# Timothy Kauffman's Recent Critique of Brown, Tchividjian & Keller



## The Sola System

Today I received the latest issue of the Trinity Review in my parsonage mailbox, featuring the first half of an article by Timothy Kauffman (PCA), entitled: "Sanctification, Half Full: The Myopic Hermeneutic of the Grace Movement." The author focuses chiefly on the views of PCA Pastors Steve Brown, Tullian Tchividjian, and Tim Keller. After reading the rest of the article online, I felt compelled to post it with a hearty recommendation.

I am shocked that anyone would confuse the teachings of the so-called "Grace Movement" with the authentic Reformed faith, but I guess there are always new generations of naive Calvinists who are vulnerable to this stuff. Very sad!

Here is the link to the article: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=282


[PLEASE NOTE: The word "teachings" in paragraph 2 was substituted for the original phrase "overt antinomianism" at the request of an offended brother. I'm happy to comply!]


----------



## J. Dean

That would be an interesting read.


----------



## earl40

Is the article copywrited?


----------



## The Sola System

Sorry, I forgot to include the link to the article on the original post. It's there now.


----------



## Whitefield

earl40 said:


> Is the article copywrited?



Yes, but The Trinity Foundation gives this permission (found at bottom of web page):



> The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche.


----------



## earl40

I just read the first part on the charge of conflating justification with santification by Pastor Brown. Having sat under Pastor Brown's pastor for the past few years and hearing Pastor Brown preach I can see a huge problem that they are attempting to battle. This battle is how Christians are trying to be good not for The Lord's sake but with some kind of idea that God will love us more if we try to be good. Now the idea that God loves His children more BECAUSE they try hard to be good is predicating something on God (His love) that is dependent on the creature. 

We all have to remember that the faith that justifies is also the faith that santifies.


----------



## Jack K

To understand the "Grace Movement," you need to understand that these guys see a difference between _self effort_ in sanctification and a _relying-on-God, faith-based effort_. They condemn self effort as legalism, and instead urge a faith-based effort.

Kauffman sounds bothered by the Grace Movement's critique of self effort, supposing that it is against _all_ effort. Indeed, the Grace Movement may come off sounding like that sometimes, and ought to be more clear at points. But these guys aren't against all effort. They believe we cooperate in our sanctification. They just want to see it be more of a Spirit-dependent effort and one that draws more on appreciating our justification.

There's nothing wrong with that. I believe it is, in fact, very helpful to many believers. I wish Kauffman could acknowledge this, though I think he's right when he says the movement struggles to communicate these ideas without doctrinal confusion and in a way that doesn't suggest your sin might not be so bad for you.

To call Grace Movement guys "antinomian," though, is both unfair and itself confusing. None of them believes it's okay to sin, or that obedience doesn't matter. In fact, some of the most compelling teaching on obedience I've been exposed to, urging me to work very hard on it (in a relying-on-God way), has come from guys who're associated with the Grace Movement.


----------



## forgivenmuch

Jack K said:


> To call Grace Movement guys "antinomian," though, is both unfair and itself confusing. None of them believes it's okay to sin, or that obedience doesn't matter. In fact, some of the most compelling teaching on obedience I've been exposed to, urging me to work very hard on it (in a relying-on-God way), has come from guys who're associated with the Grace Movement.



Thank you. The label is absolutely absurd.


----------



## Andres

Jack K said:


> To call Grace Movement guys "antinomian," though, is both unfair and itself confusing. None of them believes it's okay to sin, or that obedience doesn't matter.


----------



## J. Dean

So is this more a question of presentation than of content?


----------



## Andres

J. Dean said:


> So is this more a question of presentation than of content?



I think so. I'm by no means letting Brown, Keller, and Tchividjian off the hook, because they have a responsibility to be careful with their speech, but I also don't think that any of those men fall into the category of antinomians, which by the way, I don't remember reading Kauffman make that accusation in the article (I read it pretty quickly), but it is a charge the OP leveled against them.


