannul the covenant, and make a final separation between God and a soul that hath been once taken into the bond thereof. This provision is absolute. God hath taken upon himself the making of this good, and the establishing this law of the covenant, that it shall not by any sin be disannulled: Jer. xxxii. 40, "I will," saith God, "make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." The security hereof depends not on any thing in ourselves. All that is in us is to be used as a means of the accomplishment of this promise; but the event or issue depends absolutely on the faithfulness of God. And the whole certainty and stability of the covenant depends on the efficacy of the grace administered in it to preserve men from all such sins as would disannul it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I love what he says later on, that 'This is the great mystery of the gospel in the blood of Christ, that those who sin every day should have peace with God all their days . . .')
Click to expand...

I think they are complimentary ideas Heidi. Don't take anything I've written as implying that our status within the CoG is threatened by our obedience to God's Law. By faith we are transported into the Kingdom of the Age to Come. We are enemies of God no more and not enslaved to sin and its power. We are in Christ and united to His Covenant-keeping perfection.

Our battle with sin is not as those who live under the threat of the Curse of condemnation for our disobedience but as those who are adopted children of the heavenly Father. Our relationship to sin is not one in which we go before God as our condemning Judge but as those who are children who are grieved when we bruise the Head of Him who has already been judged for our sin.

Thus, Paul first establishes us as justified in Christ and then goes on to speak about what that vital union produces within the family of God. Christ, Himself, produces within us the fruits of sanctification and our hearts beat with an ever increasing desire to obey our Father and resist the sin that we are tempted by. We fail, for sure, but the encouragement is that Christ is working within us toward His holy ends. When temptation leads us into sin we aren't to despair but go to the Father with the confidence that our sins are forgiven in Christ and that He has given us means of grace to renew the battle that wages daily and constantly.


----------



## a mere housewife

Rich that is most helpful, thank you. 

Could you clarify one further thing? My impression (which is probably a misimpression) was that you were saying there is sufficiency of grace in the Covenant of Grace to preserve us from all sin; but our wills are too divided to make use of it; and in this gap we must make an effort. Owen seems to be saying that a sufficiency of grace to preserve from all sin was involved rather in the Covenant of Works where there was no pardon for sin, and in the Covenant of Grace there is not such a sufficiency as to keep us from *all* sin, but certainly such as to keep us from heinous sins, and absolutely from falling away. However it is not necessary for there to be such a sufficiency, because there is pardon. In this situation attending the means of grace become the most important 'effort' we make, or rather the simple hand we hold out to receive, both pardon and grace for obedience. I am sure that your view does actually comport with this last part, because I have heard you made such statements (and greatly profited from them). But I am confused as to how your view as I've understood it could wind up at the same place as Owen's. Again, I'm sorry if this is a 'side-trail'; but I am very appreciative to understand better.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But even our Larger Catechism uses the terms that seem to be saying what I am trying to express. Repentance unto Life is used. Of course it is a grace and from grace. But without it there is no life.



The Catechism begins by saying that "Repentance unto life is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God." Whatever repentance is in its own nature, it begins as a work of divine grace. No doing on man's part is made the condition of the grace and life promised in the covenant.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> So there is a sense in which 'Do This and Live' springs from Live and do this. At least it seems so from from what I am understanding. Especially in light of what I am seeing and what I wrote above and have quoted below.



Please allow me to try to explain the difference in the light of your use of "antecedent, concomitant, and consequent conditions," although it should be observed that this terminology properly belongs to the subject of justification. Since justification is a part of the "life" promised in the covenant of grace I think we can utilise it for the purposes of this discussion.

"Antecedent" means a condition which must go before the promise as a means to an end; "concomitant" means a condition which must accompany the promise and without which the fulfilment of the promise cannot be expected; "consequent" refers to a condition which must be the inevitable result of the thing promised. Faith is an antecedent condition. It is the means or instrument by which justification is appropriated, or made one's own. Repentance is not a means of justification but a necessary accompaniment because without turning from sin there is nothing to be justified from and without turning to God there is nothing to be justified for. Good works is a consequent condition, which means that they are the necessary effect of being justified by faith, or, as our Standards teach, they are the "fruit and evidence" that a person is in a state of justification. If good works are consequent conditions, or necessary effects of being in a state of justification, it is obvious that "doing" cannot in any sense be regarded as a means to being justified.

To apply this to the clause in question -- In "Do this and live," the word "do" is being made a means to the life that is promised. It is being presented as an antecedent condition. It is only the phrase, "Live and do this," which properly presents the state of affairs under the covenant of grace, because doing is the effect of the life that has been freely granted.

Throughout the Standards "life" precedes "doing" in all the fulness of salvation. We have already noted how "life" precedes the action of repentance in the working of the Holy Spirit to produce repentance in the elect. The same applies to the gift of faith and to good works. Faith is also wrought by the Holy Spirit and the word of God (answer 72). With respect to good works, Larger Catechism answer 32 is perhaps the clearest statement on the importance of holy obedience in direct relationship to salvation and eternal life. Even here the obedience is the effect of the work of the Holy Spirit, who has been given to the elect "to enable them unto all holy obedience." Whatever is said about the necessity of obedience in this answer is guaranteed by the work of the Holy Spirit which precedes and produces it.

This is a covenant ordered in all things and sure. The promise is sure to the heirs of promise. Let's be on our guard against introducing an element of uncertainty into God's eternal counsel.


----------



## Myshkin

Rich-

That was rather condescending don't you think? How is publicly categorizing me as childish, party spirited, uneducated, gospel confused, and a stubborn know it all, in the best interest of either of us or of having a civil conversation? Or how can that be construed as "trying to help me"? 

I can take correction or receive help, but that was excessive and insulting. I find it sad that somebody actually rated an admonishment towards someone as helpful. I think the word is "schadenfreude"?

Do you have an email I can contact you at? I could not find one on your profile page. I'd rather contact you in that manner than spare myself another public shaming by responding here. 

(This is not sarcasm)
I genuinely apologize if I have bothered anyone with my ignorance and unworthiness to attempt to contribute here. I thought this was a place for honest discussion, but lately, more and more my attempt at discussion has rubbed people the wrong way, and I just don't feel like I fit in. I can't seem to articulate my thoughts very well, and I seem to do so in a way that causes some on here to read me uncharitably on a consistent basis. I wish I wasn't so bad at articulating. Its embarrassing. I do apologize for all this and if I have confused anyone due to my lack of ability.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

a mere housewife said:


> Rich that is most helpful, thank you.
> 
> Could you clarify one further thing? My impression (which is probably a misimpression) was that you were saying there is sufficiency of grace in the Covenant of Grace to preserve us from all sin; but our wills are too divided to make use of it; and in this gap we must make an effort. Owen seems to be saying that a sufficiency of grace to preserve from all sin was involved rather in the Covenant of Works where there was no pardon for sin, and in the Covenant of Grace there is not such a sufficiency as to keep us from *all* sin, but certainly such as to keep us from heinous sins, and absolutely from falling away. However it is not necessary for there to be such a sufficiency, because there is pardon. In this situation attending the means of grace become the most important 'effort' we make, or rather the simple hand we hold out to receive, both pardon and grace for obedience. I am sure that your view does actually comport with this last part, because I have heard you made such statements (and greatly profited from them). But I am confused as to how your view as I've understood it could wind up at the same place as Owen's. Again, I'm sorry if this is a 'side-trail'; but I am very appreciative to understand better.



I know this is a long answer but I think the answer if found in differentiating between the Covenant of Grace, properly speaking, and what Christ's role as Mediator of it is:



> Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.114
> 
> Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
> A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator,115 and life and salvation by him;116 and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him,117 promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit118 to all his elect, to work in them that faith,119 with all other saving graces;120 and to enable them unto all holy obedience,121 as the evidence of the truth of their faith122 and thankfulness to God,123 and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.124
> 
> Q. 36. Who is the Mediator of the covenant of grace?
> A. The only Mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ,137 who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father,138 in the fulness of time became man,139 and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever.140


Faith is what secures our interest in Christ. We are in Christ as we have faith in Him. Full stop. Our obedience does not secure our interest in Him but our faith alone.

Notice, though, how Christ is said to work in us faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable us unto all holy obedience. This is part and parcel of our interest in Him. Our works are not the condition of this blessing but, because we are in Him by faith, Christ works these things in us. It is _definitive_.

We can unpack what Christ's mediatorial work looks like a bit more. Remember, these things Christ executes as our mediator in the CoG. We obtain interest in Him by faith:



> Q. 42. Why was our Mediator called Christ?
> A. Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure,161 and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability,162 to execute the offices of prophet,163 priest,164 and king of his church,165 in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.
> 
> Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
> A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself,174 and giving them officers,175 laws,176 and censures, by which he visibly governs them;177 in bestowing saving grace upon his elect,178 rewarding their obedience,179 and correcting them for their sins,180 preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings,181 restraining and overcoming all their enemies,182 and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory,183 and their good;184 and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.185


Notice, again, what Christ is securing for us definitively by His grace. He is securing our sanctification.

Don't read anything I'm writing as confusing whether or not our sanctification ultimately rests on us. It is definitively secured by Christ. Chapter 13 of the WCF discusses Sanctification (which, is again, part of what Christ secures for us):



> I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,1 by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:2 the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,3 and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;4 and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,5 to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.6
> 
> II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;7 yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;8 whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.9
> 
> III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;10 yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;11 and so, the saints grow in grace,12 perfecting holiness in the fear of God.13



Note, then, there is no conflict between the idea that Christ secures the blessings of the CoG for the Elect AND that as King and Mediator, one of those many blessings is that we would be sanctified such that the body of sin in us is destroyed more and more. That involves _our_ wills and, as such, Christ works through the means of exhorting us through His Word to be renewed in our minds.


----------



## a mere housewife

Thanks again very much Rich. I understand then, from what both you and Rev. Winzer say, that this power to sanctify me is effectual -- it involves my effort, but as a 'consequence' not as a condition. I *will* make the effort because I have died and risen in Christ. The power involved in that certainty is more than the power of my own gratitude, which is still my own work (and as such, is really a 'consequence' of Christ's). It is the power that raised Christ from the dead.

I confess to still having some confusion on the subject but that much being clear is very helpful and is the part I need to know on a daily basis. If I think that if I could only do more, I could have more grace, and if I could only do enough, I could have perfect grace -- that is a terrible bondage; because my own doing, even as you say that which is motivated by gratitude, is my own work -- and that is just never, never, never enough.


