# Sonship



## Romans922

Can someone define/describe what 'sonship' is and the good points/problems with it?


----------



## Pergamum

The Sonship course is sort of an introspective study in grace. PCA pastor and missionary Jack Miller put it together and World Harvest Mission (a Presbyterian missions group I believe) uses it. 

SOme of its foci: Not living as orphans but as sons. In other words, we verbalize salvation by grace, but we base our happiness and our feelings of "Elect-edness" on our performance. If we have a bad day we think God hates us; a good day means that God loves us. The Sonship course buries these myths and stresses God's love for His children and how we should live in that grace. We are sons of God.

Key readings would be Luther's preface to his commentary on Galatians.


I am sure someone here will find areas to critique Sonship, but overall it is a good study into one's personal patterns. It is edifying and causes one to look inward at how they live out the graceof God in their life. Us "reformed" folks like to dot theological eyes, but to look inward at motivations and feelings (ohhh....) is a little harder for us.


I have listened to Jack Miller's tapes and read his wife's book and overall I think it is very good stuff, and very practical too.


----------



## clstamper

They are trying to create a "higher Christian life" within a Reformed context. So they believe that most Christians have all sorts of psychological hangups because they don't understand that they have been "adopted" into the family of God. They are "orphan" Christians who need to experience "sonship" to have a good self-esteem. 

People in this movement talk in slogans about how you ought to "preach the gospel to yourself" and whatnot. They overemphasize the doctrine of adoption to the extent that they wind up downplaying imputation. They give easy answers to hard questions. It isn't necessarily heretical, but it isn't very helpful, either. John Owen on sin and temptation deals with the same problems Sonship wants to fix, without the buzzwords.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, Jack Miller was fond of saying, "Preach the Gospel to yourself daily."


What's wrong with that?



I have never heard any downplaying of imputation. And what's wrong with phrasing things smartly so that people remember it?

It has seemed helpful to many people; and within the bounds of good doctrine. Are we not loved by God, or are we?


----------



## clstamper

Pergamum said:


> Yes, Jack Miller was fond of saying, "Preach the Gospel to yourself daily."
> What's wrong with that?



It's too glib. The Bible tells us to "pray without ceasing." There's a subtle difference from having a conversation with yourself. Besides, we have Word and Sacrament ordained as means of grace to present the Gospel to us.



Pergamum said:


> I have never heard any downplaying of imputation. And what's wrong with phrasing things smartly so that people remember it?



It is the same error of technique that shows up time and again in Evanglicalism. Everybody has personal issues -- and they don't go away if you throw proof texts at them. Sanctification depends on operations of the Holy Spirit, who is not bound to our agendas.



Pergamum said:


> It has seemed helpful to many people;



Well, they force-feed this stuff to missionaries.



Pergamum said:


> and within the bounds of good doctrine...
> we not loved by God, or are we?



Sure. My concern is that sanctification is not based on reminding yourself of your adoption.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Gentlemen,

I suppose it depends a good deal what one’s sources of knowledge are concerning this matter. One may hear (or read) a poor teacher on “Sonship”, or hear from an objector to the teaching, and have one’s views strongly affected, negatively.

Jay E. Adams wrote a booklet critiquing the movement/doctrine – called _Biblical Sonship_ – and then Ed Welch wrote a gentle and warm response to Adams, but strongly defending Sonship, which was distributed to CCEF faculty and a few others. Adams is sort of their grandfather, from whence they sprung, and they love him.

Those who know the materials that come out of CCEF know that a good bit of it is profoundly informed by the Sonship view of the Gospel. Two areas (among many others) involve the concept of “idols of the heart”, and the expulsion of these “lesser loves” by the power of a greater love. There is also an examination of this “modern” idolatry and how it affects what drives/motivates us, as in “what is the sin underneath the sins” we seem to persist in and have great difficulty mastering? I have seen the Sonship awareness bring light into dark regions of the heart, leading souls to genuine and healthy holiness. I rarely use the word “Sonship,” as it is simply the Gospel.

Another area is summed up in this brief meditation:

_Galatians 3:3 -- After beginning with the Spirit,
are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?_

Christians will always drift back toward a legalistic view of salvation. It starts subtly: our spiritual fervor, or devotion, or ministry involvement, or consistency, or new-found obedience really are signs of our Christian vitality. Before long, however, we begin to think of them more and more as the cause of our vitality.

Being right with God slowly drifts from grace alone to grace plus achieving this standard. At this point, Paul tells us we have created a false gospel, a gospel of law rather than grace. The same grace that began our relationship with Jesus is what keeps us in that relationship. "Lay your deadly doings down, down at Jesus' feet; / Rest in Him, and Him alone, gloriously complete."

From lesson Three -- In Line With the Gospel (Study: "A Community Which Serves God's Purposes"). Redeemer PCA, NYC​
In other words, in answer to this statement, “My concern is that sanctification is not based on reminding yourself of your adoption”, I would say sanctification is vitally connected to justification, which is a component of adoption. Even when I was an enemy, ungodly and a wretch, Christ loved me and called me to Himself with an irresistible love. He loves me not one whit less today than He did some 40 years ago when He first revealed Himself to me (in the midst of my vigorously arguing against the person bearing witness to Him!), and it is this grace first revealed when He justified me before the Father that is *even today* a mighty factor in my ongoing sanctification.

In the mornings, when, with my coffee and Bible, I seek His face and the intimacy of His heart, I am not deterred by the coldness and sluggishness of my own heart, nor by my poor performance in one area or another, neither by my knowledge of strong corruption within me, for I know His heart me-ward, and I remind myself – preach to myself, if you will – of His steadfast love:

Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why art thou disquieted in me? Hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise Him for the help of His countenance. (Ps 42:5)​
And I recall, sometimes on a field of spiritual battle, sometimes in a pit of devastating failure, sometimes in a fiery furnace of testing, “I am a beloved son, adopted into a royal family, clothed in a priceless garment made by the Son of God, cleansed in the very fountain of eternal life (Zech 13:1), and it is well with my soul! Nothing can separate me from Father’s love, for I am in His Beloved.”

When in Africa, encouraging my class of 40 men who were bound to shortly return to their villages (mostly in South Sudan) and likely opposition, and in some cases possible death, I would talk to them about how they looked in the eyes of angels – and the eyes of those in Heaven if those were given to see them – that they were royalty, not merely the simple villagers others, or even themselves, might look upon them as, but younger brothers of the Lord Christ, of whom the world is not worthy, and children of the great God, the Almighty Father, who from an eternal love of them adopted them to Himself in Christ Jesus. “Remember,” I would tell them, “remember who you are, _Whose_ you are!”

I, and many I come into contact with, have great need for sustaining power in tribulation, and this “Sonship” awareness of intimate fellowship with the God who gave His only Son for me braces my soul to stand in the evil day.

…the young King, He who is so glorious in majesty that the angels shield their eyes….leads His people into the fray against the powers of darkness – they having learned that the “jaws of death” are sometimes the bite of exquisite pleasure – and turn from the allurement of the world’s fair beauties to gaze, if but fleetingly, upon the smiling face of Him who flung forth the billions of galaxies, and the _Creator_ of all this earth’s pleasures; _His_ smiling approval is a beauty that satisfies the heart and steels the nerves; men and women both will walk through fire for His love. [from, “Battlefield of Beauty”]​
I suppose anything with a label given by men may be brought under suspicion (look, even “Presbyterian” is disparaged by some!), and sometimes rightly. But the gospel in its purity never – not in truth – and I see this teaching as the gospel, plain and simple.


----------



## Archlute

Chris's statements are really quite unfounded, and are a good reason why it is always better to read something for yourself, rather than to take someone's critique of it at face value. Miller's writings do have a definite piety to them that make the more intellectual and objective types within Reformed circles uncomfortable, and therefore to "pooh-pooh" them, but the substance of his writings are usually not very thoughtfully dealt with by his opponents. This goes for Chad Van Dixhoorn's attempt to critique Sonship in his WTJ essay as well, where not only does he not fairly represent, nor really seem to understand, the theology of Jack Miller, but also gives a one-sided interpretation of the WCF on the issue, ignoring significant statements therein which both simultaneously uphold Miller's theology and undercut his own critique. 

Sonship is not an attempt to create a "higher-life" movement within Reformed circles, but is indeed a helpful paradigm in Christian discipleship that places a renewed focus upon God's grace, and His benefits to us in our salvation, for dealing with the inevitable difficulties and setbacks that arise in the Christian walk. I have found the summary of "sanctification by faith" to be an edifying and thought provoking way of looking at the whole in summary fashion.

That is the basic message of Sonship; that not only are we justified by faith alone, we are also to progress in our sanctification by that faith, and to strengthen it by our knowledge of who we are in Christ.

Anyone who has a problem with that, has a basic problem with understanding the message of the Scriptures on the Christian life.