----------



## Jack K

Andres said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is this more a question of presentation than of content?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think so. I'm by no means letting Brown, Keller, and Tchividjian off the hook, because they have a responsibility to be careful with their speech, but I also don't think that any of those men fall into the category of antinomians, which by the way, I don't remember reading Kauffman make that accusation in the article (I read it pretty quickly), but it is a charge the OP leveled against them.
Click to expand...


You're right. Kauffman didn't make that charge in the article. And the article did have some worthwhile critique.


----------



## yoyoceramic

I admit that I only skimmed the article, but does Ken propose a hermeneutical remedy or recommendation for the preachers in question?


----------



## The Sola System

My apologies to anyone who is offended by application of the term _antinomianism _to the "Grace Movement". I am using this term according to its original meaning in the "antinomian controversy" of the 17th Century. I would encourage anyone who (A) has read Kauffman's article in full, and (B) has also read Ernest Kevan's "The Grace of Law" (a detailed discussion of the 17th Century antinomian controversy) to please point out where I have erred. Historically the term "antinomianism" refers to any concept of justification which tends to marginalize or downplay the believer's duty to zealously strive after holiness (and against all sin). Unless Mr. Kauffman is misquoting these men, it seems clear that this is precisely what they are doing.

At the same time, I realize that most people in the Church today (perhaps many in this forum) have only heard the term "antinomianism" applied to the even more radical idea that the Ten Commandments have become obsolete (or that "sin is okay" and "obedience doesn't matter"). In hindsight, I should have been sensitive to this fact and clarified that I do not believe that the men in question are guilty of _that _kind of antinomianism. Of course, being that this forum is entitled, "The Puritan Board", I would encourage you all to consult Thomas Watson's "Heaven Taken By Storm", which sets forth an entirely different view of sanctification than the one advocated by the "Grace Movement".

As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."


----------



## Andres

The Sola System said:


> As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."



Perhaps I am completely misunderstanding the context of this quote, but I don't believe it to be one that I'd agree with. How does our salvation cost us sweat? What can I possibly contribute to my salvation other than my sin?


----------



## The Sola System

With all due respect (and I am seriously NOT trying to sound demeaning in ANY way) I wonder how many members of _The Puritan Board_ are comfortably familiar with the concepts and phrases used by the _Puritans _to describe the Christian life. In this case (as throughout his book), Watson is speaking of salvation in the broadest possible sense, so as to include progressive sanctification, the believer's "running the race" to Heaven, and his "fighting the good fight" against the world, the flesh, and the devil (etc etc). The Puritans had no problem characterizing the Christian life as one of strenuous spiritual exertion, requiring us to "take up our cross", by God's grace "work out our salvation with fear and trembling", etc. Of course, the 17th Century antinomians had a fit over such language (though the Apostle Paul seemed quite pleased to employ it repeatedly).

I Corinthians 9:24-27
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.
25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.
26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air.
27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.


----------



## J. Dean

The Sola System said:


> With all due respect (and I am seriously NOT trying to sound demeaning in ANY way) I wonder how many members of _The Puritan Board_ are comfortably familiar with the concepts and phrases used by the _Puritans _to describe the Christian life. In this case (as throughout his book), Watson is speaking of salvation in the broadest possible sense, so as to include progressive sanctification, the believer's "running the race" to Heaven, and his "fighting the good fight" against the world, the flesh, and the devil (etc etc). The Puritans had no problem characterizing the Christian life as one of strenuous spiritual exertion, requiring us to "take up our cross", by God's grace "work out our salvation with fear and trembling", etc. Of course, the 17th Century antinomians had a fit over such language (though the Apostle Paul seemed quite pleased to employ it repeatedly).
> 
> I Corinthians 9:24-27
> 24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.
> 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.
> 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air.
> 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.


Agree completely, so long as it does not fall into the Wesleyan/Pelagian trap of works-righteousness (and believe me, it is EASIER to go down that road than one may think, even in an evangelical church).