----------



## steadfast7

So, if the power at work enabling me to not sin is an active, definitive, divine grace, then what do we make of our failures to resist sin? We wouldn't say that our wills somehow trumped the Spirit's power; how do we describe what's going on? If we say there are times when we love sin more than Christ, isn't God's sanctifying grace supposed to make us love him more, to prevent such division of heart to occur?


----------



## Andres

Joshua said:


> _Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently._ - Ps. 119:4​
> 
> I cannot cite enough this thorough, consistent, and Biblical statement from the Westminster Assembly (emphases added):
> WLC#32
> 
> Q. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
> 
> A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely
> provideth and offereth to sinners a Mediator, and life and salvation by him;
> and, requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and
> giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other
> saving graces; _*and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence
> of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he
> hath appointed them to salvation. *_
> 
> Gen. 3:15; Isa. 42:6; John 6:27; 1 John 5:11-12; John 3:16; John 1:12; Prov. 1:23; 2 Cor. 4:13; Gal. 5:22-23; Ezek. 36:27; Jas. 2:18, 22; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Eph. 2:10.​




See, this is why I need to read/study the Westminster Standards more.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

RAS said:


> Rich-
> 
> That was rather condescending don't you think? How is publicly categorizing me as childish, party spirited, uneducated, gospel confused, and a stubborn know it all, in the best interest of either of us or of having a civil conversation? Or how can that be construed as "trying to help me"?
> 
> I can take correction or receive help, but that was excessive and insulting. I find it sad that somebody actually rated an admonishment towards someone as helpful. I think the word is "schadenfreude"?
> 
> Do you have an email I can contact you at? I could not find one on your profile page. I'd rather contact you in that manner than spare myself another public shaming by responding here.
> 
> (This is not sarcasm)
> I genuinely apologize if I have bothered anyone with my ignorance and unworthiness to attempt to contribute here. I thought this was a place for honest discussion, but lately, more and more my attempt at discussion has rubbed people the wrong way, and I just don't feel like I fit in. I can't seem to articulate my thoughts very well, and I seem to do so in a way that causes some on here to read me uncharitably on a consistent basis. I wish I wasn't so bad at articulating. Its embarrassing. I do apologize for all this and if I have confused anyone due to my lack of ability.


Allan,

I think there is a difference between being condescending and confrontational. I confronted you because you made sweeping generalizations that were uncharitable. You can PM me if you are interested in further dialog. I don't intend to shame you but you came out of the gates on this thread terribly strong against what you thought others were doing wrong (you even accused me directly of caricature of WSC position). It would be one thing if you came in with a tentative position admitting that you had something to learn (as we all do) but you come with with guns blazing and then you seem shocked that people are telling you that you're being careless with the weapons you are firing off. I am _constantly_ aware of my own failings of being impatient with others and I admit (and repent of) being impatient in my reply to you but PLEASE read what you wrote both initially and in response to my first post and ask yourself if you are presenting yourself as a humble inquirer or are sweeping up a wide swath of people and essentially accusing them of FV or theonomy or other things.

Grace and Peace,

Rich


----------



## Semper Fidelis

steadfast7 said:


> So, if the power at work enabling me to not sin is an active, definitive, divine grace, then what do we make of our failures to resist sin? We wouldn't say that our wills somehow trumped the Spirit's power; how do we describe what's going on? If we say there are times when we love sin more than Christ, isn't God's sanctifying grace supposed to make us love him more, to prevent such division of heart to occur?


We make of the failures to sin that God is pleased to make our sanctification in this life imperfect. Christ will fully conquer sin and death when He comes again but, for now, He calls us to obedience and it is the means of exhortation that we obey. It is not God acting for us but us willing and doing by His power. We are not to live by the decree but by what is revealed and we are commanded to resist and to love Him more. He doesn't leave it to theory as to where this fount of grace is found and it isn't found by demanding of God that He explain to us why He isn't doing more to prevent us from sinning if He really is powerful enough to keep us from doing so.


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> So, if the power at work enabling me to not sin is an active, definitive, divine grace, then what do we make of our failures to resist sin? We wouldn't say that our wills somehow trumped the Spirit's power; how do we describe what's going on? If we say there are times when we love sin more than Christ, isn't God's sanctifying grace supposed to make us love him more, to prevent such division of heart to occur?


 
Romans 7:14ff comes immediately to mind. There is something irreconcilable in this experiential conflict between delighting in the law of God and finding another law at work in my members. The hope of deliverance does not come from fleeing the scene of conflict in order to take higher ground (higher life teaching, getting out of Romans 7 into Romans 8); nor is it to be found in giving up and playing dead (as in the pietistic idea of Let go and let God); but in bearing the griefs and burdens of the war and in looking to the great Victor who has promised to bring to completion the triumph which He has initiated -- "thanks be unto God through our Lord Jesus Christ." In other words, accepting the irreconcilable reality is fundamental to the ultimate conquest in which promise becomes experiential reality.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks Rich and Rev. Winzer for your insights. It's clearing up for me that the struggle with sin itself, which must have an element of loss, is part and parcel of the very means that God has been pleased to employ in our sanctification.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> But even our Larger Catechism uses the terms that seem to be saying what I am trying to express. Repentance unto Life is used. Of course it is a grace and from grace. But without it there is no life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catechism begins by saying that "Repentance unto life is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God." Whatever repentance is in its own nature, it begins as a work of divine grace. No doing on man's part is made the condition of the grace and life promised in the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So there is a sense in which 'Do This and Live' springs from Live and do this. At least it seems so from from what I am understanding. Especially in light of what I am seeing and what I wrote above and have quoted below.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please allow me to try to explain the difference in the light of your use of "antecedent, concomitant, and consequent conditions," although it should be observed that this terminology properly belongs to the subject of justification. Since justification is a part of the "life" promised in the covenant of grace I think we can utilise it for the purposes of this discussion.
> 
> "Antecedent" means a condition which must go before the promise as a means to an end; "concomitant" means a condition which must accompany the promise and without which the fulfilment of the promise cannot be expected; "consequent" refers to a condition which must be the inevitable result of the thing promised. Faith is an antecedent condition. It is the means or instrument by which justification is appropriated, or made one's own. Repentance is not a means of justification but a necessary accompaniment because without turning from sin there is nothing to be justified from and without turning to God there is nothing to be justified for. Good works is a consequent condition, which means that they are the necessary effect of being justified by faith, or, as our Standards teach, they are the "fruit and evidence" that a person is in a state of justification. If good works are consequent conditions, or necessary effects of being in a state of justification, it is obvious that "doing" cannot in any sense be regarded as a means to being justified.
> 
> To apply this to the clause in question -- In "Do this and live," the word "do" is being made a means to the life that is promised. It is being presented as an antecedent condition. It is only the phrase, "Live and do this," which properly presents the state of affairs under the covenant of grace, because doing is the effect of the life that has been freely granted.
> 
> Throughout the Standards "life" precedes "doing" in all the fulness of salvation. We have already noted how "life" precedes the action of repentance in the working of the Holy Spirit to produce repentance in the elect. The same applies to the gift of faith and to good works. Faith is also wrought by the Holy Spirit and the word of God (answer 72). With respect to good works, Larger Catechism answer 32 is perhaps the clearest statement on the importance of holy obedience in direct relationship to salvation and eternal life. Even here the obedience is the effect of the work of the Holy Spirit, who has been given to the elect "to enable them unto all holy obedience." Whatever is said about the necessity of obedience in this answer is guaranteed by the work of the Holy Spirit which precedes and produces it.
> 
> This is a covenant ordered in all things and sure. The promise is sure to the heirs of promise. Let's be on our guard against introducing an element of uncertainty into God's eternal counsel.
Click to expand...


Reverend Winzer,

Is there not a sense where we are commanded and warned to be doers of the word that we may abide in the Covenant of Grace also though. Not as though God owed us anything but that we are warned to abide covenantally and faithfully lest we stray. Of course it flows out of Live and Do this but their definitely seems to be a 'Do This and Live' warning also. Not as though it is attached to justification but to our sanctification and walk with God, as dear children who may be disciplined. 



> (1Co 10:1) MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:5) But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:6) Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:7) Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:8) Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:9) Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:10) Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:11) Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:12) Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:13) There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

An Open Letter To Mr. Grace-Loving Antinomian – Tullian Tchividjian

Response from Tullian, written by Elyse Fitzpatrick


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> An Open Letter To Mr. Grace-Loving Antinomian – Tullian Tchividjian
> 
> Response from Tullian, written by Elyse Fitzpatrick



From the open letter:


> So many of my friends and acquaintances are simply up in arms about the way you act and they tell me it’s because you talk too much about grace. They suggest (and I’m almost tempted to agree) that what you need is more and more rules to live by...


Who, among the Confessionally reformed, is actually stating the issue this way? The critic created is as fictitious as the character she is writing to.

I sincerely hope that they don't have William Evans in mind as if his concern can be boiled down to an injunction that people need more rules to live by.

As I noted earlier, a party-spirit approach to this dialog where concerns are boiled down to talking points that don't resemble the actual concern doesn't help us in what I consider an intramural debate. It paints criticism in the worst possible light as if it is all a choice between legalism and grace. I would hope that we can, as brothers and sisters who claim a Reformed confession, can wrestle together with what each side is emphasizing to see where we agree and where we believe certain emphases are clouding the issue of what the implications of Christ's work has for the believer.

EDIT: I just realized that this post is before William Evans article so I don't want to be guilty of assigning any motives here that never existed. I also want to add that the Open Letter does contain elements of what Union with Christ by faith produces in terms of love and power to deal with indwelling sin. As I stated before, there is not complete disagreement on these issues but it is sometimes a matter of how people are framing the issue or treating imperatives as if they all belong to Law.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. I should have noticed the date when I discovered and read the link.

Here is a summary from Justin Taylor of whom has been speaking to whom. 