----------



## Archlute

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> I suppose it depends a good deal what one’s sources of knowledge are concerning this matter. One may hear (or read) a poor teacher on “Sonship”, or hear from an objector to the teaching, and have one’s views strongly affected, negatively.
> 
> Jay E. Adams wrote a booklet critiquing the movement/doctrine – called _Biblical Sonship_ – and then Ed Welch wrote a gentle and warm response to Adams, but strongly defending Sonship, which was distributed to CCEF faculty and a few others. Adams is sort of their grandfather, from whence they sprung, and they love him.
> 
> Those who know the materials that come out of CCEF know that a good bit of it is profoundly informed by the Sonship view of the Gospel. Two areas (among many others) involve the concept of “idols of the heart”, and the expulsion of these “lesser loves” by the power of a greater love. There is also an examination of this “modern” idolatry and how it affects what drives/motivates us, as in “what is the sin underneath the sins” we seem to persist in and have great difficulty mastering? I have seen the Sonship awareness bring light into dark regions of the heart, leading souls to genuine and healthy holiness. I rarely use the word “Sonship,” as it is simply the Gospel.
> 
> Another area is summed up in this brief meditation:
> 
> _Galatians 3:3 -- After beginning with the Spirit,
> are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?_
> 
> Christians will always drift back toward a legalistic view of salvation. It starts subtly: our spiritual fervor, or devotion, or ministry involvement, or consistency, or new-found obedience really are signs of our Christian vitality. Before long, however, we begin to think of them more and more as the cause of our vitality.
> 
> Being right with God slowly drifts from grace alone to grace plus achieving this standard. At this point, Paul tells us we have created a false gospel, a gospel of law rather than grace. The same grace that began our relationship with Jesus is what keeps us in that relationship. "Lay your deadly doings down, down at Jesus' feet; / Rest in Him, and Him alone, gloriously complete."
> 
> From lesson Three -- In Line With the Gospel (Study: "A Community Which Serves God's Purposes"). Redeemer PCA, NYC​
> In other words, in answer to this statement, “My concern is that sanctification is not based on reminding yourself of your adoption”, I would say sanctification is vitally connected to justification, which is a component of adoption. Even when I was an enemy, ungodly and a wretch, Christ loved me and called me to Himself with an irresistible love. He loves me not one whit less today than He did some 40 years ago when He first revealed Himself to me (in the midst of my vigorously arguing against the person bearing witness to Him!), and it is this grace first revealed when He justified me before the Father that is *even today* a mighty factor in my ongoing sanctification.
> 
> In the mornings, when, with my coffee and Bible, I seek His face and the intimacy of His heart, I am not deterred by the coldness and sluggishness of my own heart, nor by my poor performance in one area or another, neither by my knowledge of strong corruption within me, for I know His heart me-ward, and I remind myself – preach to myself, if you will – of His steadfast love:
> 
> Why art thou cast down, O my soul? And why art thou disquieted in me? Hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise Him for the help of His countenance. (Ps 42:5)​
> And I recall, sometimes on a field of spiritual battle, sometimes in a pit of devastating failure, sometimes in a fiery furnace of testing, “I am a beloved son, adopted into a royal family, clothed in a priceless garment made by the Son of God, cleansed in the very fountain of eternal life (Zech 13:1), and it is well with my soul! Nothing can separate me from Father’s love, for I am in His Beloved.”
> 
> When in Africa, encouraging my class of 40 men who were bound to shortly return to their villages (mostly in South Sudan) and likely opposition, and in some cases possible death, I would talk to them about how they looked in the eyes of angels – and the eyes of those in Heaven if those were given to see them – that they were royalty, not merely the simple villagers others, or even themselves, might look upon them as, but younger brothers of the Lord Christ, of whom the world is not worthy, and children of the great God, the Almighty Father, who from an eternal love of them adopted them to Himself in Christ Jesus. “Remember,” I would tell them, “remember who you are, _Whose_ you are!”
> 
> I, and many I come into contact with, have great need for sustaining power in tribulation, and this “Sonship” awareness of intimate fellowship with the God who gave His only Son for me braces my soul to stand in the evil day.
> 
> …the young King, He who is so glorious in majesty that the angels shield their eyes….leads His people into the fray against the powers of darkness – they having learned that the “jaws of death” are sometimes the bite of exquisite pleasure – and turn from the allurement of the world’s fair beauties to gaze, if but fleetingly, upon the smiling face of Him who flung forth the billions of galaxies, and the _Creator_ of all this earth’s pleasures; _His_ smiling approval is a beauty that satisfies the heart and steels the nerves; men and women both will walk through fire for His love. [from, “Battlefield of Beauty”]​
> I suppose anything with a label given by men may be brought under suspicion (look, even “Presbyterian” is disparaged by some!), and sometimes rightly. But the gospel in its purity never – not in truth – and I see this teaching as the gospel, plain and simple.







Great post, Steve. You have enunciated much of what I was getting at - we were just apparently writing our posts at the same time.


----------



## Mushroom

I went through the course some years back, and benefited from it, although I heard some criticisms of it that may have been valid in certain cases.

One part of the teaching is that in the verse...


> Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.


...you can replace the words circumcision and uncircumcision with anything. The Elder teaching the class, who felt I was a tad too strident (and maybe was) about being Reformed, asked me if I thought you could say, "Neither being Reformed nor not being Reformed counts for anything...". My reply was to ask if he thought we could say, "Neither being Christian nor not being Christian counts for anything...". He said, "Well, no.", to which I replied, "some of us consider those two statements to mean the same thing.". He was not pleased.


----------



## clstamper

Sonship uses artificial categories of "orphan Christian" and "adopted Christian." This bifurcation does not exist. Scripture knows nothing of it.

I am concerned that those who find this stuff compelling have missed something fundamental about the Reformed Faith. If one was legalistic enough to find it liberating, then there is a theological problem. There are basic questions that Calvinism answers:

What are we saved from?
How are we saved?
What are we saved into?

We have catechism for this. We have 450 years of Reformed teaching on these matters. We have 52 Lord's Days a year on this. When the orphan/adopted dichotomy sounds good, something is wrong.


----------



## clstamper

Jerusalem Blade said:


> There is also an examination of this “modern” idolatry and how it affects what drives/motivates us, as in “what is the sin underneath the sins” we seem to persist in and have great difficulty mastering?



This is introspective, moralistic and morose. You will drive yourself nuts that way. That's too much "experiential" and not enough "Calvinist."

Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness. 

Peter says we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. 

No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?


----------



## clstamper

Archlute said:


> Sonship is not an attempt to create a "higher-life" movement within Reformed circles



The analogy fits. The artificial dichotomy of "orphan Christian" and "adopted Christian" is nowhere found in Scripture. It originated with Jack Miller.


----------



## clstamper

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Two areas (among many others) involve the concept of “idols of the heart”, and the expulsion of these “lesser loves” by the power of a greater love.



These categories do not exist.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Christians will always drift back toward a legalistic view of salvation. It starts subtly: our spiritual fervor... or new-found obedience really are signs of our Christian vitality.



What? If obedience is obedience, it cannot be legalism. It just can't. While even our good works are affected by sin, others cannot judge another's obedience as legalism.


----------



## Archlute

clstamper said:


> That's too much "experiential" and not enough "Calvinist."



Spend some time actually reading Augustine, Luther, and Calvin and you will find plenty of experiential faith within their works - it's part of being human. Christians (even Calvinist Christians) live with emotions, fears, struggles, setbacks, joys, discoveries of the faith, you name it. If one is to assume a view that seeks to overcome those realities by denying them, than that one has just adopted a docetic view of the Christian life that seeks to eliminate our human experience by focusing exclusively upon the divine promises. We are the church militant, the pilgrim people living out a theology of the cross. Human frailty is a reality with which we contend. 



> Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.
> 
> Peter says we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.
> 
> No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?



I understand your zeal in living out the freedom of the Christian life, but nowhere do I see apostolic encouragement to "sin boldly" and treat it with lightness. We are to live boldly in the grace of Christ, and fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil with an equal boldness.


----------



## Archlute

clstamper said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonship is not an attempt to create a "higher-life" movement within Reformed circles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The analogy fits. The artificial dichotomy of "orphan Christian" and "adopted Christian" is nowhere found in Scripture. It originated with Jack Miller.
Click to expand...


Be a theologian, not a biblicist. Their are many categories in theological parlance that are not found in Scripture. The observation made there is founded upon the reality that many Christians live in their thoughts according to a view of life and themselves which is severed from the reality of who they have become in Christ. There are any number of realities for the Christian life that have been set before us in Scripture of which, in truth, many Christians need to be reminded.


----------



## Archlute

clstamper said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians will always drift back toward a legalistic view of salvation. It starts subtly: our spiritual fervor... or new-found obedience really are signs of our Christian vitality.
> 
> 
> 
> What? If obedience is obedience, it cannot be legalism. It just can't. While even our good works are affected by sin, others cannot judge another's obedience as legalism.
Click to expand...



It is a matter of motives, not practice. You can be obedient out of a legalistic drive, or out of a foundation of grace leading to thankful and joyful service. There is a large difference between the two, although the duties are the same.


----------



## clstamper

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In other words, in answer to this statement, “My concern is that sanctification is not based on reminding yourself of your adoption”, I would say sanctification is vitally connected to justification, which is a component of adoption.



Big red lights go off here. Sirens too. Justification is not merely a component of adoption. Instead, adoption flows from justification. 

Both are legal acts. Adoption lets us call God "Abba," gives us the inward work of the Spirit and unites us with the Church. Packer calls it "the positive outworking of God's justifying sentence."

Here's Hodge:

"Justification [secures] a restoration to the favour and fellowship of God. We become the sons of God by faith in Jesus Christ. (Gal. 3:26.) No one can read the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans without being convinced that in Paul’s apprehension a justified believer is something more than a pardoned criminal. 

"He is a man whose salvation is secure because he is free from the law and all its demands; because the righteousness of the law... has been fulfilled him; because thereby he is so united to Christ as to become a partaker of his life; because no one can lay anything to the charge of those for whom Christ died and whom God has justified; and __because such believers being justified are revealed as the objects of the mysterious, immutable, and infinite love of God__." (emph. mine)


----------



## clstamper

Archlute said:


> You can be obedient out of a legalistic drive, or out of a foundation of grace leading to thankful and joyful service. There is a large difference between the two, although the duties are the same.



It doesn't matter. All our works are stained by sin. To strain the stain is itself legalism.


----------



## clstamper

Archlute said:


> Be a theologian, not a biblicist. Their are many categories in theological parlance that are not found in Scripture.



If a teaching is not found in scripture or a consequence of it, it is not teaching. It is speculation.



Archlute said:


> The observation made there is founded upon the reality that many Christians live in their thoughts according to a view of life and themselves which is severed from the reality of who they have become in Christ.



Are you serious? Personal experience, even the experience of the finest Christians, is not a test of religious truth. Sola scriptura, 1 Tim 3:16 and all that.