In light of the fact that the church is encountering Federal Vision, New Perspective on Paul, neo-monasticism (see David Platt and Francis Chan who come across as advocating that all Christians are to be giving every spare cent they have to ministry), and other movements/ideas that at the very least give an impression of contribution to salvation via works, I can't really blame these guys for going this route. Yes, they may seem to stretch grace further than they ought, but didn't Martin-Lloyd Jones once say something to the effect of "if you're not being accused of being an antinomian in your preaching then you're not really preaching the gospel?"


----------



## Jack K

The Sola System said:


> My apologies to anyone who is offended by application of the term _antinomianism _to the "Grace Movement". I am using this term according to its original meaning in the "antinomian controversy" of the 17th Century. I would encourage anyone who (A) has read Kauffman's article in full, and (B) has also read Ernest Kevan's "The Grace of Law" (a detailed discussion of the 17th Century antinomian controversy) to please point out where I have erred. Historically the term "antinomianism" refers to any concept of justification which tends to marginalize or downplay the believer's duty to zealously strive after holiness (and against all sin). Unless Mr. Kauffman is misquoting these men, it seems clear that this is precisely what they are doing.
> 
> At the same time, I realize that most people in the Church today (perhaps many in this forum) have only heard the term "antinomianism" applied to the even more radical idea that the Ten Commandments have become obsolete (or that "sin is okay" and "obedience doesn't matter"). In hindsight, I should have been sensitive to this fact and clarified that I do not believe that the men in question are guilty of _that _kind of antinomianism. Of course, being that this forum is entitled, "The Puritan Board", I would encourage you all to consult Thomas Watson's "Heaven Taken By Storm", which sets forth an entirely different view of sanctification than the one advocated by the "Grace Movement".
> 
> As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."



Adam:

Yes, I'm familiar with with several meanings of "antinomianism." This is exactly why I suggest taking care with the term, especially when using it in a criticizing fashion. You run the risk of (1) being misunderstood and (2) unfairly injuring a Christian brother by causing others to think things about that brother which are untrue. Just the possibility of #2 would be enough to get me to use more precise words. Making accusations about fellow believers (even those who operate very public ministries) calls for extra care and precision, does it not? Or is defending your preferred use of a term more important than safeguarding your brother's name?

More to the point, though... You and I will disagree if you think telling believers to sweat more is usually the most helpful way to encourage stronger obedience. To take a more appreciative-of-grace approach does NOT necessarily mean you're downplaying the believer's duty to zealously strive after holiness. And a love for and reliance on the grace of God is not by itself antinomian in any century's sense.


----------



## The Sola System

Jack: I will edit my original post to satisfy your request. I still believe that the "grace movement" (as described by Kauffman) is demonstrably akin to 17th Century "antinomianism" (in a very _precise _sense). At the same time, it would be hypocritical for me to oppose antinomianism without being willing to mortify my pride and "go the extra mile" to maintain peace with a brother like yourself. Thanks for the reminder.

Dean: Agreed. Justification is free enough to _almost _sound antinomian and sanctification is strenuous enough to _almost _sound legalistic. Rest in Christ is all the more meaningful when you're running the race of faith.


----------



## SolaGratia

This is not the first time we talk about antinomianism and about Reformed folks who should know better but yet sadly teach antinomianism:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/antinomian-gospel-26246/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/law-gospel-65775/#post844768Samuel Rutherford (Christ Dying and Drawing Sinners to Himself, preface)

As Rev. Matthew Winzer pointed out quoting Samuel Rutherford:

"If Antinomians offend, or such as are, out of ignorance, seduced, hate me for heightening Christ, not in a gospel-licence, as they do; but in a strict and accurate walking, in commanding of which, both law and gospel do friendly agree, and never did, and never could jar, or contest; I threaten them, in this I write, with the revenge of good will, to have them saved, in a weak aim, and a far off (at least) desire, to offer to their view such a gospel idea and representation of Christ, as the prophets and apostles have shown in the word of his kingdom, who opens the secrets of the Father to the sons of men." - Westminster Divine Samuel Rutherford

"May God give grace and courage to show this gospel revenge upon Antinomian severers of law and gospel!" - Rev. Matthew Winzer


----------



## Unoriginalname

The Sola System said:


> I wonder how many members of The Puritan Board are comfortably familiar with the concepts and phrases used by the Puritans to describe the Christian life.