Gospel, Grace, and Effort: Roundup – Justin Taylor


----------



## Myshkin

Semper Fidelis said:


> Allan,
> 
> I think there is a difference between being condescending and confrontational. I confronted you because you made sweeping generalizations that were uncharitable. You can PM me if you are interested in further dialog. I don't intend to shame you but you came out of the gates on this thread terribly strong against what you thought others were doing wrong (you even accused me directly of caricature of WSC position). It would be one thing if you came in with a tentative position admitting that you had something to learn (as we all do) but you come with with guns blazing and then you seem shocked that people are telling you that you're being careless with the weapons you are firing off. I am _constantly_ aware of my own failings of being impatient with others and I admit (and repent of) being impatient in my reply to you but PLEASE read what you wrote both initially and in response to my first post and ask yourself if you are presenting yourself as a humble inquirer or are sweeping up a wide swath of people and essentially accusing them of FV or theonomy or other things.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> Rich



Rich-

I sent you a PM. I was only hoping to send you a longer response clearing up where you have gravely misinterpreted me and why I thought your response was not helpful but rather destructive. I observe other places where this debate was being had, and I see both sides, regardless of disagreement, giving eachother the benefit of the doubt. 

Here I will briefly respond to your last post since I continue to be misrepresented without being given the respect of being asked if I am even being understood correctly in the first place. I do detect a double standard.

First of all, Rich, I am not an idiot. I know the difference between confrontation and condescension. Confrontation gets to the point, condescension elevates self over another at the expense of the other's dignity.

I would like to point out that I was _not_ making sweeping generalizations. I was giving a _context_ for the question I was asking. A question I was asking _with the goal of sharpening my understanding_. I don't know why you missed that, or didn't bother to ask a follow up question for clarification rather than assume the worst of me. Why couldn't you have stuck to the issues rather than drag in your opinion of my incompetence in your eyes?

In the article the OP referenced, statements were made that were a misrepresentation of the position being criticized. Subsequent responses on Ref21 also made that observation. A poster earlier in this thread also continued the misrepresentation. If you will notice, in one of my first points to you, I made it clear that _you_ do not make that misrepresentation, but that there are others who do, and you subsequently pointed this out yourself. So it is confusing when you tell me I came in with guns blazing towards a wide group of people and that you agree there are those who caricature each sides position, and then act as if I don't know what i am talking about even when I am agreeing with you and pointing out that I am not referring to you. I believe that if you would have allowed me to clear up your misunderstanding on this initial point, you would not have been so strident and presumptious throughout. 

I was also not given the chance to apologize for any misunderstanding I had of what you were trying to say. At one point I did misread, as you pointed out, one of your statements. I thought you were making a caricature, but then realized that what i thought you were saying was incorrect on my part. We were actually speaking past eachother. I wish I had had the chance to clear that up before the cloud of anger was thrust upon me. Couldn't you have just tried to talk it out with me instead of barking at me?

I think where you got lost is in regards to two things: you assumed I was not coming in humbly as an inquirer, and you confused that separate part of my post with an attempt to correct, not you, but those who were continuing a caricature that you yourself admitted was inappropriate. 

To say that I am essentially accusing the critics of FV is way off base. Thats a _huge_ leap! Where did I do that, or imply that? I certainly don't think that at all! I was simply pointing out that the criticisms come from certain groups, but i never said that all of these criticisms are the same, or even that those groups were connected.

I was not making a sweeping generalization, and I did not make an accusation. I was asking for those who do make the caricature to prove it. My point was "how many times does one actually have to say what 'you' are falsely accusing them of not saying, before you will take them at their word that they are actually saying it?" Also, I was speaking from my experience that those are the diverse groups that have had the criticisms of WSC. So I was asking if there were other groups that I didn't mention, and if so, who, so that I could personally try to understand the criticisms from a clearer perspective. I fail to see how giving the perspective that I am coming from is equivalent to having a childish party spirit.

I think you took some things personal that I never directed at you, in fact I even made that clear, and you assumed too much about what you thought I was saying and too much about what you think you know of me. If you had just tried to talk it out with me instead of condescendingly and presumptiously insult me, then I would have had the chance to apologize for any misunderstanding and also had the chance to clarify all the misunderstandings on your part.

I think my longer response will help you see this more clearly.

Thanks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ya know. It might be useful to see if we can pull up a list of where some of these statements concerning law and gospel are made. Statements that others do not have much appreciation for such as gospel obedience. I for one seemed to have heard some propagate a gospel / law distinction that is Lutheran and not Reformed. I call it Modern Reformed Thought. I do not believe it is of the Reformed tradition. Also something that has been propagated is that the gospel message is something that is confused and only has to do with a an outward work. I just don't have the energy to do it right now. I have been sick for a few weeks and feel very worn out. Sorry. A lot of what I have picked up was from the Heidelblog which is defunct now and Office Hours interviews with Van Drunnen and Horton. Also their books are great resources for what it is being said. 

RAS, 

Your first post did seem to come across kind of strong and party spirited. We have been discussing this topic for a few years actually. I believe you can view a lot of the exchange that went on between adherents of both thought on this forum.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RAS said:


> To date, the WSC/WHInn "school" has in some form or another, been accused of being or connected to in some degree, the following:
> antinomian, "Sonship", Keswick, Lutheran, Dispensationalist, revisionist. In my experience, those who make these claims have either been FV proponents, Theonomists, ex-dispensationalist baptists, neo-kuyperians, those who elevate biblical theology over systematic theology, those who look at the confessions and the Reformed faith progressively rather than traditionally, those who pit Calvin against the Calvinists, and those who seem to think union with Christ is the material principle of the reformation.
> 
> Is there anyone who does not fall into any of these categories that agrees with their critique of the WSC/WHInn "school"?



Which camp do you place me in Allen? I want to see if you know me. Be Careful not to place me in the Theonomist's camp to quickly or any of the other camps. And you must obviously believe all these camps are aberrations to truth. Yeah, you came across a bit strong and party spirited. JMO.


----------



## Myshkin

PuritanCovenanter said:


> RAS said:
> 
> 
> 
> To date, the WSC/WHInn "school" has in some form or another, been accused of being or connected to in some degree, the following:
> antinomian, "Sonship", Keswick, Lutheran, Dispensationalist, revisionist. In my experience, those who make these claims have either been FV proponents, Theonomists, ex-dispensationalist baptists, neo-kuyperians, those who elevate biblical theology over systematic theology, those who look at the confessions and the Reformed faith progressively rather than traditionally, those who pit Calvin against the Calvinists, and those who seem to think union with Christ is the material principle of the reformation.
> 
> Is there anyone who does not fall into any of these categories that agrees with their critique of the WSC/WHInn "school"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which camp do you place me in Allen? I want to see if you know me. Be Careful not to place me in the Theonomist's camp to quickly or any of the other camps. And you must obviously believe all these camps are aberrations to truth. Yeah, you came across a bit strong and party spirited. JMO.
Click to expand...


Brother, I do not place you in any camp. Why would you even ask that? I have stated above that I did not have a party spirit when giving a context from my own experience to give perspective of where I was coming from and to ask a question for my further education. I don't even know you, so why are you testing me to see if I do know you? What is the point? Please explain how your question is not party spirited?

It is hard to believe, that people who keep giving me this interpretation of what I said, are giving me the benefit of the doubt and are reading closely, when they aren't even paying attention to a small detail such as consistently spelling my name wrong.

I can't keep explaining myself if nobody is willing to give me the benefit of the doubt when I do so. Thats a stacked deck that makes me look like I can't admit fault even though I have admitted fault at certain points. On top of explaining myself here _again_, I have read my first post over and over Randy, and it is curious that my opening statement is passed over where I try to make clear that I am not asking out of provocation but rather genuinely. Why are people trying to read my motives despite my explanation of what I meant, and on top of the fact that I admitted I may not have articulated as well as I intended? When am i going to be forgiven for being an imperfect articulator? When I admit what everyone seems to want to hear; that I had bad motives? Where is the grace and mercy for a fellow brother in Christ? 

I am not going to be baited anymore. It is clear that an apology, an explanation, or whatever else is never going to be good enough. I have admitted my faults. I keep hoping to be able to come back to this thread and speak to the topic, but whether I assert my opinion or defend myself, I have a stecked deck against me either way. 

Sorry again everyone, for my part in this thread. 

Psalm 18:14


----------



## Pilgrim

Semper Fidelis said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Open Letter To Mr. Grace-Loving Antinomian – Tullian Tchividjian
> 
> Response from Tullian, written by Elyse Fitzpatrick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the open letter:
> 
> 
> 
> So many of my friends and acquaintances are simply up in arms about the way you act and they tell me it’s because you talk too much about grace. They suggest (and I’m almost tempted to agree) that what you need is more and more rules to live by...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who, among the Confessionally reformed, is actually stating the issue this way? The critic created is as fictitious as the character she is writing to.
Click to expand...


Strawman it is. With the exception of genuine moralists and legalists I don't know who actually states the issue this way, even among those who are not confessionally Reformed. 

Because Elyse Fitzpatrick is a Biblical Counselor and because so much of this debate has played out in various intramural debates in the Biblical Counseling field over the years, my guess is that the target is Jay Adams and those who tend to agree with his approach. It is an approach that is often derided as "behaviorism" by the "grace based" and "Gospel centered" folks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Allan, 

I am asking you because I am one who disagrees with some of the stuff and people you name. And since I disagree with them on these issues I might land in one of those camps you name. I just wanted to know which one you might have thought it was. I also know that a lot of these things have been answered in past threads. I believe you have even been involved in some of those discussions. So I find it quite odd that you are asking for clarification. I am not sure why you desire the clarification in light of your participation. Are the past discussions just bleating air? This issue seems to be tied together with many discussions concerning what the gospel is, the law / gospel dichotomy discussion, and the radical two kingdom thought. They seem to have a fountainhead of where they are mostly coming from. This isn't anything hid under a bushel. 

I have some disagreement with some of the things I have heard concerning what the Gospel is because I think I see some dangers. Does my disagreement lend me to party spirit? Maybe. BTW, I work with people on both sides of this issue. So I wouldn't really liken myself to have a party spirit. 

I agree with Rich here. 


> I don't think you've been paying much attention to the debate if you're not aware of the discussion on this issue. Even some of WSC's most unfair critics acknowledge that they are _distinguishing_ the Law and Gospel. Again, you are boiling things down in a way that makes all critics pretty unsophisticated if they cannot even tell the difference between a distinction, difference, and separation. Again, one has to spend some time looking at things to see the underlying issue as to why people are disagreeing but the consequences of this distinction create all sorts of consequences for how one emphasizes certain things.