What you describe is more extreme than Sonship. I sincerely doubt that World Harvest accepts that view.


----------



## clstamper

Archlute said:


> I understand your zeal in living out the freedom of the Christian life, but nowhere do I see apostolic encouragement to "sin boldly" and treat it with lightness. We are to live boldly in the grace of Christ, and fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil with an equal boldness.



The teaching is classic Martin Luther. I have the "Sin Boldly" motto on a beer bottle with his face on it. I am an experiential Calvinist, sure, but moralistic introspection is a ticket to the funny farm.

Christ already defeated the world, the flesh, and the devil. We are free from the curse of the law. Hallelujah!


----------



## Barnpreacher

This has been a tremendous thread, and I've been edified by both sides. Here's hoping that cooler heads can prevail and this thread can be finished with Christian charity because I would like to see the conclusion of this one.


----------



## Archlute

Dude, you're just shooting from the hip, and wasting people's time. Specifically, you're wasting my time. 

The only thing that I will even bother to respond to is your assertions in post #19, since those became a personal challenge of orthodoxy. If you want to be snide with your "sola scriptura and all that" remarks, then why don't you sit yourself down in front of the Gospel of Mark for the evening (from which I happen to be preaching this week), and see just how much Scripture itself testifies to the struggles, fear, and setbacks of being human disciples who only slowly gain in our understanding of the knowledge of Christ, and who have to be constantly reminded of our position in him. 

Although the Scriptures are our final source of authority, and the only revelation of man's salvation, it is rather myopic of you to insist that no theological understanding can be drawn from our observations of creation and human nature outside of the Scriptures. In basic theological terminology, which only the most strident biblicist will refuse to accept, this is usually called "General Revelation". 

By your reasoning you just called the Apostle Paul into error, because he makes it clear that there are things that can be known about God from the natural order (in Romans 1:18ff, 1 Cor. 11:14, etc.). You practically just called John Calvin himself a heretic, because he opens his Institutes with the assertion that a knowledge of ourself is essential in gaining a knowledge of God, that our impoverished and miserable state leads us to look upward to Him and his perfections, and that our smitten consciences testify to our sin and fallen state, and consequently our need of a Savior. Merely read through the initial chapters of Book One of the Institutes.

I have no idea who you are, or the reasons for your contentiousness, but if I were you I would sit myself down in Sunday school for a few weeks and learn a bit more of a posture of humility. Then when you have become teachable, go back and read the Scriptures and writings of Church history on this subject. They are of one mind that theological knowledge (although never perfect - for that matter, neither can our interpretations of Scripture be perfect), may be found through observation of self and creation, and this includes making deductions from our frail human experiences as we study the Scriptures. 

If you want to get confessional on this point, read the opening line of the WCF, which affirms the acquisition of theological knowledge (although not saving) from creation and providence, and the last phrase of 1.5 as well, which clearly states that our affirmation of the truth of Scripture comes not because it says that it is God's word, but through an experiential affirmation to our hearts by the internal working of the Holy Spirit. 

Then go back and read Calvin again. Then the Gospels. Then... You get my point.


----------



## Archlute

Barnpreacher said:


> This has been a tremendous thread, and I've been edified by both sides. Here's hoping that cooler heads can prevail and this thread can be finished with Christian charity because I would like to see the conclusion of this one.



There is a time and a place for coolness, but the arguments above should be conclusive regardless. 

If all of church history were conducted w/o passion, it would make for a rather boring read, don't you think? 

(btw, passion is part of our, and of Christ's, humanity - don't get all docetic on me!)


----------



## Pergamum

CLSTAMPER:


I agree with Archlute here. You definitely are shooting from the hip and wasting my time too. 


You are condemning Sonship and I would bet you have not even read of fraction of Jack Miller's material. 

You make broad sweeping generalizations. You quote some unhelpful info.


For instance...

"Sin boldly" emblazoned on your beer mug is, I am sure, quite a great witnessing tool. 


Introspection of what Christ is doing in your soul is vital. What does it mean to work out your salvation in fear and trembling after all? 

Much of the Christian life lies outside of learning your catechism. How do you mentally process disapointments in life? How do you handle those inner sins even when you can look holy on the outside? 


Also, "they" don't "force-feed missionaries" this stuff. Most of them eat voluntarily and love the stuff! Many I have seen have been profoundly blessed. It is an intense application of sound doctrine into one's personal life. Some Reformed like to live in the realm of the ivory tower, but Sonship forces them into the real world.

If you do not bow down before idols of stone, but your life is devoted to things other than Christ that are hidden deep in the heart, you might do well to do a little introspection.



Jerusalem's Blade assessment is right on, thanks for that most excellent response.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Archlute said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a tremendous thread, and I've been edified by both sides. Here's hoping that cooler heads can prevail and this thread can be finished with Christian charity because I would like to see the conclusion of this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a time and a place for coolness, but the arguments above should be conclusive regardless.
> 
> If all of church history were conducted w/o passion, it would make for a rather boring read, don't you think?
> 
> (btw, passion is part of our, and of Christ's, humanity - don't get all docetic on me!)
Click to expand...


Adam,

Forgive me for sounding overly-pious in my post. I think passion is a tremendous thing, and if you and clstamper wanted to literally duke it out in the ring I'd grab a box of popcorn and be on the front row. 

Seriously though, I was just hoping to glean some more from this thread before it came to an end. For the record, I agree with what you and Steve have been saying in this thread. I just wanted to hear more of where clstamper is coming from before things came to a halt.

Blessings, brother.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Pergamum said:


> Introspection of what Christ is doing in your soul is vital. What does it mean to work out your salvation in fear and trembling after all?
> 
> Much of the Christian life lies outside of learning your catechism. How do you mentally process disapointments in life? How do you handle those inner sins even when you can look holy on the outside?
> 
> Jerusalem's Blade assessment is right on, thanks for that most excellent response.





The verse that keeps popping back into my head throughout the course of this thread has been,

*Romans 6:11,* "_Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord_.

Though I don't know much about this specific teaching of "Sonship" this verse seems to fit what has been said about it.


----------



## turmeric

Chris,
For your information Jack Miller uses Luther's Commentary on Galatians extensively in his material. He is not teaching a "higher life" view of carnal/spiritual Christians; we experience both the feelings of "orphans" and "sons" in our relationship to God, because we still have indwelling sin - which this program never claims to eradicate. I don't think Miller is as precise as he might be in his terminology, and every teaching requires examination and balance with other teaching, but this isn't "higher life," believe me, I would know; I was steeped in that as a child.

What really bothers me though, is your tone. There's no excuse for calling anyone's orthodoxy into question here, it's not done on this board unless someone says something truly outside the creeds and confessions, which neither Adam nor Pergamon have done. This is a good way to draw negative attention to yourself here.


----------



## Archlute

Barnpreacher said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> This has been a tremendous thread, and I've been edified by both sides. Here's hoping that cooler heads can prevail and this thread can be finished with Christian charity because I would like to see the conclusion of this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a time and a place for coolness, but the arguments above should be conclusive regardless.
> 
> If all of church history were conducted w/o passion, it would make for a rather boring read, don't you think?
> 
> (btw, passion is part of our, and of Christ's, humanity - don't get all docetic on me!)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Adam,
> 
> Forgive me for sounding overly-pious in my post. I think passion is a tremendous thing, and if you and clstamper wanted to literally duke it out in the ring I'd grab a box of popcorn and be on the front row.
> 
> Seriously though, I was just hoping to glean some more from this thread before it came to an end. For the record, I agree with what you and Steve have been saying in this thread. I just wanted to hear more of where clstamper is coming from before things came to a halt.
> 
> Blessings, brother.
Click to expand...



No problem, brother. Occasionally, when my flesh gets the better of me, I have considered that a weekly bout in the ring with some of the local house church guru's would be a refreshing way to end the week.  Like I said, when my flesh gets the better of me. None of that is meant as a swipe at you, Chris.


----------



## clstamper

Archlute said:


> If you want to be snide with your "sola scriptura and all that" remarks...



Well, legalism that calls itself "freedom" is still not a good thing. The Reformed church is supposed to clear out those things, not make up extra-scriptural categories as a man-made meter of spiritual progress.


----------



## clstamper

turmeric said:


> There's no excuse for calling anyone's orthodoxy into question here, it's not done on this board unless someone says something truly outside the creeds and confessions, which neither Adam nor Pergamon have done.



You can't redefine justification as a function of adoption. You can't define Christian spirituality by your inner lights. That's truly outside the creeds and confessions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I must admit this orphan Christian thing does sound a bit off the wall. Does Jack Miller really use those words? It would probably be more in line to think of it as unpleasing to God and pleasing to God. Our confidence or assurance is based upon this sometimes. I am leary of this orphaned thing. Especially if we have the promise that he will never leave us or forsake us. I would chalk up anything that made one feel orphaned as unbelief and besetting. And that is unpleasing to God also.

Moderator stepping in here. Remember guys.



> (2Ti 2:24) *And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
> 
> (2Ti 2:25) In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;*
> 
> (2Ti 2:26) And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.



Knowing that this is how we should treat others outside of the faith, I believe we should be more gentle and loving towards each other. 



> (Gal 6:1) *Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.*
> 
> (Gal 6:2) Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
> 
> (Gal 6:3) For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.
> 
> (Gal 6:4) But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
> 
> (Gal 6:5) For every man shall bear his own burden.
> 
> (Gal 6:6) Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.
> 
> (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.
> 
> (Gal 6:10) As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pergamum said:


> CLSTAMPER:
> 
> 
> You are condemning Sonship and I would bet you have not even read of fraction of Jack Miller's material.



Where did Chris condemn Sonship? He affirmed it I thought when discussing it in relation to justification. 