With all due respect, I think the problem is that there has been 400 years of protestant debates since that time so sometimes word choices that were very clear when they were written are read through the lens of today's debates and therefore misunderstood. I personally have found your comments on this topic to be very appropriate and agree with you in case you would think otherwise.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Jack K said:


> The Sola System said:
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies to anyone who is offended by application of the term _antinomianism _to the "Grace Movement". I am using this term according to its original meaning in the "antinomian controversy" of the 17th Century. I would encourage anyone who (A) has read Kauffman's article in full, and (B) has also read Ernest Kevan's "The Grace of Law" (a detailed discussion of the 17th Century antinomian controversy) to please point out where I have erred. Historically the term "antinomianism" refers to any concept of justification which tends to marginalize or downplay the believer's duty to zealously strive after holiness (and against all sin). Unless Mr. Kauffman is misquoting these men, it seems clear that this is precisely what they are doing.
> 
> At the same time, I realize that most people in the Church today (perhaps many in this forum) have only heard the term "antinomianism" applied to the even more radical idea that the Ten Commandments have become obsolete (or that "sin is okay" and "obedience doesn't matter"). In hindsight, I should have been sensitive to this fact and clarified that I do not believe that the men in question are guilty of _that _kind of antinomianism. Of course, being that this forum is entitled, "The Puritan Board", I would encourage you all to consult Thomas Watson's "Heaven Taken By Storm", which sets forth an entirely different view of sanctification than the one advocated by the "Grace Movement".
> 
> As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam:
> 
> Yes, I'm familiar with with several meanings of "antinomianism." This is exactly why I suggest taking care with the term, especially when using it in a criticizing fashion. You run the risk of (1) being misunderstood and (2) unfairly injuring a Christian brother by causing others to think things about that brother which are untrue. Just the possibility of #2 would be enough to get me to use more precise words. Making accusations about fellow believers (even those who operate very public ministries) calls for extra care and precision, does it not? Or is defending your preferred use of a term more important than safeguarding your brother's name?
> 
> More to the point, though... You and I will disagree if you think telling believers to sweat more is usually the most helpful way to encourage stronger obedience. To take a more appreciative-of-grace approach does NOT necessarily mean you're downplaying the believer's duty to zealously strive after holiness. And a love for and reliance on the grace of God is not by itself antinomian in any century's sense.
Click to expand...


One thing to note is that the term antinomian has always been a big accusation. If one would have asked Rutherford et al, to tone down the language because the people who believed and taught such could have their reputations injured, it seems that he would have responded with something along the lines of: "That is the point".

It really seems that your position and reasoning only makes sense if you believe that term antinomianism as used by Rutherford et. al is not a great error. If the original term referred to a great error while the contemporary term refers to an even greater error, then it seems that your argument against using the term today goes along the if the term thief was used to refer to those who only robbed one bank, while today it refers to those who rob at least five banks. Robbing five banks is a greater wrong. However, I don't see anyone gaining any traction in being offended that a person who only robbed one bank is being linked with those who have robbed five.

CT


----------



## Jack K

ChristianTrader said:


> It really seems that your position and reasoning only makes sense if you believe that term antinomianism as used by Rutherford et. al is not a great error. If the original term referred to a great error while the contemporary term refers to an even greater error, then it seems that your argument against using the term today goes along the if the term thief was used to refer to those who only robbed one bank, while today it refers to those who rob at least five banks. Robbing five banks is a greater wrong. However, I don't see anyone gaining any traction in being offended that a person who only robbed one bank is being linked with those who have robbed five.



Yeah, I don't think Tullian, Keller, and friends are making a "great error" by reminding us of the value for sanctification that's to be had in more fully appreciating the grace we've been given. There are plenty of great errors floating around these days and this, if it is an error at all, falls short of such greatness. You can debate its relative helpfulness compared to the "tell 'em to sweat" approach, but merely working to more fully appreciate God's grace is a good thing to do and, in itself, surely not a great error.