I don't believe a deck is stacked against you. I do know you have interacted on this subject here before and all you have to do is go back and check out what both sides have said. There are distinct things being said. Especially in the books, blogs, and comments. The disagreements aren't over nothing. 

Edit....
Sorry Allan, I am getting things mixed up. My comment about stupid was wrong. I do believe Rich was very good at explaining to you what is going on in his first and second response. I am not sure if he is being condescending or confrontational. I do believe it is a situation of confrontation though. Sorry for my comment on your idiot remark. But I don't believe Rich is being condescending. I know he wants you to understand. I think it would be better if you and I both took some time to listen a bit better. This is not an easy topic but you have participated in it before. The blog that this OP is referencing is somewhat of a proof that things are being said and either they are being understood correctly or they aren't. It evidently is a topic worth understanding and working your way through. I do not think the critics are unsophisticated nor are they just willy nilly nit picking. They are coming from some good seminary backgrounds. 

http://katekomen.gpts.edu/2011/01/klhortonian-theology-and-mosaic.html

[URL="http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf"]http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf

Dr[/URL]. C. P. Venema did a good article also in the Mid America Journal.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

RAS said:


> First of all, Rich, I am not an idiot. I know the difference between confrontation and condescension. Confrontation gets to the point, condescension elevates self over another at the expense of the other's dignity.


Thus, I'm accused of elevating myself at the expense of your dignity Allan. I'm saddened that this is the main thing you take from my remarks. I hope others can see more to it than that but I am grieved that this is all you read in it. My stated intent remains but I will endeavor to express myself better in the future.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I apologize for any confusion I may have caused. I should have noticed the date when I discovered and read the link.
> 
> Here is a summary from Justin Taylor of whom has been speaking to whom.
> 
> Gospel, Grace, and Effort: Roundup – Justin Taylor



Thanks for that link.

From A Question of Balance? Some Final Comments on Sanctification and the Role of the Law - Reformation21 Blog, William Evans notes:


> Third, Sean focuses on the question of motivation for sanctification as crucial here. While, in my judgment, it is not the only issue in play in this discussion, it is indeed important. Here I cannot but be reminded of that bit of nineteenth-century English wisdom, variously attributed to John Stuart Mill, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and F. D. Maurice, to the effect that "people are generally right in what they affirm and wrong in what they deny." As far as I can tell, nearly everybody affirms that gratitude for justification is a motivation for sanctification. The question is whether it is the only motive and other motives are to be denied.
> 
> Here I wonder whether Sean, in his contention that the "confession of faith makes it clear that the way the law moves us to obey is by showing us our sin and giving us a clearer sight of Jesus," has simply failed to read much of the WCF 19.6 paragraph that I quoted. There we see that gratitude is indeed a motive but that there are other motives as well. The law is a binding obligation (it "binds them to walk accordingly"). Furthermore, the law contains sanctions for disobedience that the Christian may incur in this life ("the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law"). Moreover, there are blessings promised for obedience ("The promises of it . . . show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works"). And finally, this section concludes with the very clear recognition that these additional motivations are fully consistent with the gospel ("so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace").
> 
> When we think carefully about this, the reason for these multiple levels of motivation is also quite understandable. The problem of sin, despite Tullian Tchividjian's "indisputable" claims to the contrary (He writes, "What is indisputable is the fact that unbelief is the force that gives birth to all of our bad behavior and every moral failure."), is more than unbelief. In Adam we are not only faithless; we are also lazy, undisciplined, mean-spirited, lustful, gluttonous, jealous, rebellious, and so on, and we need the law in its fullness to help us move forward in the sanctification process.
> 
> In light of all this, I would humbly suggest that some recent efforts to depreciate these other functions of the biblical imperatives, even though this may be done with the good intention of magnifying the grace of God, are both sub-biblical and sub-confessional. In short, let's preach the whole counsel of God, imperatives and all!



He articulated well how the "Gospel=indicative" or "Gospel as justification" emphasis actually ends up muting aspects of our confession where it is nearly impossible to reconcile WCF 19.6 with some of the statements that the Law can


> VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.



As I was going to bed last night I was reading this article and it dawned on me why the issue saddens me at a certain level. On the one hand, I appreciate the motivation that some have to guard against any sense that we are accepted by our works or stumbling into legalism. There is also the danger that our theology is guided by an obsession with guarding against antinomianism.

I think the problem is that when you boil the Law/Gospel distinction between types of words (imperative or indicative) then when one insists that it is only the Gospel that brings life, then we're sort of stepping away from the fact that it is not the ideas presented in the Gospel about what Christ has done but that it is Christ Himself that brings life and impels us. You see, I don't have a problem with the idea that the Gospel brings life and the motivation and power to view the Law anew but my understanding of the Gospel (from the Confessions) is not insisting that the Gospel is simply limited to the indicatives about what Christ has accomplished. It has a richness to it that includes all the graces that flow from Christ's mediatorial work as our Covenant head.

Thus, when Sean gets to 19.6 in his rejoinder, there seems to be an inability to see how the laws threatenings could be an evangelical motivation for obedience. If I'm tempted to cheat on my taxes, for instance, what if one of my motivations is that I might lose my clearance and my job and, therefore my house, and imperil my family by financial ruin? Christians are motivated by these "threats" all the time. The consequences of behavior motivate them not to sin at times. Owen, in his book on Sin and Temptation has an extended section on how these (among many different kinds of motivations) are of the Lord and impel us to resist temptation.

You just don't ever hear those kinds of motivations emphasized any more. If the Gospel is abstracted from our union with Christ by limiting it to the discussion of whether we're commanded to do it or whether Christ did it then the only thing we could ever say motivates or impels us is reflecting on what Christ has done. Where would the fear of the Law's threats fit in such a schema? Would our fear of the temporal consequences (broken relationships, lost jobs) that motivate us to obey at times be a sign of our faithlessness? Should we learn to never think in such categories because they are not born out of the Gospel's power (again limited to statements about what Christ has done)?

This is sad to me and actually extremely bothersome. I agree with Sean Lucas that here is an example where these emphases are not merely minor but play out in very consequential ways. Where the WCF tells us of the _blessings_ that the laws threats and commands are to us, the emphasis mutes these and causes the believer to doubt whether such motivations are even appropriate or may belong to a slave mentality. Where God, as our Father, has blessed us in the moment with an internal fear of the temporal consequences, we don't thank Him for the providence of keeping us from sinning but instead attribute the motivation to our carnality and the need to mature beyond the fear of temporal consequences. Where I see a multi-faceted and rich appreciation of the implications of our union with Christ in our battle against temptation in the works of Owen and in our Confessions, I see a laser like focus on a few facets at the expense of the others. When is the last time you've been exhorted to thank God for the sanctifying power of the Law?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well said Rich.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Amen rich!


----------



## mvdm

Semper Fidelis said:


> When is the last time you've been exhorted to thank God for the sanctifying power of the Law?



Last Sunday in our church. 

As your post suggests, that such an exhortation would be viewed as suspect is troublesome indeed.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> . . .As I was going to bed last night I was reading this article and it dawned on me why the issue saddens me at a certain level. On the one hand, I appreciate the motivation that some have to guard against any sense that we are accepted by our works or stumbling into legalism. There is also the danger that our theology is guided by an obsession with guarding against antinomianism.
> 
> I think the problem is that when you boil the Law/Gospel distinction between types of words (imperative or indicative) then when one insists that it is only the Gospel that brings life, then we're sort of stepping away from the fact that it is not the ideas presented in the Gospel about what Christ has done but that it is Christ Himself that brings life and impels us. You see, I don't have a problem with the idea that the Gospel brings life and the motivation and power to view the Law anew but my understanding of the Gospel (from the Confessions) is not insisting that the Gospel is simply limited to the indicatives about what Christ has accomplished. It has a richness to it that includes all the graces that flow from Christ's mediatorial work as our Covenant head.
> 
> Thus, when Sean gets to 19.6 in his rejoinder, there seems to be an inability to see how the laws threatenings could be an evangelical motivation for obedience. If I'm tempted to cheat on my taxes, for instance, what if one of my motivations is that I might lose my clearance and my job and, therefore my house, and imperil my family by financial ruin? Christians are motivated by these "threats" all the time. The consequences of behavior motivate them not to sin at times. Owen, in his book on Sin and Temptation has an extended section on how these (among many different kinds of motivations) are of the Lord and impel us to resist temptation.
> 
> You just don't ever hear those kinds of motivations emphasized any more. If the Gospel is abstracted from our union with Christ by limiting it to the discussion of whether we're commanded to do it or whether Christ did it then the only thing we could ever say motivates or impels us is reflecting on what Christ has done. Where would the fear of the Law's threats fit in such a schema? Would our fear of the temporal consequences (broken relationships, lost jobs) that motivate us to obey at times be a sign of our faithlessness? Should we learn to never think in such categories because they are not born out of the Gospel's power (again limited to statements about what Christ has done)?
> 
> This is sad to me and actually extremely bothersome. I agree with Sean Lucas that here is an example where these emphases are not merely minor but play out in very consequential ways. Where the WCF tells us of the _blessings_ that the laws threats and commands are to us, the emphasis mutes these and causes the believer to doubt whether such motivations are even appropriate or may belong to a slave mentality. Where God, as our Father, has blessed us in the moment with an internal fear of the temporal consequences, we don't thank Him for the providence of keeping us from sinning but instead attribute the motivation to our carnality and the need to mature beyond the fear of temporal consequences. Where I see a multi-faceted and rich appreciation of the implications of our union with Christ in our battle against temptation in the works of Owen and in our Confessions, I see a laser like focus on a few facets at the expense of the others. When is the last time you've been exhorted to thank God for the sanctifying power of the Law?



Having been occupied with other matters recently, the debate that you guys are following is completely outside my ken. I don't want to comment directly on the WHI controversy, but I think that one of Rich's sentences, which does not directly address that controversy, may say something other than his precise intent.

Some essential background first: 

I open the book I am presently in process of publishing by echoing the Psalmist's cry "O how I love thy law;" and by noting that it has been on my lips many times during my own pilgrimage through this world. Although I have not always followed its ways, God's law has indeed been THE "light to my feet and a lamp to my path" for over 30 years. Where I have followed its ways, I have been blessed; where I have ignored its warnings I have run into trouble. And so, one of the ways the law has been that promised light to my feet has by warning of inimical consequences thereby providing the fuel for the Holy Spirit to kindle a holy fear of those consequences. (And there are other motivations for evangelical obedience that arise out of the law and in these situations I would suggest that they are likewise kindling for the Holy Spirit's production of affecting power for sanctification.) 