He may have some problems with this kind of sonship teaching but I didn't see him condemn the biblical doctrine of sonship or adoption anywhere.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

clstamper said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, in answer to this statement, “My concern is that sanctification is not based on reminding yourself of your adoption”, I would say sanctification is vitally connected to justification, which is a component of adoption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big red lights go off here. Sirens too. Justification is not merely a component of adoption. Instead, adoption flows from justification.
Click to expand...


Chris,

What I had in mind was from Ephesians 1:3-6,

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.​
Perhaps I used the wrong word – component – when saying Justification was an element (could that be better?) of Adoption. In eternity past God decreed we should be His beloved children He would adopt to Himself by placing us within Christ, this even before the foundation of the world. In this light (I realize there are other approaches to viewing these things) adoption is the all-inclusive category of the “spiritual blessings” He bestows upon us, within which the subsequent blessings – whereby He effects His gracious plan us-ward – are then implemented.

I know most expositors of Ephesians list Election as the all-inclusive primary category of His blessings to us – and I agree with them – I vary from this only because I am here looking at the effect (toward ourselves) and not the cause (His decree).

Is not the grand view of these things the fact that in uniting us to His Son He has adopted us into His eternal family, seating us with the Lord Christ in heavenly places, even to share the throne with Him? And from which we have intimate communion with the great God, even our Father?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Regarding “orphaned” Christians, there is no such thing! *And yet*, there is much teaching – false teaching, really – in many churches which posit that our acceptance with God is based on our performance. In Arminian – as well many Charismatic – churches your standing before God depends on the quality and quantity of the effort you put forth in various areas of your life. I deal with casualties from this paradigm regularly. These Christians (and some of them are genuine) *feel* orphaned due to a false view of their standing before Him.

And who, even among the Reformed, does not struggle with this? In John 14:18 the Lord tells His disciples that He will not leave them “comfortless” (KJV); in others versions it is “orphans” (Greek: _orphanos_). We often may _feel_ this way, but it is a delusion, for we are loved more than we can know.

Is it that any new application of Gospel truth, to a new generation of lost sinners, will be termed “a novelty” and “not in the revered Confessions”? But if new applications of truth are in perfect accord with the biblical Gospel, leave them alone.

In this postmodern age I often use imagery from the horror genres to get across to those who think themselves “beyond good and evil” the actuality of their condition – the human condition! Yet some would think my talking in terms of the living dead – zombies, vampires, werewolves – is alien to the salvation message. Who is in touch with the spirit of our age (the zeitgeist)? Can it not be seen, a growing affinity in the culture (movies, books, TV, etc) for the “undead”? And, truth be told, the unregenerate human condition is one of the profoundest horror. And the Lord may be seen in a new light for such desperate souls, a bringer of life in the realm of death. May it not be that speaking in _ontologic_ rather than moral categories may reach souls hardened against the traditional gospel presentation?

If Sonship re-presents Gospel truths without betraying them, but simply recasting them in thought-forms amenable to our generation, what is wrong with this?

To be honest, I have not read any of Jack Miller’s stuff, though I have some books, and a Sonship workbook from World Harvest. I got what I know of it through many years of gospel preaching informed by it. I know it as the Gospel. Although I realize the pastor was deeply touched by the teaching. If in any particular I deviate from the Biblical Gospel, please let me know, and I will weigh it, and if I do err, will repent of it, for I am zealous to be found sound in my teaching by Him who will examine all who take upon themselves that office (James 3:1). But if my fresh applications of Biblical orthodoxy are sound, let me get about the business of seeking to “turn many to righteousness” (Dan 12:3), “and from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18) unmolested.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Sonship was discussed last year in a thread and Matt posted Chad Van Dixhoorn's article or a portion of it I think. 
Sonship Theology


----------



## Romans922

How does sonship deal with Definitive and Progressive Sanctification?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

I would say the same as the standard Reformed view. Per Hebrews 10:10, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all.” And 10:14, “For by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Christ’s perfection is imputed to those who are in Him.

Eph 4:15, we “grow up into Him in all things”; Romans 12:2, we are “transformed by the renewing of [our] mind”; 1 Pet 2:2, we are encouraged to attend to the Word, that we may “grow thereby”; 2 Pet 3:18, we are enjoined to “grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ”. And there are many other Scriptures which show that we progress in godliness, daily following Christ and denying our “fleshly” wills.


----------



## fredtgreco

Andrew,

The problem with Sonship is the same problem with most issues. Namely, Miller saw a need (moralism trumping the doctrines of grace) and posited a helpful solution, which later supporters took and ran with to the exclusion of all else. The problem is one of emphasis. So churches that are heavily into Sonship now downplay pointed application in preaching, downplay the imperative over against the indicative, and often limit themselves to trite applications _"cheer up, you're worse than you thought!" _(which is true, but not the whole truth)

The same (type) of criticism could be leveled at nouthetic counseling. This speaks why we must be balanced in our theology and try to fit everything into a "system" (or part of a system).

In this line Sonship advocates _tend_ to downplay (or ignore) progressive sanctification and bring definitive sanctification into every discussion. This is no more Biblical than it would be to focus solely on progressive sanctification to the exclusion of definitive sanctification.

Do yourself a favor, make a lunch or breakfast appointment with Bebo to discuss this.


----------



## Romans922

Thanks Fred, that is what I wanted to know.

I am preaching at a church tomorrow where their former pastor was big into Sonship. And I am preaching a classic imperative from Paul!!! I hope God blesses them!

Also, Continue to pray for the church in Tchula. I have been preaching there once a month and they are still looking for a Pastor. They have given up on some things in their worship (singing their Psalm and Doxology/Gloria Patri). Their piano player has been ill so they haven't done these things or become 'lazy' since about summer. Pray that God would raise the right man up for them.


----------



## Romans922

People who support sonship seem to need to read John Owen.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Perhaps Fred is right, and I should defer to his assessment. I have not been around many PCA churches, nor am I familiar with the various Sonship scenes. I have been blessed to have been under balanced preaching and teaching in my one church in the PCA, plus have my own sense of Biblical balance and seek to stay true to the gospel. I have not seen the aberrant forms of this teaching.


----------



## turmeric

Fred, thanks for some perspective.


----------



## Pergamum

I have not seen an overemphasis on Sonship in churches, but I am sure it is possible. 

I HAVE seen an overemphasis on the nouthetic counseling in some churches. Neither if these teachings are abberrant but the poster above was correct in that anything that is stressed too much to the exclusion of other things is a danger. This is not a fault of Sonship however, but those who are doing the over-emphasizing. The church always has the tendency to chase fads.

Puritancovenanter: Jack Miller spoke of some Christians who have an orphan mentality. Of course, a Christian is never an orphan. The whole of Sonship is a focus on grace. We as Christians can try to live out our lives in our own strength and Sonship stresses that God's grace is our foundation in justification and sanctification. Because we tend to feel more like the children of God when all things are going well for us, Sonship emphasizes that we are God's children as beleivers also when we have our bad days. I.e. God will not leave us or forsake us (we are His Sons, after all). 

That is Sonship's focus...certainly does not sound too devious, does it?

Also, remember that Sonship is the name of this grouping of studies by Jack Miller. It has realtion to, but is not totally the same as the doctrine of adoption in the ordo salutis. Jack Miller was not doing systematic theology; his focus was on how being in God's family affects us as we struggle through life. Thus, theological precision was not his emphasis.

Overall, there is nothing wrong with Sonship. 

We who like it do NOT need an extra dose of John Owen. 


Sonship is merely a practical and modern representation of the Biblical truths about our belonging in Christ. It is not Scripture and it is not the WCF. Jack Miller sometimes phrases things loosely but he is not a heretic or teaching bad doctrine. Everything therein is within the mainstream of sound teaching.


----------



## Archlute

fredtgreco said:


> Andrew,
> 
> The problem with Sonship is the same problem with most issues. Namely, Miller saw a need (moralism trumping the doctrines of grace) and posited a helpful solution, which later supporters took and ran with to the exclusion of all else. The problem is one of emphasis. So churches that are heavily into Sonship now downplay pointed application in preaching, downplay the imperative over against the indicative, and often limit themselves to trite applications _"cheer up, you're worse than you thought!" _(which is true, but not the whole truth)
> 
> The same (type) of criticism could be leveled at nouthetic counseling. This speaks why we must be balanced in our theology and try to fit everything into a "system" (or part of a system).
> 
> In this line Sonship advocates _tend_ to downplay (or ignore) progressive sanctification and bring definitive sanctification into every discussion. This is no more Biblical than it would be to focus solely on progressive sanctification to the exclusion of definitive sanctification.
> 
> Do yourself a favor, make a lunch or breakfast appointment with Bebo to discuss this.





Dear Fred,

I suppose that what you say about tendencies in the preaching of some could be true, having a more limited perspective on the PCA than yourself, but I have not seen this myself in the New Life churches at which I have been in attendance. These churches have had a very edifying and grace centered preaching paradigm, but have not cut out (or even down on) their applications/imperatives. I'm not denying that what you say is true, I just have not observed it myself in these churches. Of course, all three of these churches had a very solid eldership, two of them with seminary faculty on them. I suppose that without that level of experience and wisdom, a church could run in the direction that you are saying.

I am in full agreement with you on the balance issue, and that otherwise proper reactions to an error can overshoot at least in the second generation of its proponents, if not in the first. However, I would say that if Reformed churches err on one side or the other, most often it is upon the side of legalism. That may just be my experience from within a particular denomination outside of the PCA, but I have seen it on occasion from within the PCA as well (although very much less so). It also seems to be a historical pattern in Reformed churches much more so than falling into antinomianism.


----------



## turmeric

Fred and Adam,
Is Miller really saying that *justification is a function of adoption?* That goes beyond fuzzy language and lack of balance if he is. Can either of you shed some light on this, or is it addressed in the article mentioned at the beginning? Thanks!


----------



## Pergamum

Justification is a function of adoption?


Heh, I have never reador heard this in any SOnship materials. If it is true, give me a quote.