----------



## moral necessity

In my opinion, the writer of the article is inexperienced in his use of Luther. His attempted use of Luther to support the reformed view of Justification/Sanctification is mind-boggling to me, and probably anyone who has read much of Lutheran theology. Luther is nearly on a different planet when it comes to that topic. Take this example:

When Luther says, "Wherefore, if the question be concerning the matter of faith or conscience, let us utterly exclude the law, and leave it on earth; but, if we have to do with works, then let us lighten the lantern of works and of the righteousness of the law. So let the sun and the inestimable light of the Gospel and grace shine in the day, and the lantern of the law in the night…. This place, touching the difference between law and Gospel, is very necessary to be known, for it containeth the sum of all Christian doctrine. Wherefore let all that love and fear God, diligently learn to discern the one from the other…. Wherefore, when thy conscience is terrified with sin…[l]et the law now depart, and let the Gospel come…*ut…when external duties must be done, there is no time to hearken to the Gospel; then thou must follow thy vocation, and the works thereof.[48]",

the author goes on to say this:

"Note that Luther explicitly denies what Keller had him affirming. Keller had Luther affirming the need for more Gospel in this verse, but we find instead that Luther called for better instruction in both Law and Gospel for sanctification. Indeed we share Luther’s concern that some preachers, in their unbalanced hermeneutic, “do not explain the law and the promises of God to such an end, and in such a spirit, that men may learn whence repentance and grace are to come”:

Luther is not even talking about Sanctification, for he hardly ever did, nor is he being an advocate for the Reformed view of good works. Luther is speaking of doing good works in the Kingdom below for fellow man, and is saying that the Kingdom below has nothing at all to do with the Kingdom above, where the Gospel is. It's the Two-Kingdom idea that Luther is here teaching. Anyone familiar with Luther recognizes this topic as central to his theology involving faith and good works. Faith connects to Christ. Good works are good because they are useful to others, and involve your vocation, such as being a carpenter, a farmer, or a housewife. The gospel has nothing to do with these good works, he would say. Luther used to also say, "God doesn't need your good works, but your neighbor does." Again, it's the two-kingdom idea.



Another example: When Luther says this,

"For not one word of God only, but both, should be preached; new and old things should be brought out of the treasury, as well the voice of the law as the word of grace. The voice of the law should be brought forward, that men may be terrified and brought to a knowledge of their sins, and thence be converted to penitence and to a better manner of life. But we must not stop here; that would be to wound only and not to bind up, to strike and not to heal, to kill and not to make alive, to bring down to hell and not to bring back, to humble and not to exalt. Therefore the word of grace and of the promised remission of sin must also be preached, in order to teach and set up faith, since without that word contrition, penitence, and all other duties, are performed and taught in vain. There still remain, it is true, preachers of repentance and grace, but they do not explain the law and the promises of God to such an end, and in such a spirit, that men may learn whence repentance and grace are to come. For repentance comes from the law of God, but faith or grace from the promises of God, as it is said, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. x. 17).[49]"

The author goes on to say:

"To Luther, that “word of God” that sanctifies us must include both Law and Gospel—not Gospel only, and not “grace, grace, grace” only. Thus does Keller join Brown and Tchividjian in extracting a quote from its original context, pressing it into service for a new view on sanctification in a manner that the author explicitly rejected, and missing the original intent in the process."

Again, Luther is not even talking about Sanctification, for he hardly ever did. He is speaking against the teachings of his wayward student, John Agricola, and his followers, who said that only the gospel needed to be taught to unbelievers and no Law. It was unnecessary, Mr. Agricola said, to preach the Law at all to convert people. In response to this, Luther penned his work "Against the Antinomians", in which he rebutted this view and proclaimed that the Law was necessary to be preached prior to the Gospel. The law allowed us to see our sin more clearly and leads us to agree that it is wrong and brings the wrath of God down upon us. This terrifying of the conscience it produces is penance to Lutherans, and is relieved by the preaching of the good news of the Gospel. See the classical Lutheran Systematic Theology in 4 Volumes by Francis Pieper found here Amazon.com: Christian Dogmatics (4 volumes set) (9780570067153): Francis Pieper: Books Also note that Agricola is properly termed Antinomian, as he saw no place for the law at all for the Christian.