But I would never dare describe any of the law's many blessings of this sort - for which I thank God-as the "sanctifying power of the law" as Rich seems to do. 
I think attributing "sanctifying power" to the law is either an inexact and confusing analysis of the nature of the law's blessings or a definite heresy. 

Why? Because any claim that the law has "sanctifying power" is a real contradiction with Paul's comment that "if righteousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. 3:21) 

It seems to me therefore that if we attribute any sanctifying power to the law, we thereby implicitly claim Christ has died in vain. And I know Rich doesn't want to do that.
(And I also know that Rich is no Theonomist, despite the similarity of his remark to Rushdoony's claim that "Sanctification is by the law".) 

I don't believe I have ever seen a Scripture which does attribute any power over sin to the law. In fact Paul tells us that we are in such a state that "The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me." (Rom. 7:10)

As I understand the bible's teaching, the only power behind sanctification is the persons of the Godhead.

For example, Paul in Rom. 6 tells us that Christians because of their union with Christ are to present themselves to God and their members as instruments of rightousness and in doing so, sin will not have dominion because we are not under law but under grace. (12-14)
In Rom 7, he tells us that we died to the law "so that" we can belong to Christ "in order that we may bear fruit to God."
in Rom 8, he tells us that we achieve the rightousness of the law by walking according to the Spirit by whom we put to death the deeds of the body. (4,13)

If my suspicion is correct, we may continue to thank God for the many blessings contained in the law which make it the light to our feet and the lamp to our path without attributing to the law a power it does not have and, by doing so, robbing the Godhead of the praise due them for the power of their glorious grace.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> Why? Because any claim that the law has "sanctifying power" is a real contradiction with Paul's comment that "if righteousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. 3:21)



Tim,

I think we need to be careful of equivocation here. Paul does not always use Law in the same sense. I'm not speaking of the Law in the sense of that righteousness by which we attain to a righteousness that is acceptable to God.

I'm speaking of the Law in its third use, which assumes that the believer already possesses evangelical life and it is use in the upbuilding of the beliver.

I believe you even quoted Psalm 119 where the Law is said to upbuild and give life. It is in the third use that the Lord uses the Law to preserve and, as the WCF notes, 


Semper Fidelis said:


> VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other,* is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.*



I actually find this last phrase pretty insightful. Notice how the WCF correctly notes that being "under the law" is equivalent to a covenant of works. Thuse in the final clause, it notes that the person who stands in relationship of union with Christ is not under law but grace. That's true even when the Law is being used by God for the spiritual upbuilding and preservation of the believer.

Now, I am willing to modify my statement a bit because I can appreciate how it might be misconstrued. The ultimate sanctifying power is Christ's work in us. What I'm trying to note, however, is that there are no "magical clauses" or formula in the Scriptures where God can only use indicatives to sanctify us and not imperatives. God sanctifies us through His spirit. That sanctifying work includes both the facets of reflection on Christ's finished work as well as the other motivations that the Law gives to us to obey our heavenly father.



> 97 Oh how I love your law!
> It is my meditation all the day.
> 98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
> for it is ever with me.



Is this not noting that the law is making the psalmist wise? Is this not a sanctifying grace? Is this not evangelical wisdom? Of what kind of wisdom is this?

I'm reminded what Sinclair Ferguson noted. We have to always be careful in the Scriptures about who the audience is. The above can only be understood in the context of the person who has Christ as His head for all others under the CoW could not experience the Law in this way.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I would also add that the Law does inspire Holiness and trust for me in revealing God's character to me. Because the decalogue reveals the Character of God I was able to see the being who is perfect and righteous. In that it inspired my affections to be more like him. It inspired a trust in him because He can't break it. It revives my soul when I contemplate on the whole of Christ and his voice. The Law is his voice. As Psalm 19 states, "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward."

(Psa 1:1-3) Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; but his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree planted by streams of water that yields its fruit in its season, and its leaf does not wither. In all that he does, he prospers.

(Psa 119:1-20) Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the LORD!
(Psa 119:2) Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with their whole heart,
(Psa 119:3) who also do no wrong, but walk in his ways!
(Psa 119:4) You have commanded your precepts to be kept diligently.
(Psa 119:5) Oh that my ways may be steadfast in keeping your statutes!
(Psa 119:6) Then I shall not be put to shame, having my eyes fixed on all your commandments.
(Psa 119:7) I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules.
(Psa 119:8) I will keep your statutes; do not utterly forsake me!
(Psa 119:9) How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word.
(Psa 119:10) With my whole heart I seek you; let me not wander from your commandments!
(Psa 119:11) I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
(Psa 119:12) Blessed are you, O LORD; teach me your statutes!
(Psa 119:13) With my lips I declare all the rules of your mouth.
(Psa 119:14) In the way of your testimonies I delight as much as in all riches.
(Psa 119:15) I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways.
(Psa 119:16) I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word.
(Psa 119:17) Deal bountifully with your servant, that I may live and keep your word.
(Psa 119:18) Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.
(Psa 119:19) I am a sojourner on the earth; hide not your commandments from me!
(Psa 119:20) My soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times.

Tim, one thing that has been impressed upon me is how people read Romans 6 and 7 and stop. They don't go into Paul's further explanation of Roman's 8. Roman's 7 is not a stand alone. And it actually moves into Romans 9 and 10 explaining it even further. You can't just stop at Roman's 7. 

(Rom 8:1) There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
(Rom 8:2) For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.
(Rom 8:3) For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
(Rom 8:4) in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
(Rom 8:5) For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
(Rom 8:6) For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
(Rom 8:7) For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
(Rom 8:8) Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
(Rom 8:9) You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
(Rom 8:10) But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
(Rom 8:11) If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
(Rom 8:12) So then, brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
(Rom 8:13) For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
(Rom 8:14) For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
(Rom 8:15) For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!"
(Rom 8:16) The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
(Rom 8:17) and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

The true Spirit of the Law is in Christ. Without Christ we have cut the law off and made it incomplete. But in Christ the Law points us and inspires us or St. Paul couldn't write this.

(Rom 13:8) Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
(Rom 13:9) For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
(Rom 13:10) Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Paul makes mention on the relationship between the Law and righteousness in Philippians 3. Once we aren't trying to establish our own righteousness the power of His resurrection and His voice in the Law actually become liberating and the thing we are to pursue in becoming more like Him since it shows us how He is, and what image we are being conformed into. 

(Php 3:8) Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ
(Php 3:9) and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--
(Php 3:10) that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
(Php 3:11) that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
(Php 3:12) Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.
(Php 3:13) Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
(Php 3:14) I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Oh and may we never forget that every word of God to us is our food.

(Mat 4:4) But he answered, "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"





BTW, This is another post by Pastor Ramsey on Paul and the Law that I found quite interesting. 
Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5 | Patrick’s Pensees


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Rich:

And the reason, especially, that the Assembly was zealous to add that last clause to WCF 19.6 was because of the Antinomian controversy then raging, such antinomianism being one of its chief concerns. All of this is thoroughly addressed in Chad van Dixhoorn's dissertation on the Assembly and referenced in work that I have done in _Confessional Presbyterian_, also appearing in a different form in the just-published (by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht) volume, _Drawn into Controversy_. Several essays in here, including mine on the "Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ," McKelvey's essay, and others touch on the Antinomian crisis. It was also revived later in the 17th c. and was going on in the Massachusetts Bay Colony (Cotton, Hutchinson, et al.) and elsewhere.

The Divines, in other words, were quite well aware that the Antinomians were saying that if anyone claimed to do, or desist from doing, something because of the law, that they did not have the Spirit and were mere legalists, under the covenant of works. The Divines, then, troubled themselves to say, "No, because a man does or does not do something because of what God's law says does not make him to be one who is under law and not under grace." The Antinomians, claiming discernment, would call men false professors of Christianity when such men merely sought to walk according to the law in its third use. The Assembly took the time to deal with and publish other materials against the Antinomian party. And to make statements like that last clause in WCF 19:6., which, if you know the controversy at the time, was the nail in the coffin of antinomianism.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Oh yeah, And Pastor Ramsey did some blogs on the topic of this recent exchange between Sean Lucas and Evans. Sean communicated with Pat in them also. In fact Sean Lucas said this to Pastor Ramsey in the comment section of his last post. 

Sean Lucas _says:_
August 18, 2011 at 9:11 pm


> Hi, Patrick:
> Just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful engagement with what I wrote earlier this week on Ref21. I think of all the comments that I’ve read, yours were the most helpful in poking holes in my thinking, for which I am very grateful. Particularly on the historical matters, I tend to agree with you: I thought at the time my generalization about Baxter as neonomian would strike people who are Baxter experts as unfair; it is unhelpful to know that you felt the same about Crisp. Of course, they were generalizations; and of course, everyone in these debates affirms law and grace, indicatives and imperatives. (But what these things mean and how they play out are the questions; Aquinas affirmed the need for grace prior to the turning of the will, but how that happens is another question). But generalizations tend to fall apart when experts get involved; so I thank you for the corrections.
> Blessings,
> Sean


Here they are in order.



Evans, Sonship, and “Reformed Lutherans” | Patrick’s Pensees
Lucas Weighs In | Patrick’s Pensees
One Random Thought in Response to Lucas | Patrick’s Pensees
A Second Thought in Response to Lucas | Patrick’s Pensees

http://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/evans-final-contribution/


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because any claim that the law has "sanctifying power" is a real contradiction with Paul's comment that "if righteousness came by the law, Christ is dead in vain." (Gal. 3:21)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> I think we need to be careful of equivocation here. Paul does not always use Law in the same sense. I'm not speaking of the Law in the sense of that righteousness by which we attain to a righteousness that is acceptable to God.
> 
> I'm speaking of the Law in its third use, which assumes that the believer already possesses evangelical life and it is use in the upbuilding of the believer.
Click to expand...


Even restricting the meaning of "the law" to "the third use of the law" does not get us away from the problem Paul poses. In fact it makes Paul's point even more pointed. For if there is any sanctifying power in the third use of the law (and power is different from wisdom or light - see below), then Christ has still died in vain. Not in vain because his death did not achieve the human sanctification, but in vain because his death _would not have been needed_ for human sanctification to be achieved. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> I believe you even quoted Psalm 119 where the Law is said to upbuild and give life. It is in the third use that the Lord uses the Law to preserve and, as the WCF notes,
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other,* is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.*
Click to expand...