----------



## turmeric

Just asking.


----------



## Pergamum

Sonship teaches a biblical view of justification. 


Sonship is not a systematic theology book, but is an application of our identity in Christ as being a source of comfort in the trials of life. As we remember our place in God's family, we are less inclined to base our feelings on performance and can rest in our identity as sons.





A sidenote here: I have noticed that, especially for doctrinal dissertation papers, a favorite method is to find and sniff out insidious influences in otherwsie harmless and helpful teachings or modern presentations of the Gospel. In the name of discernment, we make boogeymen out of many good things. I remember not too long ago a brother wrote a dissertation focusing on errors in Jhn Piper's writing. Here too in this thread is a link to a doctoral dissertation claiming to see dreadful errors in Sonship. Differences in emphasis does not mean wholesale doctrinal defection,however. I think this is no more than young theologians tyring to test their chops and picking accepted teachings and "exposing" dreadful errors in these to prove their worth as theologians. These would-be theologians would do well to find better targets to flame.


----------



## clstamper

Pergamum said:


> Sonship is not a systematic theology book, but is an application of our identity in Christ as being a source of comfort in the trials of life.



All theology is systematic theology. Even Biblical Theology is systematic theology. To figure out who "we" are and what "our identity" is, you are doing systematics. What you are doing is cramming your emotional state into a legalistic straitjacket. Call me snide, but I don't think it is healthy.

Our problem is not just "idolatry," but sin. Talking about "idolatry" in an introspective sense makes things confusing. For one thing, people who worship idols are pagans, not Christians. 

So "our identity" is in the cross, resurrection and the promise of the Spirit at Pentecost. Justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. The entire reformation unites on that point. Adoption flows out of that.


----------



## turmeric

clstamper said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sonship is not a systematic theology book, but is an application of our identity in Christ as being a source of comfort in the trials of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All theology is systematic theology. Even Biblical Theology is systematic theology. To figure out who "we" are and what "our identity" is, you are doing systematics. What you are doing is cramming your emotional state into a legalistic straitjacket. Call me snide, but I don't think it is healthy.
> 
> Our problem is not just "idolatry," but sin. Talking about "idolatry" in an introspective sense makes things confusing. For one thing, people who worship idols are pagans, not Christians.
> 
> So "our identity" is in the cross, resurrection and the promise of the Spirit at Pentecost. Justification is based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. The entire reformation unites on that point. Adoption flows out of that.
Click to expand...


I mostly agree with you. When we were taught a modified-Sonship study on Galatians, the fact of our justification was stressed. Here's one thing we were taught - maybe you can show me how this is legalistic.

We were told that in the parable of the Prodigal Son, both sons were trying to get away from the father: the one by leaving, and the other by staying and doing right, but both sons were lost, and the father sought the return of both of them. It was easier for the one who ran away to realize he needed to return. The one who stayed home and "slaved" for his father had a harder time returning.


----------



## Pergamum

CLSTAMPER: You can call Sonship many things; but legalistic does not fit.

Calvin called the heart an "idol factory" - even Christian constantly has to fight the tendency for the heart to create idols. Why don't you dispute his terminology, which Sonship uses.

Sonship is completely in agreement with WCF on justification.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Chris,

Would you unpack this for me, please:



> What you are doing is cramming your emotional state into a legalistic straitjacket.


----------



## clstamper

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Chris,
> 
> Would you unpack this for me, please:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are doing is cramming your emotional state into a legalistic straitjacket.
Click to expand...


I don't see where Scripture calls us to do that sort of emotional hand-wringing. Yet Sonship treats it as normal, so I raise the issue.


----------



## Pergamum

CLSTAMPER:

Brother, I wish you would cut out the over-speak and deal with the issues. 

Your hyperbole won't win many friends and it weakens your arguments.


Emotional handwringing....legalistic straightjackets..... COME ON! Have you even read the Sonship materials!


The Puritans wrote many high and lofty writings. Why don't you tell them to come back down to earth and get off of their clouds and stop their pious bubblings over? 

The Christian life is emotional, and many people deal with many problems. A little introspection might do many of us a lot of good (for instance, looking into how our responses come across to others might be a nice start...)


Give me some specific ways in which you believe Sonship to be in error, and then proof it. Right now this thread is wasting my time.


----------



## turmeric

Alright, guys, let's ALL mellow out a little. I would be interested in a response to the specific questions asked.


----------



## clstamper

Pergamum said:


> The Puritans wrote many high and lofty writings. Why don't you tell them to come back down to earth and get off of their clouds and stop their pious bubblings over?



The Puritans wrote a lot of stuff, most of it out of print. In fact, vast quantities of material would be rejected by today's neo-puritan. This includes: the nature of the civil magistrate, political resistance, the nature of the church, opposition to clericalism, defense of the Lord's Day, opposition to sports, opposition to the prayer book, divine right of presbytery, natural law, and pointed criticism of Independents and baptists. Most "Reformed" people would reject all this outright, which is a good reason it says out of print.

Most Puritan writings reprinted to day are pastoral works that give a one-sided picture of how these people actually thought. So I don't think of them in the same way you do. As to Sonship itself, I don't know what I can say further that won't offend people.


----------



## VictorBravo

clstamper said:


> The Puritans wrote a lot of stuff, most of it out of print. In fact, vast quantities of material would be rejected by today's neo-puritan. This includes: . . . divine right of presbytery, natural law, and pointed criticism of Independents and baptists. Most "Reformed" people would reject all this outright, which is a good reason it says out of print.




Yeah, that John Owen desperately wanted to be a Puritan, but he was too nice to Bunyan. Cromwell, too, had a chance at establishing that "divine right" but blew it. 

Sorry, just had to point out that Puritans were not monolithic on these subjects. Now back to your regularly scheduled edifying thread. . . . .


----------



## turmeric

Chris,
There are lots of people on this board who don't have one good thing to say about Sonship - they're probably avoiding this thread. I think your theology is correct - and if the Sonship people are really saying that justification is a *component or result* of adoption, they're wrong, not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the moderatiors and most members. I was hoping you could unpack what's legalistic about the example I cited.

I probably shouldn't have an opinion about this anyway.

Blessings,
Meg Thomas


----------



## clstamper

Pergamum said:


> Calvin called the heart an "idol factory" - even Christian constantly has to fight the tendency for the heart to create idols. Why don't you dispute his terminology, which Sonship uses.



Sin is not a type of idolatry. Idolatry is a type of sin. The two words simply do not refer to the same thing.

I'll give you another example of Sonship sophistry from the WH mission statement:

"The gospel message we seek to proclaim is this: that the Kingdom of God has invaded this fallen and broken world and is driving back the forces of darkness"

What is this psychobabble about being "fallen and broken?" If that is our problem, we need drugs like wellbutrin and prozac. These are not religious matters. Do not pester your pastor about them.

Even as a Christian, I consider myself both justified and sinful. To call me "fallen and broken" is just plain rubbish. To use "fallen" in that sense makes human finitude to to be the problem. The term "broken" is undefinable; it means "I sometimes feel bad about myself."

Call me the chief of sinners. Call me a covenant breaker. Tell me my sins are like dirty rags. Just don't patronize me by telling me I'm "broken."


----------



## Iconoclast

*romans 6?*



clstamper said:


> Jerusalem Blade said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is also an examination of this “modern” idolatry and how it affects what drives/motivates us, as in “what is the sin underneath the sins” we seem to persist in and have great difficulty mastering?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is introspective, moralistic and morose. You will drive yourself nuts that way. That's too much "experiential" and not enough "Calvinist."
> 
> Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.
> 
> Peter says we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.
> 
> No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?
Click to expand...


CL, I am not sure of what you are saying here -Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly,- This does not seem to be what Romans 6 says when Paul ask's this question:

1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 

It seems like you are saying YES,SIN BOLDLY THAT GRACE MAY ABOUND MORE!

In Romans 6 sins dominion has been broken, so Paul answers the question with
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 


We are called to mortify sin.This requires us to seek God for the grace and strength to obey Him.
The objective truth of our justification,and our saving union with Christ does not excuse us from this reality of having our minds renewed and working out our salvation as He works in us,to will and to do of His good pleasure

9Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 

10For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 

11Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord

Maybe I am not understanding your posts,so perhaps you can clarify this for me.
You are not saying that if a person is living in habitual sin, he is saved anyway,are you? 

You posted this also [ No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?]
[/QUOTE]

All sins of an elect person are paid for and cleansed, but if a person is not pursuing holiness and mortification of sin in the life, Hebrews says this in chapter 12

14Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord: 


Let me know what I am not understanding in your posts, Thank you.


----------



## Pergamum

CLSTAMPER:


So, let me get this straight:

You call the less than precise wording of us being "broken" in sin as absolute rubbish... but then you tell us to "sin boldly" 

Ha, you are straining at gnats and condemning World Harvest, a good group, and then yourself advocating a position that could easily be misunderstood as advocating a light view of sin.



What is it about brokenness that is so objectionable? Due to the Fall we are sinners, we are imperfect and all we due is broken. Why make such a big deal about WH's use of "broken"?


----------



## clstamper

Pergamum said:


> You call the less than precise wording of us being "broken" in sin as absolute rubbish... but then you tell us to "sin boldly"



Yep. 

What on Earth is "broken" about being rescued from the outer darkness and delivered into fellowship with God and His church? Christ so preserves me that not a hair can fall from my head without the will of my heavenly Father. In addition, the Holy Spirit assures me of eternal life. I call that "repaired." 

Know what? The theonomists got one thing right: guilt manipulation is bad, even from within the church. You talk about knowing about your identity in Christ, so don't miss the obvious.