Regardless of whether the grace emphasizers or the sanctification emphasizers are right or wrong, it disturbs me when either party writes so emphatically about things they don't take the time to wade through on their own. If they haven't buried their minds in Luther's writings and those who write Lutheran systematics, at least some humilty could be added to say, "It seems to me that Luther could be saying something different that what the Grace Emphasizers are saying." It's not even like me to post with the sort of emphasis I am now, but, if I weren't extremely sure of it from my readings, I wouldn't. For anyone who differs from my take on Luther, feel welcome to search Luther's writings for yourself, as well as Mr. Pieper's Systematic. Luther's work "Against the Antinomians" can be found here: http://www.gracelutheranchurchglendora.org/Martin Luther/Vol 47 Antinomians.pdf I am willing to stand corrected with my use of these works if I am in error. But surely, most every Reformed reader should know that Luther is not the one you turn to for support of your Gospel/Good Works, Justification/Sanctification paradigm. If anything, he does support the Gospel Emphasizers more, as he separates Justification and Sanctification way farther than the reformed do, and is near entirely justification driven.

Overall, their approach to correcting those they differed with ends up making me somewhat suspicious of much else they have to say on the matter.


Sorry for the bluntness of my post, Mr. Kuehner. I mean no negativity or sharpness towards you. I sincerely welcome you to the PuritanBoard with genuine kindness and fellowship. I'm sure I can learn at your feet in many things, as you are soon to be a minister. Blessings and prayers for you towards that end.*


----------



## jogri17

I have never ready anything useful from the Trinity Foundation. I don't trust them.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

The Sola System said:


> As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."



Whatever sweat we produce will have no bearing on our salvation. As James explained in his epistle, works are the natural effect of salvation, not the cause.


----------



## Edward

I'm not a fan of either Keller or Tchividjian for other reasons, but add me to the list that the accusations here against these men is not fairly based.


----------



## Beoga

Bill The Baptist said:


> The Sola System said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever sweat we produce will have no bearing on our salvation. As James explained in his epistle, works are the natural effect of salvation, not the cause.
Click to expand...


So does sweat have no bearing in our sanctification?

When did salvation come to mean, and only mean, a past event (regeneration or justification) and no longer includes sanctification or glorification?


----------



## moral necessity

Beoga said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sola System said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever sweat we produce will have no bearing on our salvation. As James explained in his epistle, works are the natural effect of salvation, not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does sweat have no bearing in our sanctification?
> 
> When did salvation come to mean, and only mean, a past event (regeneration or justification) and no longer includes sanctification or glorification?
Click to expand...


I think there is warrant for both a narrow use of the word, and a broad use of the word. The narrow use would be something like the Philippian jailor, who asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, both you and your household." No mention is made of sanctification and effort. Yet, there is also a more overarching, summary use of the word as well, which encompasses the entire work of God in restoring man from his sin. A qualifier should always be used to make clear which we are talking about. Doing such would lessen much wrangling about words.

Sorry to intrude if your question was only meant for Bill.

Blessings!


----------



## Andres

Beoga said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sola System said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever sweat we produce will have no bearing on our salvation. As James explained in his epistle, works are the natural effect of salvation, not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does sweat have no bearing in our sanctification?
> 
> When did salvation come to mean, and only mean, a past event (regeneration or justification) and no longer includes sanctification or glorification?
Click to expand...


So you view sanctification and glorifcation as synergistic?


----------



## Beoga

Andres said:


> Beoga said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sola System said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Watson said, "Our salvation cost Christ's blood; it will cost us sweat."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever sweat we produce will have no bearing on our salvation. As James explained in his epistle, works are the natural effect of salvation, not the cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does sweat have no bearing in our sanctification?
> 
> When did salvation come to mean, and only mean, a past event (regeneration or justification) and no longer includes sanctification or glorification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you view sanctification and glorifcation as synergistic?
Click to expand...