I find it noteworthy that the WCF does not affirm that there is sanctifying power in the law in the chapters on sanctification or the Law of God and also the answer to Q94 of the WLC explicitly denies that any can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law.



Semper Fidelis said:


> I actually find this last phrase pretty insightful. Notice how the WCF correctly notes that being "under the law" is equivalent to a covenant of works. Thuse in the final clause, it notes that the person who stands in relationship of union with Christ is not under law but grace. That's true even when the Law is being used by God for the spiritual upbuilding and preservation of the believer.



I agree with your understanding of the Divines here and I think their point is a biblical one.



Semper Fidelis said:


> Now, I am willing to modify my statement a bit because I can appreciate how it might be misconstrued. The ultimate sanctifying power is Christ's work in us. What I'm trying to note, however, is that there are no "magical clauses" or formula in the Scriptures where God can only use indicatives to sanctify us and not imperatives. God sanctifies us through His spirit. That sanctifying work includes both the facets of reflection on Christ's finished work as well as the other motivations that the Law gives to us to obey our heavenly father.



As I tried to say, I was taking your remark outside the debate not within it. I affirm as strongly as anyone that God uses the imperative commands of Scripture (and all other Scriptural motivations) to be part of the light to our feet and the lamp to our path that we need



> 97 Oh how I love your law!
> It is my meditation all the day.
> 98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,
> for it is ever with me.





Semper Fidelis said:


> Is this not noting that the law is making the psalmist wise? Is this not a sanctifying grace? Is this not evangelical wisdom? Of what kind of wisdom is this?



I affirm as strongly as anyone that the law shines forth light and wisdom from God both his people and to the world at large: and I affirm that wisdom and light are great blessings. But wisdom and light are not power to sanctify the believer and they must not be confused with it.



Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm reminded what Sinclair Ferguson noted. We have to always be careful in the Scriptures about who the audience is. The above can only be understood in the context of the person who has Christ as His head for all others under the CoW could not experience the Law in this way.



It is because I remember that Paul wrote Gal 2:21 to a body of people who, as Christians taught by the Apostle, would have known the third use of the law that I have written these posts.


----------



## TimV

Christ hasn't died in vain if the law sanctifies. That's just a misunderstanding of the difference between sanctification and salvation. If I don't marry a cow or my daughter I'm sanctified. If I steal old ladies' purses I'm not sanctified. Christ died to make me perfect in the sight of God. I'm saved even if I slip up and grab a wallet, or cuss God when I trip.

How can the law not sanctify one? How can one be sanctified without the law? Sampson was saved, even while drunk and in the arms of a whore. Can't I say he was low on the sactification scale at that time? And still be saved???

And the power to obey the law, while it comes from outside the law, and only by God's Spirit, doesn't change things.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> Even restricting the meaning of "the law" to "the third use of the law" does not get us away from the problem Paul poses. In fact it makes Paul's point even more pointed. For if there is any sanctifying power in the third use of the law (and power is different from wisdom or light - see below), then Christ has still died in vain. Not in vain because his death did not achieve the human sanctification, but in vain because his death would not have been needed for human sanctification to be achieved.



Tim,

I'm sorry but you are simply not understanding Paul correctly if you think that he's denying any sanctifying utility in the Law of God. Paul's concern can best be summarized when he exclaims: "Have you begun in the Spirit that you are now being perfected in the flesh." You are simply not doing faithful exegesis here to allow Paul to define his terms in one context and then allow for another use of the word law in another context. There is a vast difference between being "under law" and "under grace". 



timmopussycat said:


> I find it noteworthy that the WCF does not affirm that there is sanctifying power in the law in the chapters on sanctification or the Law of God and also the answer to Q94 of the WLC explicitly denies that any can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law.



Tim, forgive me, but I am really shocked by your appeal to WLC 94.


> Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law to man since the fall?
> A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law:402 yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.403


Attain to righteousness and life is not sanctification. I really do have some respect for you and this shocks me that you're failing to distinguish what the WLC is saying here about the moral law. It is stating that the law cannot save as a covenant of works. Note what the WLC does say:



> Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
> A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works,414 so as thereby they are neither justified415 nor condemned;416 yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good;417 and thereby *to provoke them* to more thankfulness,418 and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.419


The moral law is said to provoke the regenerate to thankfulness and conformity.

Your standard that one finds the phrase where someone actually says "the law has sanctifying power" neglects GNC. 2 Tim 3:16-17 states that ALL scripture _builds up_ the man of God and fully equip him. The Law is certainly part of Scipture.

If you think by sanctifying power, I mean that the words themselves contain some sort of force for the believer then I've already distinguished that I believe it is union with Christ through the Spirit that is the power of sanctification. Words of comfort or words of reproof are means to the end of sanctification and I'm willing to thank Christ for anything He uses to build me up to the perfect man.

As our Standards noe:



> Q. 38. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?
> A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death,144 give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession;145 and to satisfy God’s justice,146 procure his favour,147 purchase a peculiar people,148 give his Spirit to them,149 conquer all their enemies,150 and bring them to everlasting salvation.151
> 
> Q. 39. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be man?
> A. It was requisite that the Mediator should be man, that he might advance our nature,152 perform obedience to the law,153 suffer and make intercession for us in our nature,154 have a fellow-feeling of our infirmities;155 that we might receive the adoption of sons,156 and have comfort and access with boldness unto the throne of grace.157
> 
> Q. 40. Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God and man in one person?
> A. It was requisite that the Mediator, who was to reconcile God and man, should himself be both God and man, and this in one person, that the proper works of each nature might be accepted of God for us,158 and relied on by us as the works of the whole person.159
> 
> Q. 41. Why was our Mediator called Jesus?
> A. Our Mediator was called Jesus, because he saveth his people from their sins.160
> 
> Q. 42. Why was our Mediator called Christ?
> A. Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure,161 and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability,162 to execute the offices of prophet,163 priest,164 and king of his church,165 in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.
> 
> Q. 43. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?
> A. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in his *revealing to the church*,166 in all ages, by his Spirit and Word,167* in divers ways of administration,168 the whole will of God,169 in all things concerning their edification and salvation.*170
> 
> Q. 44. How doth Christ execute the office of a priest?
> A. Christ executeth the office of a priest, in his once offering himself a sacrifice without spot to God,171 to be reconciliation for the sins of his people;172 and in making continual intercession for them.173
> 
> Q. 45. How doth Christ execute the office of a king?
> A. Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself,174 and *giving them officers,175 laws,176 and censures*, by which he visibly governs them;177 in bestowing saving grace upon his elect,178 rewarding their obedience,179 and correcting them for their sins,180 preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings,181 restraining and overcoming all their enemies,182 and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory,183 and their good;184 and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.185



As I noted, I think you need to better discern the use of the word Law. There is a profound difference between being under law and being under grace. Of course the law can never perfect unto salvation but, as noted above "...officers, laws, and censures..." are used in the hands of Christ toward the Church's holy upbuilding. Laws and censures are sanctifying not in themselves but only insofar as Christ is our Covenant Head.

Let's put it this way. Let me grant for a minute that Gospel=the kerygma and was strictly limited to the kind of presentation one sees by Peter in Acts 2 about Christ's miracles, that He is God, that He died on a Cross, rose again, ascended on high, and now commands all men to repent and be baptized. There is neither converting nor sanctifying power in those words just because someone names them "Gospel". It is the Spirit that brings life through the means of these words. Yes, it the kerygma that the Holy Spirit converts unto but then, broadly speaking, the Old and New Testaments are plain that those who belong to Christ are built up by ALL scripture.


----------



## Peairtach

The moral law was written on Adam and Eves' hearts.

We are sanctified as it is _re-written_ on our hearts by Christ by His Spirit.



> And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. (II Cor 3:3, ESV)



This was also the case for believers under the Mosaic administration, but now that _the ceremonial form of the moral law_, written on stone and placed in the ark of the covenant is no longer with us, it has become more apparent. The types and shadows, to help a childhood Church, have been removed.


----------



## timmopussycat

TimV said:


> Christ hasn't died in vain if the law sanctifies. That's just a misunderstanding of the difference between sanctification and salvation. If I don't marry a cow or my daughter I'm sanctified. If I steal old ladies' purses I'm not sanctified. Christ died to make me perfect in the sight of God. I'm saved even if I slip up and grab a wallet, or cuss God when I trip.



I'm actually clear on salvation and sanctification. I think you misunderstood the implied premise: which was that if the law has any power to sanctify, all one has to do to be saved is follow it perfectly. As one follows the law (if the law has power to sanctify) one is increasingly conformed to the divine nature the more one does so and the vivifying circle continues until one arrives at holiness.



TimV said:


> How can the law not sanctify one? How can one be sanctified without the law?



One can't be sanctified without the law, but the sanctifying power is not in the law. Perhaps an analogy may make this point clear. Think of a blacksmith, a hammer and the anvil. All three are essential to the task of making horseshoes, but only one, the blacksmith provides the necessary power. While the other components are essential, they lack power. 



TimV said:


> Sampson was saved, even while drunk and in the arms of a whore. Can't I say he was low on the sactification scale at that time? And still be saved???


If anyone is elect they are elect from before the foundation of the world and remain elect through whatever sins they may commit. 



TimV said:


> And the power to obey the law, while it comes from outside the law, and only by God's Spirit, doesn't change things.



You have just made the single point I am trying to make. - If you say the power to obey the law comes only by God's Spirit you are not disagreeing with me at all, unless you contradict yourself and say that some other element in the process has inherent power.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tim,
In creation God spoke and it was created. The Word is connected to the creating power somehow. It seems to be a part of the whole of the source in creation. Would this not be true for us also. What do we do with Psalm 19:7 and the many other passages that we have quoted and you seem to be ignoring?


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even restricting the meaning of "the law" to "the third use of the law" does not get us away from the problem Paul poses. In fact it makes Paul's point even more pointed. For if there is any sanctifying power in the third use of the law (and power is different from wisdom or light - see below), then Christ has still died in vain. Not in vain because his death did not achieve the human sanctification, but in vain because his death would not have been needed for human sanctification to be achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> I'm sorry but you are simply not understanding Paul correctly if you think that he's denying any sanctifying utility in the Law of God. Paul's concern can best be summarized when he exclaims: "Have you begun in the Spirit that you are now being perfected in the flesh." You are simply not doing faithful exegesis here to allow Paul to define his terms in one context and then allow for another use of the word law in another context. There is a vast difference between being "under law" and "under grace".
Click to expand...