----------



## Archlute

clstamper said:


> I'll give you another example of Sonship sophistry from the WH mission statement:
> 
> "The gospel message we seek to proclaim is this: that the Kingdom of God has invaded this fallen and broken world and is driving back the forces of darkness"
> 
> What is this psychobabble about being "fallen and broken?" If that is our problem, we need drugs like wellbutrin and prozac. These are not religious matters. Do not pester your pastor about them.
> 
> Even as a Christian, I consider myself both justified and sinful. To call me "fallen and broken" is just plain rubbish. To use "fallen" in that sense makes human finitude to to be the problem. The term "broken" is undefinable; it means "I sometimes feel bad about myself."
> 
> Call me the chief of sinners. Call me a covenant breaker. Tell me my sins are like dirty rags. Just don't patronize me by telling me I'm "broken."




Maybe someone with your problem wouldn't feel patronized if they were told that they had diarrhea of the mouth.

You continue to attack practically every post on this board that I have read this evening, have nothing constructive to offer, and can't even get your theological terminology straight. My countenance has "fallen" that your record seems to be "broken".

To be a little more serious, fallen and broken are appropriate terms to use regarding all of mankind, and even in a certain regard to the Christian. Fallen merely points out the fact that all men have fallen from their original state, and being as that position from which we have fallen has yet fully to be restored, Christians may also properly be considered yet fallen.

Broken is appropriate as well. The antonym to "broken" is "unbroken/whole", or subsequent to a state of brokenness, "fixed". What this means theologically is that, as man has been broken by the fall into sin (or as older theologians used to speak, the image of God in him has been badly marred), so that original state will not be restored and perfected until our final glorification. Until then, while yet being moved toward glory in our sanctification and status as sons of God, we still remain broken in a very real sense. 

I find it ironic that you state "broken" to be an undefinable term, and then go on to provide your own rather amorphous definition, one which I am not so certain would be the definition that Dr. Miller would have given to it. It would be more helpful if you actually quoted larger sections of the passages which concern you in context for others on the board to interact with, otherwise your critiques seem to be unsubstantiated caricatures.


----------



## turmeric

MOD HAT ON

Adam, I truly hate to say this, but if I see another personal insult, i.e. diahhrea of the mouth, I will have to start dishing out infractions to whoever dishes out the insults. No exceptions.MOD HAT OFF

I wish I knew why threads about sanctification and union with Christ bring out such lack of charity in our writing. A person from the outside might wonder if we _are_ actually experiencing these things we claim. I guess it shows that it's not instantaneous...


----------



## Archlute

Well, Meg, I suppose that I am in good company, as Paul used offensive bodily imagery in a rebuke related to a sin that was in need of addressing (Gal.5:12). As well, since Paul commands us to imitate him as he imitates Christ, and Christ also used sharp language in his rebukes, I do not feel a need to be overly worried about this particular instance. Chris has been in repeated need of correction, and twelve of the thirteen lines which were posted above were more than within the bounds of appropriateness, as that term has been defined within the confines of this board.

What I would be more concerned about is you, being a woman, standing over a minister or any other man on this board, as one with authority, namely, as a moderator. I genuinely do not mean that as an insult or an offense to you personally, and I am sure that I would enjoy conversation with you apart from the social silliness of these online boards, as your demeanor is one of thoughtfulness and kindness, even as has been exemplified by this situation. Nevertheless, I think that the administrators of this board have done you a disservice by allowing you this position. Restrictions of authority in church life run throughout the life and relationship of the church body, whether formal or informal, whether meeting at worship or speaking on the street. A function of being a moderator is an exertion of some level of official authority over a body, forum, or debate, and, although I will respect your decision (having been placed there by others), I do not find it congruent with the order of relationships that should be found within the church.

If speaking those opinions causes a problem with my remaining here on the board, then it is probably time for me to leave. I do think that the critiques that have been raised regarding the PB in a related thread today have merit, and I have seen a number of otherwise fine men be removed from this group over the past several years merely because they did not fall in lockstep with the sometimes rather myopic opinion of the majority.

In fact, it would rather be a kind service to me if you would do so. I have a great deal more useful things to accomplish within the church than to debate second rate scholarship by laymen, or the ubiquitous threads that perennially arise upon Baptism (for crying out loud). This board can be an enjoyable outlet for the occasional tossing out of opinions and banter, but really takes itself more seriously and is more of a time waster than it should be. I have fallen into those traps myself on occasion, and it would be best to eliminate that for me now.

May God's blessings be upon you all, and please do not feel that this stepping out has to do with you personally, Meg, it was just the catalyst that has been needed to do something that I have been contemplating taking action on for the past several months.

Signing out,


----------



## VictorBravo

Adam, I agreed with your points on this thread, and I was glad to see you come back to the board a while back.

But this is really self-serving nonsense. Meg was enforcing the rules. She's a moderator duly installed by the owners of this board. This is not a church and your position as a minister does not change your status as being subject to moderation.

I'm really disappointed by the cheap shot. If you have problems with moderators and with how the board is run, you should have taken it up with the owners/admins. Instead, you decide to malign everyone who participates. Bad form, brother.

General Moderator Message: The moderators have been working hard at maintaining decorum and keeping the board from going off the rails. We have had to be clearer about the rules. Please read the forum rules and remember that all the moderators are trying to keep the peace without playing favorites. If you get stung by a rebuke, take it in that context. We make mistakes too, but put a lot of effort into doing it right. Feel free to PM me (or other moderators) if you think things are unjust, but public insults are not part of allowed discourse.


----------



## Pergamum

Turmeric is a girl? 

I thought it was a spice! 


...A spice girl!?!?


----------



## clstamper

turmeric said:


> I wish I knew why threads about sanctification and union with Christ bring out such lack of charity in our writing.



That's because these doctrines are not clearly taught in many Presbyterian churches. That is not just a New Life problem. It leaves a vacuum, so people get confused. I don't necessarily blame Sonship people for latching onto that stuff; I just wish they would plant themselves in deeper ground. Unfortunately, we live in an age of shallow soil.

John Owen on sin and temptation certainly helped me. In fact, this was the material that convinced me of the Reformed faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Archlute said:


> Well, Meg, I suppose that I am in good company, as Paul used offensive bodily imagery in a rebuke related to a sin that was in need of addressing (Gal.5:12). As well, since Paul commands us to imitate him as he imitates Christ, and Christ also used sharp language in his rebukes, I do not feel a need to be overly worried about this particular instance. Chris has been in repeated need of correction, and twelve of the thirteen lines which were posted above were more than within the bounds of appropriateness, as that term has been defined within the confines of this board.
> 
> What I would be more concerned about is you, being a woman, standing over a minister or any other man on this board, as one with authority, namely, as a moderator. I genuinely do not mean that as an insult or an offense to you personally, and I am sure that I would enjoy conversation with you apart from the social silliness of these online boards, as your demeanor is one of thoughtfulness and kindness, even as has been exemplified by this situation. Nevertheless, I think that the administrators of this board have done you a disservice by allowing you this position. Restrictions of authority in church life run throughout the life and relationship of the church body, whether formal or informal, whether meeting at worship or speaking on the street. A function of being a moderator is an exertion of some level of official authority over a body, forum, or debate, and, although I will respect your decision (having been placed there by others), I do not find it congruent with the order of relationships that should be found within the church.
> 
> If speaking those opinions causes a problem with my remaining here on the board, then it is probably time for me to leave. I do think that the critiques that have been raised regarding the PB in a related thread today have merit, and I have seen a number of otherwise fine men be removed from this group over the past several years merely because they did not fall in lockstep with the sometimes rather myopic opinion of the majority.
> 
> In fact, it would rather be a kind service to me if you would do so. I have a great deal more useful things to accomplish within the church than to debate second rate scholarship by laymen, or the ubiquitous threads that perennially arise upon Baptism (for crying out loud). This board can be an enjoyable outlet for the occasional tossing out of opinions and banter, but really takes itself more seriously and is more of a time waster than it should be. I have fallen into those traps myself on occasion, and it would be best to eliminate that for me now.
> 
> May God's blessings be upon you all, and please do not feel that this stepping out has to do with you personally, Meg, it was just the catalyst that has been needed to do something that I have been contemplating taking action on for the past several months.
> 
> Signing out,



Adam,

You and I have had it out in the past but were reconciled. I'll admit that the criticisms you levied at me were largely valid and caused not a small amount of reflection. I have nothing against you and am saddened that you're leaving.

I just spent all day yesterday on a long flight back to Japan and miss my family right now that returns after a week. I spent the last couple of weeks with family and a funeral and, frankly, stuff like this is much less dire to me than it might be at another point.

Frankly, on the scale of "silly hills to die on" this has got to take the cake.

If a minister walks into an establishment and breaks the "house rules" then gets indignant because one of the women who has authority over that establishment asks him to moderate his tone then it is laughable, frankly, to appeal to spheres of authority.

Put another way, suppose a Presbyterian minister walked into my house and spoke in a way that my wife did not like and she asked him to change his tone. If he came to me and told me that my wife needed to understand Biblical roles then I'd tell him that the person who didn't understand authority in this case was the man standing in front of me.

I've heard some military police relate a line that they used to tell senior Marines who used to get indignant that they were getting traffic tickets: "Sir, don't confuse rank with authority."

Be careful that you stand less you fall friend. I've noticed some dangerous parallels between you and some other young men who have studied much and have great talent and insight (which I believe you do) but became very pompous in their wielding of it. One of those is a dear friend who could never quite "make the turn" and has lost two pastorates in the process.

I do wish you the best in the years ahead but, mostly, that you'll mature to the point that you'll look back with sorrow over this post.

Blessings,

Rich


----------



## clstamper

Iconoclast said:


> What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? It seems like you are saying YES,SIN BOLDLY THAT GRACE MAY ABOUND MORE!



"Sin boldly" is classic Luther. He also said, "No sin troubles us as severely as the lust after divinity. Of course, the lust of the flesh is also a furiously strong urge, yet it is only a form (of sin) and nothing in comparison with spiritual lust or fornication."