Sorry, my question regarding the term salvation was one where I was asking why salvation has come to mean, almost exclusively, an historical even instead of present reality (sanctification) and/or a future hope (glorification).

With regards to sanctification I believe that we ought to be diligent to stir up the grace of God that is in us. Whether the label synergism is appropriate I leave to the scholars in academia decide.


----------



## Mushroom

My Pastor, preaching out of Galations 4, said today that three words that are contrary to the gospel are the words "do your part". I think that sums up my position in this discussion pretty well.


----------



## raekwon

"Grace isn't opposed to effort, but to earning."


----------



## Andres

Brad said:


> My Pastor, preaching out of Galations 4, said today that three words that are contrary to the gospel are the words "do your part". I think that sums up my position in this discussion pretty well.



I'm buyin' what your pastor's sellin'.


----------



## AlexanderHenderson1647

I'm plagiarizing : ) Where is that quote from, Raekwon?


----------



## MW

Brad said:


> My Pastor, preaching out of Galations 4, said today that three words that are contrary to the gospel are the words "do your part". I think that sums up my position in this discussion pretty well.



Faith is necessary on the sinner's part to receive the righteousness of Christ for justification. It is certainly the gift of God, but that does not negate the fact that believing in Christ is something which must be done on the sinner's part. And then we might ask, What has happened to repentance? "Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ" (WCF 15.1).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

raekwon said:


> "Grace isn't opposed to effort, but to earning."


AMEN!



Brad said:


> My Pastor, preaching out of Galations 4, said today that three words that are contrary to the gospel are the words "do your part". I think that sums up my position in this discussion pretty well.



Jesus said we had to pick up our Cross and follow Him. Is that not our part? I also had to receive Christ. But as many as received Him... Yes, these are responses as a child responds to a spank on the rear to get him to breath after he breaks the matrix. The Lord looks upon the heart for a reason. Why did God pick David over his brothers? 

This was a great passage to bring up as someone else did.


> (2Ti 1:6) Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.



Now our justification is not based upon any work of righteousness. But if we want to be delivered on this side from the daily ramifications of sin we need to obey Him. 

Why would God tell us the things he does in 1 Corinthians 10 that He does if we didn't have some responsibility to seek a daily salvation from the sin that so easily can beset us as Hebrews states.



> (1Co 10:6) Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
> 
> (1Co 10:7) Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:8) Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:9) Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:10) Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:11) Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:12) Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:13) *There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.*
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:14) Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
> 
> 
> (1Co 10:15) I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.



*When the Church makes salvation and the Gospel just about justification they do the Church a great disservice.*

BTW, What is grace? I posted two blogs on this topic. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...s-been-dumbed-down-moderns-my-estimation-596/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/concerning-jonah-grace-599/


----------



## Pilgrim

raekwon said:


> "Grace isn't opposed to effort, but to earning."



Thanks for the quote, brother. This is the vital distinction that is too often missed in this discussion. It's one that I find is particularly difficult to grasp on the part of those whose conception of Christianity prior to coming to some kind of Reformed view really was some kind of legalism, whether of the Romish, extreme fundamentalist or pentecostal variety. 

I agree with the OP that there are similarities to the older practical antinomianism here. While the doctrinal differences on a formal level are more clear, I also don't find it surprising that dispensationalists (especially of the DTS variety as opposed to MacArthur types) who are coming to an appreciation of the Doctrines of Grace are frequently gung ho for the teachings espoused by those criticized in the OP. On the other hand, they don't hesitate to deem real Puritanism to be legalism. They've usually never heard of the Third Use of the Law and when explained to them they usually recoil at it. OTOH, the "New Calvinists" who have to formally subscribe to the WCF will pay lip service to it but at noted on this site previously, they sometimes redefine it into something else. 

I am thankful for those who have been delivered from genuine legalism by the teachings of Brown, Tchidvidjan, et al. But Reformed teaching it ain't on this point.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pilgrim said:


> I am thankful for those who have been delivered from genuine legalism by the teachings of Brown, Tchidvidjan, et al. But Reformed teaching it ain't on this point.