Rich, I affirm that Paul knew that the imperatives of the law would have a different result in lives of a believer and an unbeliever. But I still think my exegesis is fair: for *if there is sanctifying power in the law*, it is hard to see how Paul could have written: "Having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh?" as he did, because setting oneself to obey all the law would, in such a context, be a legitimate path to sanctification and holiness. Again, if we attribute sanctifying power to the law, it is impossible to see how Paul could have implied that Christians are not obligated to obey the whole law when he wrote: "every man who accepts circumcision . . . is obligated to keep the whole law." (Gal. 5:3) 

(Not for discussion but as background. There are additional problems that arise if we attribute sanctifying power to the law. For instance, exactly where is it? Is it scattered throughout all the stipulations of the Sinai covenant? The moral and the civil laws? Or does this power reside only in the moral law we keep today? If we choose the first answer we are Galatians, the second Theonomists, and so, as Reformed we must discover a biblical justification for the third alternative. Can we do it? I don’t know.)



timmopussycat said:


> I find it noteworthy that the WCF does not affirm that there is sanctifying power in the law in the chapters on sanctification or the Law of God and also the answer to Q94 of the WLC explicitly denies that any can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law.





Semper Fidelis said:


> Tim, forgive me, but I am really shocked by your appeal to WLC 94.
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 94. Is there any use of the moral law to man since the fall?
> A. Although no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law:402 yet there is great use thereof, as well common to all men, as peculiar either to the unregenerate, or the regenerate.403
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attain to righteousness and life is not sanctification. I really do have some respect for you and this shocks me that you're failing to distinguish what the WLC is saying here about the moral law. It is stating that the law cannot save as a covenant of works.
Click to expand...


It appears to me that you haven't fully thought through how a law with "sanctifying power" would function under the C of W. ITSM in that context, that if it were possible for fallen man to perfectly keep a law which possessed "sanctifying power" in itself, any man could attain to righteousness and life by a process in which the sanctifying power of the law would increasingly mortify sin leading to his increasing conformity to the divine character. How would such a process differ from the sanctification the regenerate experience in the real world?



Semper Fidelis said:


> Note what the WLC does say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?
> A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works,414 so as thereby they are neither justified415 nor condemned;416 yet, besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good;417 and thereby *to provoke them* to more thankfulness,418 and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.419
> 
> 
> 
> The moral law is said to provoke the regenerate to thankfulness and conformity.
Click to expand...




Semper Fidelis said:


> Your standard that one finds the phrase where someone actually says "the law has sanctifying power" neglects GNC. 2 Tim 3:16-17 states that ALL scripture _builds up_ the man of God and fully equip him. The Law is certainly part of Scripture.



I'm not sure that it does. For if we narrow the question to the means by which the law builds up the believer, as far as his sanctification is concerned, we discover afresh, as you agree, that the power to sanctify is not in the law but in the Spirit. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> If you think by sanctifying power, I mean that the words themselves contain some sort of force for the believer then I've already distinguished that I believe it is union with Christ through the Spirit that is the power of sanctification. Words of comfort or words of reproof are means to the end of sanctification and I'm willing to thank Christ for anything He uses to build me up to the perfect man.



Then there is no real disagreement present, either above or below. I'm just (strongly) suggesting that it may prove the better part of wisdom to refrain from attributing "sanctifying power" to the law. Why walk into a briar patch when we don't have to?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> Rich, I affirm that Paul knew that the imperatives of the law would have a different result in lives of a believer and an unbeliever. But I still think my exegesis is fair: for *if there is sanctifying power in the law*, it is hard to see how Paul could have written: "Having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh" as he did, because setting oneself to obey all the law, in such a context, would be a legitimate path to sanctification and holiness.



Tim, 
Isn't the passage in Galatians about justification and not sanctification Tim? Your exegesis is lacking brother. You are poorly attributing sanctification on this text. And the text is about circumcision and justification. Not about the sanctifying power of the law as you put it. 

Is not the decalogue a means of grace for the Christian to know God's Character and His will? If it is a means of grace then it has sanctifying power in the Spirit.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tim,
> In creation God spoke and it was created. The Word is connected to the creating power somehow. It seems to be a part of the whole of the source in creation. Would this not be true for us also. What do we do with Psalm 19:7 and the many other passages that we have quoted and you seem to be ignoring?



We simply interpret Scripture by Scripture and recognize that Scripture later goes into greater detail about how we are sanctified, matters not fully considered at this point in salvation history.


----------



## TimV

> I'm actually clear on salvation and sanctification. I think you misunderstood the implied premise: which was that if the law has any power to sanctify, all one has to do to be saved is follow it perfectly. As one follows the law (if the law has power to sanctify) one is increasingly conformed to the divine nature the more one does so and the vivifying circle continues until one arrives at holiness.



It's an hypothetical argument. No one can do it. At least no human. Christ did it, and that holiness gets imputed to us (unless your some sort of NPP freak). If Christ had broken the law, He could not have imparted His holiness to His people, so the reverse must be true, that His keeping of the law was righteousness. And our feeble efforts at keeping the law are graciously seen by God as works acceptable, or acting righteously, or in a sanctified or holy manner.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> I'm not sure that it does. For if we narrow the question to the means by which the law builds up the believer, as far as his sanctification is concerned, we discover afresh, as you agree, that the power to sanctify is not in the law but in the Spirit.


I've said that all along. I think the problem is that you very narrowly define "the law" as the Covenant of Works where neither Scripture nor the Westminster Standards do. If, by law, I only consider the law as a rule of life by which men might attain righteousness unto life then I fully reject any such notion. I do not believe that this is the only way that the Law is spoken of throughout Scripture. Again, all is conditioned upon being _in_ the Covenant of Grace first (being in Christ) and then and only then is there even such a thing as sanctification. It is quite pointless to speak of sanctification if one is not in Christ because the Law only condemns men. Sanctification is (and only can be) by the Spirit.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> In creation God spoke and it was created. The Word is connected to the creating power somehow. It seems to be a part of the whole of the source in creation. Would this not be true for us also. What do we do with Psalm 19:7 and the many other passages that we have quoted and you seem to be ignoring?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We simply interpret Scripture by Scripture and recognize that Scripture later goes into greater detail about how we are sanctified, matters not fully considered at this point in salvation history.
Click to expand...


Tim, you lost me on that one. Especially in light of all the exhortations about how scripture play a part in keeping the heart and feeding the soul. 



> (Jos 1:7) Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
> 
> (Jos 1:8) This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
> 
> 
> (Jos 1:9) Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.





> (Deu 8:3) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.



Tim,
You are way out there in my estimation. And your defenses are very lacking. This one didn't even make sense to me. I hope I am not that dense if you are speaking in a truthful manner. There are just too many passages in the Old Testament about how the Word of God (His Law) is life and how He uses it in the soul of man.

addition...
What is there not to consider about the sanctifying power of scripture in this passage. Are you implying that the following passage doesn't say anything or reveal anything about the sanctifying power of the Law of the Lord because King David at this time wasn't being precise about it? What scripture would there be to say or enlighten me as to how you would interpret this differently than what it says. The Law of the Lord is perfect reviving (converting) and making wise. I simply am not getting your point about interpreting scripture by scripture. And you seem to really be missing the point of Galatians 3 also. 


"The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward."


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rich, I affirm that Paul knew that the imperatives of the law would have a different result in lives of a believer and an unbeliever. But I still think my exegesis is fair: for *if there is sanctifying power in the law*, it is hard to see how Paul could have written: "Having begun by the Spirit are you now being perfected by the flesh" as he did, because setting oneself to obey all the law, in such a context, would be a legitimate path to sanctification and holiness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim,
> Isn't the passage in Galatians about justification and not sanctification Tim? Your exegesis is lacking brother. You are poorly attributing sanctification on this text. And the text is about circumcision and justification. Not about the sanctifying power of the law as you put it.
Click to expand...

 
Randy, I am not sure we can limit the subject of this text to justification alone.

For in v.2 we find "works of the law" opposed to hearing with faith as the means of receiving the Spirit. Then in v. 3 we get the second opposition "having begun by the Spirit" which is clearly justification and "are you now being perfected by the flesh." And if the Galatians were then presently-(the verb is present infinitive passive) trying to be perfected by the flesh in doing the works of the law, (which a lot of commentators, including some Reformed ones– e.g. Matthew Henry– agree that Paul here implies that the Galatians were doing this).

Now if one is trying to be perfected in the flesh is this not sanctification? 

As Longnecker notes on this passage: "The main point of Paul's rhetorical question here, however, has to do with the incongruity of beginning one's Christian life on one basis ("with the Spirit") then shifting somewhere in progress to another basis ("by human effort"). What Paul wants his converts to see is that the Christian life is one that starts, is maintained, and comes to culmination only through dependence on the activity of God's Spirit (cf. 5:25; also see Phil 1:6 where the same verbs. . . appear and where the point is made that completion of the Christian life comes about on the same basis as its inception, viz. by God's working). 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is not the decalogue a means of grace for the Christian to know God's Character and His will? If it is a means of grace then it has sanctifying power in the Spirit.



The single point I am trying to discuss is whether we may correctly attribute sanctifying power to the law alone apart from the Spirit. I am not saying there is no sanctifying power in the law when God works through it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> The single point I am trying to discuss is whether we may correctly attribute sanctifying power to the law alone apart from the Spirit. I am not saying there is no sanctifying power in the law when God works through it.


If that is your point then you've been shadow boxing Tim. I never stated anything other than the above. This is why I took such pains throughout this thread to emphasize union with Christ and then and only then did I attribute sanctifying power to the law insofar as Christ (our Covenant head) is sanctifying us by the means of the law.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tim,
You really didn't answer my question. This text is about falling from grace believing they were justified with works added to it such as circumcision. The Judiazers were telling them they had to be circumcised in order to be right with God. This book is about someone preaching a different Gospel which is no gospel at all. Galatians 3 isn't about our being conformed into the image of Christ in sanctification. In fact the book speaks about our sanctification and doing good which can be seen and is shown in the Decalogue as I pointed out what that looks like in Paul's writing to the Romans 13:8-10. 