The point is that as long as we wear mortal flesh, we will sin. Nobody escapes this. To expect otherwise is not healthy. Yet we have a Mediator and Redeemer in Christ Jesus. 

Here's more Luther:

Therefore let us arm our hearts with these and similar statements of Scripture so that, when the devil accuses us by saying: You are a sinner; therefore you are damned, we can reply: The very fact that you say I am a sinner makes me want to be just and saved. Nay, you will be damned, says the devil. Indeed not, I reply, for I take refuge in Christ, who gave Himself for my sins. 

Therefore you will accomplish nothing, Satan, by trying to frighten me by setting the greatness of my sins before me and thus seducing me to sadness, doubt, despair, hatred, contempt, and blasphemy of God. Indeed, by calling me a sinner you are supplying me with weapons against yourself so that I can slay and destroy you with your own sword; for Christ died for sinners. 

Furthermore, you yourself proclaim the glory of God to me; you remind me of God's paternal love for me, a miserable and lost sinner; for He so loved the world that He gave His Son (John 3:16). Again, whenever you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you revive in my memory the blessing of Christ, my Redeemer, on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins; for "the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all" and "for the transgression of His people was He stricken" (Is. 53:6-8). Therefore when you throw up to me that I am a sinner, you are not terrifying me; you are comforting me beyond measure.

See:
Luther's "sin boldly"


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Meg, this is regarding your post #58, which was responding to something of Chris’ earlier. (By the way, I appreciate your moderating the tone and content of the discussion when it gets out of hand.)

[Component: “a part or element of a larger whole”]

What is the _end_ of our faith? Is it not the salvation of our souls (1 Pet 1:9), the _finished_, _consummated_ salvation we partake of at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:9), and beyond?

Our justification before God in the days of our present life on this earth, is it not by faith in the Person and work of the Son of God, our Lord Jesus? Is this justification by faith the consummation of our salvation? Is it not rather a _means_ to that end?

And this finished salvation, of what does it essentially consist? Is it not that we have been predestined to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (Ro 8:29) – holy and without blame before Him in love (Eph 1:4) – in the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself (Eph 1:5), seated with Christ in His throne (Eph 2:5, 6; Rev 3:21), ever the members of the royal family of the Most High?

In _that_ day mortality shall be swallowed up of life (2 Cor 5:4), both hope and faith necessary no more, as we shall see that we have hoped for (Ro 8:24, 25) with our glorified eyes, laying hold of that eternal substance, not by faith but by sight, for the temporal will have passed away and the eternal become our life, no longer evidence unseen but seen.

Faith will have passed away in lieu of the beatific vision of the glorified saints. In that day justification by faith will have outlived its purpose, the work of redemption fulfilled to the uttermost, superceded by the unending life of promise, the Lord Almighty a Father to us, His sons and daughters by adoption, accepted in the Beloved, to the praise of the glory of His grace.

Justification by faith, that vital component by which God brought the adopted into His heart, will be swallowed up of immortality and be no more, while our family-relations as children and bride – His eternal purpose – effected fully to the joy of all, world without end.

Was not justification a means to this glorious end of union with the Godhead?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Chris, from your post #59:



> What is this psychobabble about being "fallen and broken?" If that is our problem, we need drugs like wellbutrin and prozac. These are not religious matters. Do not pester your pastor about them.



Perhaps the word comes from the Lord’s words, “He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted…” (Luke 4:18). Many such there are, and we do no violence to the truth to use the words of Scripture.

Proverbs 11:14: “Where no counsel is the people fall…” And I see multitudes fallen and in misery because the counsel of God is not given them.

If we use words from the Bible, and in the Biblical sense, please do not molest us with your proper aversion to “psychobabble” – for fallen and broken are Biblical words and ideas. I myself share your aversion to psychobabble, but this is not that.


----------



## clstamper

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perhaps the word comes from the Lord’s words, “He hath sent Me to heal the brokenhearted…” (Luke 4:18). Many such there are, and we do no violence to the truth to use the words of Scripture.



Are the words "broken" and "broken-hearted" referring to the same thing?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Chris, this is from your post #11,



> Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here in this world we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.
> 
> Peter says we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.
> 
> No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?




You say, “As long as we are in this world we *have* to sin.” Calvin said (commenting on Eph 1:20), “Though sin does not reign, it continues to dwell in us…” And Romans says, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.” (6:12) It’s a jive pleading for sin to say we “have” to, undermining our responsibility to live godly by saying *necessity is upon us* to sin.

And then you say, “This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.” Why then would Paul tell us to “…put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness”? (Eph 4:24) And later in 6:14 charge us to wear “the breastplate of righteousness”. You will note I am not talking _perfection_, but simple Biblical righteousness, spoken of all throughout the Scripture.

You overstate your case too many times, and this weakens it. As in the notorious,

"No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small?"​
Continually practiced sin *will* separate us from the Lamb – as in a mass murderer committing murder on the scale you present – for it is written, “Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.” (Eph 5:6) Of course such a one can repent and find redemption, but as it seems you are saying, for a professing believer to sin so (“us”, “we”), well, they are already separated from the Lamb, for such a continual practice shows a fruit incongruous with salvation. What I am pointing out here is your use of overstatement, which in our present discourse brings in an imprecision that renders it theologically useless.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

There are many who own no brokenheartedness, nor brokenness of life, and dreams, integrity, etc. They say , “I am whole, and well, and I will have no God reign over me.” The multitudes taken captive by the devil at his will (2 Tim 2:26), are these not broken humans, slaves to sin, blinded in their minds, to which we are to bring His word, that He might deliver the captives (Luke 4:18)? Some of these He Himself “brought down their heart with labour; they *fell down*, and there was none to help” till they cried out to Him.

Please, Chris, don’t mistake good words used Biblically for psychobabble. Judge righteous judgment.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

And a final word before I hit the sack (it is late over here in this part of the world). A little booklet I have on my shelves, _The Theology of Sonship_, by Neil H. Williams (World Harvest Mission; ISBN: 0971531900), says this,

The theological foundation for _Sonship_ may be summarized by the phrase, “sanctification by faith.”​
And then he goes on to elucidate this through Scripture, teaching, quotes from the Reformed community, etc.

Just to bring some focus to this discussion.


----------



## clstamper

Jerusalem Blade said:


> It’s a jive pleading for sin to say we “have” to, undermining our responsibility to live godly by saying *necessity is upon us* to sin.



I (actually, Luther) is merely describing reality. We are justified and sinful. Christian perfection is not available, as you say. So, yes, we will sin.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> And then you say, “This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness.” Why then would Paul tell us to “…put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness”? (Eph 4:24)



There's no contradiction. Even our best works are stained with sin. We are justified by somebody else's righteousness.




Jerusalem Blade said:


> And later in 6:14 charge us to wear “the breastplate of righteousness”. You will note I am not talking _perfection_, but simple Biblical righteousness, spoken of all throughout the Scripture.



I don't know what "simple Biblical righteousness" is. God's standard is perfection. He does not substitute an easier Law that we can fulfill to make ourselves righteous.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Continually practiced sin *will* separate us from the Lamb – as in a mass murderer committing murder on the scale you present...



It would show that one is unregenerate and needs to repent and believe the Gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Chris,

I think you need to study more and post less. What Steve stated is perfectly compatible with Romans 6 in contrast to your own post about the insistence that we must sin.

For somebody being prickly about using innocuous terms in sentences a certain way it would be quite easy for me to jump all over you for saying that we must sin when Romans 6 states that those united to Christ are slaves to Christ and slaves to sin no longer.

Nobody debates that perfectionism is impossible but your manner of stating it is inappropriate given Bibical and Confessional forms of expression.


----------



## clstamper

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The theological foundation for _Sonship_ may be summarized by the phrase, “sanctification by faith.”



"Sanctification by faith" is a classic Wesleyan teaching. See Warfield's _Studies in Perfectionism_. Maybe that is not what they mean?


----------



## clstamper

SemperFideles said:


> It would be quite easy for me to jump all over you for saying that we must sin when Romans 6 states that those united to Christ are slaves to Christ and slaves to sin no longer.



As long as we share the mortal coil, we must sin. Even our best works are unclean. This is good orthodox theology. Why does my quoting _Martin Luther_ affect you?


----------



## sotzo

Might I humbly try to offer a resolution to this issue?

The NT is clear on the indicative and imperative. We are justified children of God (indicative), therefore now go and live as children of God (imperative). 

Now, one of 2 possibilities exist if I am not living the imperatives. First, I'm not a child of God (the indicative is not a reality)...or second, I am a child of God and I am living as if I'm not. The antidote for the first instance is to trust Christ. But the example of the second is not any different...it is to trust Christ...that is, to hear the Scriptures say "you were once X, now you are Y". Is this not what every applicable epistle in the NT does when it admonishes its audience whether the Corinthians, Galatians, etc?

Now that being said, there are many reasons why a person would need to be reminded they are a child of God. Sometimes, it is because they are arrogant and need to be pulled back to understand their sin and the cost of their salvation. Other times, a person may indeed feel like they are not measuring up and they need to be reminded the Father's wrath has been exhausted on Christ (that is, they are a son...able to call on Him as their 'Abba'). Dr. Miller was merely trying to give pastoral counsel for the latter...taken to an extreme by applying Miller's sonship _a priori_ to every case of forgetting the indicative....not wise....but applying it in cases where that is indeed the root issue of one's heart...is wise.

The problem with this thread, In my humble opinion, is that it is discussing a doctrine outside of its application, to the extent that its extremes are taking a frontseat. And these extremes can only be agreed upon when applied to a certain circumstances (ie, within the context of the community of believers). It's like the worn-out unbelieving polemic against the Proverbs' use of extremes that you can see on many a bible-bashing site...for example, when the Proverbs say to "answer a fool according to his folly" and "do not answer a fool according to his folly". We could set up a thread to debate which one is correct only to find out that both are correct in certain life circumstances (which is the point of the Proverbs as wisdom literature).