> (Rom 13:8) Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
> (Rom 13:9) For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
> (Rom 13:10) Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.





> (Gal 5:1) Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
> 
> (Gal 5:2) Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:3) For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:4) Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:5) For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:6) For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:7) Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:8) This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:9) A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:10) I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:11) And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:12) I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:13) For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:14) For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:15) But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:16) This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:17) For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:18) But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:24) And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:25) If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
> 
> 
> (Gal 5:26) Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.





> (Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.(Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
> (Gal 6:9) And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.



Tim, Galatians 5 is a summation of the book and it's purpose. You can see what sanctification is as opposed to justification. Paul is combating false teaching about justification, not sanctification or being conformed to the image of Christ.


----------



## timmopussycat

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tim,
> In creation God spoke and it was created. The Word is connected to the creating power somehow. It seems to be a part of the whole of the source in creation. Would this not be true for us also. What do we do with Psalm 19:7 and the many other passages that we have quoted and you seem to be ignoring?



In creation we are specifically told that God's creating word did create the universe. But we are not told that all scripture sanctifies us by it's own inherent power. While it is clear that the Scripture has a role to play in our sanctification, where the specific question of the sanctification is discussed, the power is attributed directly to God and distinguished from our response: e.g. 2 Thess. 2:13's "through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth." 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> We simply interpret Scripture by Scripture and recognize that Scripture later goes into greater detail about how we are sanctified, matters not fully considered at this point in salvation history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim, you lost me on that one. Especially in light of all the exhortations about how scripture play a part in keeping the heart and feeding the soul.
Click to expand...


I'm not denying Scripture's role in keeping the heart and feeding the soul. But the psalmist is not directly going into the questions of *how* Scripture does this, whether by its own inherent power or by the Spirit quickening it to those who truly hear. It is at other places such as 2 Thess 2:13 where we learn that the latter possibility is correct. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> (Jos 1:7) Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.
> 
> (Jos 1:8) This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
> 
> (Jos 1:9) Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.
> 
> (Deu 8:3) And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.



None of these passages specifically include sanctifying power in the law.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tim,
> You are way out there in my estimation. And your defenses are very lacking. This one didn't even make sense to me. I hope I am not that dense if you are speaking in a truthful manner. There are just too many passages in the Old Testament about how the Word of God (His Law) is life and how He uses it in the soul of man.



Notice how you concluded your sentence: ". . . and how he (God0 uses it (his law) in the soul of man." I'm not denying that God uses his law. I'm just asking: if God is the blacksmith and his law is hammer, where does the power reside? In the hammer or the blacksmith? 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> addition...
> What is there not to consider about the sanctifying power of scripture in this passage. Are you implying that the following passage doesn't say anything or reveal anything about the sanctifying power of the Law of the Lord because King David at this time wasn't being precise about it? What scripture would there be to say or enlighten me as to how you would interpret this differently than what it says. The Law of the Lord is perfect reviving (converting) and making wise. I simply am not getting your point about interpreting scripture by scripture. And you seem to really be missing the point of Galatians 3 also.
> 
> "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward."



Although the blessings mentioned are great, they do not necessarily sanctifying power. "Reviving the soul" and "rejoicing the heart" may refer to our experiential warmness or coldness to things of God, which is something that must be carefully distinguished from sanctification. And wisdom is the capacity to see the best means to the best results. Similar comments may be made for the rest.


----------



## TimV

> But we are not told that all scripture sanctifies us by it's own inherent power



Why would anyone want to split God from His word? I can't believe any of the regulars here would do that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The single point I am trying to discuss is whether we may correctly attribute sanctifying power to the law alone apart from the Spirit. I am not saying there is no sanctifying power in the law when God works through it.
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your point then you've been shadow boxing Tim. I never stated anything other than the above. This is why I took such pains throughout this thread to emphasize union with Christ and then and only then did I attribute sanctifying power to the law insofar as Christ (our Covenant head) is sanctifying us by the means of the law.
Click to expand...


Tim, 

What conversation have you been having and who have you been having it with? As far as I can tell by your eisegesis of Galatians 3 we were having some of the same conversation but you were poorly defending your points. Now from reading your comment above you were shadow boxing. I can't tell who your foe was either. Especially since no one ever implied such a thing.




timmopussycat said:


> Notice how you concluded your sentence: ". . . and how he (God uses it (his law) in the soul of man." I'm not denying that God uses his law. I'm just asking: if God is the blacksmith and his law is hammer, where does the power reside? In the hammer or the blacksmith?



No one ever said the Law apart from the Spirit would sanctify anyone. But the scripture does say. 



> (Heb 4:12) For *the word of God is *quick, and *powerful*, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.



What you seem to be saying and arguing against is some kind of creation by mere words separated from the one who needs to be there to speak them. No one ever implied the Law can sanctify without the one who speaks the Law and is conforming us to His image by it.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure that it does. For if we narrow the question to the means by which the law builds up the believer, as far as his sanctification is concerned, we discover afresh, as you agree, that the power to sanctify is not in the law but in the Spirit.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said that all along. I think the problem is that you very narrowly define "the law" as the Covenant of Works where neither Scripture nor the Westminster Standards do. If, by law, I only consider the law as a rule of life by which men might attain righteousness unto life then I fully reject any such notion. I do not believe that this is the only way that the Law is spoken of throughout Scripture. Again, all is conditioned upon being _in_ the Covenant of Grace first (being in Christ) and then and only then is there even such a thing as sanctification. It is quite pointless to speak of sanctification if one is not in Christ because the Law only condemns men. Sanctification is (and only can be) by the Spirit.
Click to expand...


I'm certainly not defining the Law as the covenant of works but as the Mosaic law.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The single point I am trying to discuss is whether we may correctly attribute sanctifying power to the law alone apart from the Spirit. I am not saying there is no sanctifying power in the law when God works through it.
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your point then you've been shadow boxing Tim. I never stated anything other than the above. This is why I took such pains throughout this thread to emphasize union with Christ and then and only then did I attribute sanctifying power to the law insofar as Christ (our Covenant head) is sanctifying us by the means of the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tim,
> 
> What conversation have you been having and who have you been having it with? As far as I can tell by your eisegesis of Galatians 3 we were having some of the same conversation but you were poorly defending your points. Now from reading your comment above you were shadow boxing. I can't tell who your foe was either. Especially since no one ever implied such a thing.
Click to expand...


Sorry that's an error, I am having posting troubles here and am also on a tight schedule hence a little less careful. My last sentence should have read "I am not saying there is no sanctifying power present when God works through the law."

---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------
 Galatians is about more than justification. Chapter 5:16-6:10 makes this explicit.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> I'm certainly not defining the Law as the covenant of works but as the Mosaic law.


The problem with this definition is that it is not consistent with Christ's own Jewish division of the Scriptures which consisted of Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (TANAKH). Torah is what we translate Law and encompasses Genesis through Deuteronomy. Genesis 15 is part of Torah (Law) as an example.



timmopussycat said:


> Galatians is about more than justification. Chapter 5:16-6:10 makes this explicit.



Tim,

I fail to see how I could have more plainly presented what is in the Scriptures and is reflected in the Westminster Standards. I know very well that Galatians is _principally_ about sanctification. I'll leave it to the Spirit to guide you into Truth.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

timmopussycat said:


> Galatians is about more than justification. Chapter 5:16-6:10 makes this explicit.



Tim, I said this....


> Tim, Galatians 5 is a summation of the book and it's purpose. You can see what sanctification is as opposed to justification. Paul is combating false teaching about justification, not sanctification or being conformed to the image of Christ.



I am not denying sanctification isn't mentioned and truly urged according the Law as I pointed out above. But the portion of Galatians Chapter 3 you are using is primarily set up to defend justification by faith alone and that is the context of Galatians 3. It is in relation to Justification as opposed to being found right with God by being circumcised.

I agree with Rich. I think anyone reading this exchange can see what is going on. You have wrongly made some conclusions concerning some of the things that were being said and arguing against some things never implied in this discussion.


----------



## timmopussycat

Semper Fidelis said:


> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not defining the Law as the covenant of works but as the Mosaic law.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this definition is that it is not consistent with Christ's own Jewish division of the Scriptures which consisted of Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (TANAKH). Torah is what we translate Law and encompasses Genesis through Deuteronomy. Genesis 15 is part of Torah (Law) as an example.
Click to expand...

 
Rich, now I'm confused.

This discussion started with me querying the propriety of using the phrase: 


Semper Fidelis said:


> . . . the sanctifying power of the Law?


 
When you used that phrase I read “the Law” as a reference to the Torah, the Law of Moses, or the first 5 books of the bible, and I’ve been understanding and using those words in that sense ever since. Did I misunderstand what you meant by the term? If I did misunderstand, then what did you mean by the term the Law in post 889457?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Here is a good compendium of reading materials starting back in 2003 on the Justification/Sanctification discussion in the Reformed world.

A Guide to Recent Discussions on Justification and Sanctification - Historia Salutis


----------



## Semper Fidelis

timmopussycat said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> timmopussycat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certainly not defining the Law as the covenant of works but as the Mosaic law.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this definition is that it is not consistent with Christ's own Jewish division of the Scriptures which consisted of Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings (TANAKH). Torah is what we translate Law and encompasses Genesis through Deuteronomy. Genesis 15 is part of Torah (Law) as an example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rich, now I'm confused.
> 
> This discussion started with me querying the propriety of using the phrase:
> 
> 
> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . the sanctifying power of the Law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you used that phrase I read “the Law” as a reference to the Torah, the Law of Moses, or the first 5 books of the bible, and I’ve been understanding and using those words in that sense ever since. Did I misunderstand what you meant by the term? If I did misunderstand, then what did you mean by the term the Law in post 889457?
Click to expand...

I explained clearly what I meant Tim. I used it as shorthand for the fact that it is the Spirit that sanctifies the believer and that the Law of God can (and is) used by the Spirit to sanctify the believer. You have insisted (in your appeal to Galatians) on a single definition or use of the term. In other words, for you, when Paul speaks in a certain way for a given situation, the use becomes normative for all other uses of the term and, consequently, there is no sense in which the word can have a wider semantic domain by your myopic application from one context to all contexts. I was pointing out an example where the word Law has a broader definition and the use of the word needs to be understood in the context where it is used.


----------