I don't see this as relativism...rather it is inherent to incarnational living that is part and parcel of the NT Christian life.


----------



## clstamper

sotzo said:


> Dr. Miller was merely trying to give pastoral counsel for the latter...



Since Miller at his best is confusing and simplistic, shouldn't pastoral counseling use something else? (That "something else" is not a reference to the Jay Adams model, BTW.)



sotzo said:


> rather it is inherent to incarnational living that is part and parcel of the NT Christian life.



Uh, oh. "Incarnational living" is no better. It's a phrase that can mean all sorts of things. Only Christ is incarnate and our lives should look to the Cross, the means of grace, and the hope of glory. Please don't hate me. :-(

Also, on a fundamental level, there are problems with seeing one's emotional state (i.e., brokenness, frustration, identity conflicts) as a reflection of one's spirituality. Religious affections are certainly a big part of the human psyche, but not every personal problem can be reduced to spiritual categories.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

clstamper said:


> Since Miller at his best is confusing and simplistic...


Spoken by one who is both rude and incredibly simplistic in his approach.

Your problem, Chris, is not that you possess a grain of truth in what you say but it is just that: a _grain_. Your posts lack any mature discernment of the larger issue.

I'm finished warning you about it. Please see my post in the thread about the PB in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/oh-no-you-re-member-puritanboard-26093/

I'm not sure I have time for your method of "drive by" posting that is molesting many threads. You jump in, make terse statements that lack nuance while simultaneously casting ideas beyond the pale without justification.

Your posts indicate to me that you've studied much but comprehend in a very shallow way. Where you should be learning you presume to teach. I won't provide that venue for you for much longer.


----------



## sotzo

> Since Miller at his best is confusing and simplistic, shouldn't pastoral counseling use something else? (That "something else" is not a reference to the Jay Adams model, BTW.)



This is _at best_ ad hominem. No problem with it being your opinion, but I'm inferring from this post (and your others) you intend for your opinion to be a norm.



sotzo said:


> rather it is inherent to incarnational living that is part and parcel of the NT Christian life.





> Uh, oh. "Incarnational living" is no better. It's a phrase that can mean all sorts of things Only Christ is incarnate and our lives should look to the Cross, the means of grace, and the hope of glory. Please don't hate me.



No hate here. I think this discussion is great. Yes, the phrase "incarnational living" can mean anything, but let's not chalk up a term you may shun to deconstructionist nothingness. By it I mean, living out a doctrine within the community of believers...how Christ's incarnation means we cannot live incarnationally escapes me. I sure ain't gonna send a cup of cold water in Christ's name through cyberspace...must be done life on life.

You have a tendency here to assign certain terms to definitions that automatically disqualify them. Why is that? When I hear, "I got saved" that sometimes conjures up images of my Arminian upbringing and I tend to chalk it up to bad theology. Surely, there is a good and right use of the term "I got saved" that is outside of the categories of my narrow mindedness. Can we not do the same here?


----------



## clstamper

SemperFideles said:


> Your posts indicate to me that you've studied much but comprehend in a very shallow way. Where you should be learning you presume to teach. I won't provide that venue for you for much longer.



I take the classical categories, even with Luther for support, rather than accept contemporary constructs. I don't think calling me shallow for it is helpful.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

clstamper said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts indicate to me that you've studied much but comprehend in a very shallow way. Where you should be learning you presume to teach. I won't provide that venue for you for much longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I take the classical categories, even with Luther for support, rather than accept contemporary constructs. I don't think calling me shallow for it is helpful.
Click to expand...


Really? Labels are not helpful? Maybe you ought to heed your own advice then. It stings, does it not, when men incosiderately jump into something and malign you without seeking to understand your position?

I've seen at least 4 posts just this AM where you have labelled men in a shallow fashion. Indeed it is NOT helpful to label men. Hence, you are on notice that you will desist.


----------



## clstamper

SemperFideles said:


> I've seen at least 4 posts just this AM where you have labelled men in a shallow fashion. Indeed it is NOT helpful to label men. Hence, you are on notice that you will desist.



Let's talk about labeling. I have been defamed, called shallow, had my education insulted, my maturity mocked, and told I am everything but a nice guy, all in the name of Christian spirituality. Often people become emotionally upset about ideas that contradict their established notions, so they seek to shoot the messenger. Please understand the difference between clarity and tactlessness.

Rev. McMahon wrote:
"All this comes down to debate. Luther posted the 95 Theses on the door of Wittenberg hoping to DEBATE. His Theses were less than "kind" in many ways. His objective was to set forth solid biblical material (in his mind) and debate other to see where he may be right and where he may be wrong."


Instead of being shown how I'm wrong, I get vague accusations of incivility which have no basis in fact. If Rev. McMahon has a problem with me, he may call me direct. I'll give him my phone number.


----------



## clstamper

sotzo said:


> This is _at best_ ad hominem. No problem with it being your opinion, but I'm inferring from this post (and your others) you intend for your opinion to be a norm.




As I explained, Sonship posits orphan Christians on one side (bad) and adopted Christians on another (good). Calling that simplistic, as I did, is a fair conclusion. This is how the discussion started.


----------



## sotzo

clstamper said:


> sotzo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is _at best_ ad hominem. No problem with it being your opinion, but I'm inferring from this post (and your others) you intend for your opinion to be a norm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I explained, Sonship posits orphan Christians on one side (bad) and adopted Christians on another (good). Calling that simplistic, as I did, is a fair conclusion. This is how the discussion started.
Click to expand...


I understand, but even if one were to grant you the point that the Sonship material is simplistic, you are still equating "simplistic" with "untrue"...the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Unified in the risen Jesus, let's go in peace.

BTW, my pastor back home (Lakeland, FL) taught systematics at WTS in Dallas and attended Park Cities Pres. Sounded like some great work Park Cities was doing...also, Julian Russell was senior minister at a congregation here in Memphis and is now at Park Cities...he has a heart for urban ministry that is quite compelling and (more importantly) Christocentric.

Peace brother.


----------



## turmeric

Steve, I may be "all wet" here, but I'm wondering, might you be confusing *election* with *adoption?* I shoudn't be arguing theology with you, for the reasons which Archlute suggested before his departure, but I can safely say I have no trouble affirming that justification is a component of election, the election from eternity past. I'm not exactly clear on what adoption is, but I think it comes _after_ justification, at a later point in time.

I'm sorry Chris called you a Wesleyan - the Wesleyans _did_ talk about "sanctification by faith" but they meant something quite different than you do, I think.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Hello Meg,

Please, you are most welcome to discuss -- _and_ argue -- theology with me. This is an open discussion forum, both genders accorded exactly the same rights to participate and benefit from vigorous, gracious, debate. This is not a church situation where our respective roles might modify our conduct. I have found your remarks on various topics to be well considered and often edifying. Please don't hold back the intelligence you have by virtue of the Spirit of Christ indwelling you, and Christ's word in your mind and heart! It is "with *all* the saints [male and female]" that we "comprehend...the love of Christ" (Eph 3:18, 19), and the truths of His gospel.

To the point: Yes, you are right, election is the first all-inclusive category, of which justification is a component. Yet I venture to say that adoption is the primary purpose -- after God's glory -- of that election: "predestinated...unto the adoption of children" (Eph 1:5), and all the redemptive work of our Savior was done to merit for us what was required for that adoption to be realized. Thus the work by which we are justified is a component -- a part of the whole -- of the larger end, which is adoption. When all of faith is passed away as being of the age prior to Glory, adoption shall remain, our unending joy, and God's delight.


Chris,

I would think "sanctification by faith" the Biblical view of _all_ theological paradigms, as it is the Scriptural view. That it was part of the Wesleyan is no condemnation of it (even as the EO and RC holding to the Trinity is no condemnation of that). 

I was actually in the thrall of the Wesleyan perfectionism and Finney's Pelagian doctrine of self-effort and the will of man for too long (as a young Christian). So please don't assume I would have any friendship with Wesleyan doctrine, or even terminology. Sanctification by faith is to me a no-brainer, for we can receive nothing from God except it be by faith. As Paul says, "Are you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3) And in 1 Cor 1:30, it is Christ who "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption", and it is by faith alone we receive Him and His glorious benefits us-ward.

So sanctification by faith is a Biblically respectable doctrine, given its presence in the Reformed panoply of truth.


----------



## Iconoclast

*sin boldly quote*

CL, 
Thanks for supplying the sin boldly quote. I had not read that material before. When I looked at the section discussing the context of the two quotes you offered, I found a helpful explanation offered in the article
explaining that these quotes were not worded in the clearest way.
The idea trying to be expressed was that Jesus saves to the uttermost those that will come to God by Him.
Here is the part of the article that clarify's this;

For Luther, the remnants of sin were not a license to “sin boldly”. Commenting on Romans 7:17, the sins that remain in a believer’s life are there to be fought:

“Sin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. These would not be without guilt—for they are truly sins, indeed damnable ones — if the mercy of God did not forego imputing them to us. But He does not impute them to those only who manfully undertake the struggle with their failings and, calling upon the grace of God, fight it through. Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”[32]

“No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

Luther’s critics often quote this statement. The Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther's rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points.”[33] The above statement is a perfect example. The point Luther is making is not to go out and murder or fornicate as much as possible, but rather to point out the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s atonement. There is no sin that Christ cannot cover. His atonement was of an infinite value. That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

Clearly then Luther was not speaking against the idea of mortification of sin, or of the dominion of sin being broken in a child of God. No one advocates sinless perfection here. No one advocates a believer living a life of self condemning ,and morbid introspection leading to bondage. Chris let me ask you how you understand keeping a balance in these area's. Take some time to explain if possible how we are to follow peace with all men and holiness.
Or how we are to examine ourselves. I am thinking of the practical implications of almost every epistle that instructs us how we should live in light of the doctrine we are given by our Lord.


----------