I agree Chris. Even when it comes against the Roman Catholic Church. But at the same time a hero is hero. I can say the same thing against Wesley, Finney, and Keith Green. I will even say this in controversies that our Divines dealt with. They did it in our most Biblical Confessions. But a loose interpretation rendered many bad things even my life. St. Paul tried to deliver us from legalism as did the other Apostles. But they didn't narrow the scope of the Gospel to legalism nor antinomianism. The scriptures bear this out as do our Confessions of the 1689 and WCF.

The grace presented in my early days and the gospel presented now days as opposed to when I first came came to Christ was not the Gospel of the Bible. The Gospel of the Bible is as much outward as it is inward. And believe me, I don't have it all figured out.


----------



## Jack K

Brad said:


> My Pastor, preaching out of Galations 4, said today that three words that are contrary to the gospel are the words "do your part". I think that sums up my position in this discussion pretty well.



Well said.

Yes, we all argee that faith and repentance are necessary. I'm sure Brad's pastor does, too. I suppose we could add a number of good qualifiers to this statement.

But I know what he means. There are many, many people who believe they have to show a certain amount of good faith effort toward trying to be good and, if it's enough effort, God will approve and take things the rest of the way. This is indeed contrary to the gospel.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jack K said:


> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Pastor, preaching out of Galations 4, said today that three words that are contrary to the gospel are the words "do your part". I think that sums up my position in this discussion pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose we could add a number of good qualifiers to this statement.
Click to expand...


Tell me Jack. What are those qualifiers for defining faith and grace? _ Did you brainstorm this?_


----------



## Jack K

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad said:
> 
> 
> 
> My Pastor, preaching out of Galations 4, said today that three words that are contrary to the gospel are the words "do your part". I think that sums up my position in this discussion pretty well.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose we could add a number of good qualifiers to this statement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me Jack. What are those qualifiers for defining faith and grace? _ Did you brainstorm this?_
Click to expand...


Not sure what you're looking for.

I just meant to say that I assume the statement that "do your part" is contrary to the gospel...

- did not mean to imply faith isn't necessary.
- did not mean to imply repentance isn't necessary.
- did not mean to imply we don't participate in sanctification.
- did not mean to imply... (you name it, we could go on)

Qualifiers. We could add them ad infinitum as we think of ways folks might misunderstand the statement. But if we always add all the possible qualifiers, the statement loses its punch. I think I understand what Brad and his pastor meant without them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jack K said:


> Qualifiers. We could add them ad infinitum as we think of ways folks might misunderstand the statement. But if we always add all the possible qualifiers, the statement loses its punch. I think I understand what Brad and his pastor meant without them.



This is ad... infinitum? You mentioned some very pertinent things. What is deliverance Jack? There is nothing left to punch here as you mention unless you want to disqualify Jesus. BTW, I don't know what Brad's Pastor said in context. Justification is by faith alone. No works added. But the whole Gospel and salvation are not without them. Yes, I am referring to other things.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jack K said:


> "do your part" is contrary to the gospel...
> 
> - did not mean to imply faith isn't necessary.
> - did not mean to imply repentance isn't necessary.
> - did not mean to imply we don't participate in sanctification.
> - did not mean to imply... (you name it, we could go on)



Are you saying we don't have our part in these?

I am trying to explain to an 18 year old why he has to confess his sin and call upon God for Salvation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Josh, He said those are necessary and not our part, but I know others who say differently and that these things are our part and are a part of the gospel. They are both.

Our Confession does not endorse Eternal Justification or Justification that doesn't have a faith.

Eternal Justification Refuted. http://www.banneroftruth.org/pages/articles/article_detail.php?529


----------



## Jack K

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> "do your part" is contrary to the gospel...
> 
> - did not mean to imply faith isn't necessary.
> - did not mean to imply repentance isn't necessary.
> - did not mean to imply we don't participate in sanctification.
> - did not mean to imply... (you name it, we could go on)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying we don't have our part in these?
> 
> I am trying to explain to an 18 year old why he has to confess his sin and call upon God for Salvation.
Click to expand...


I'm not trying to be difficult. We must just be talking past each other somehow. I'll try again...

We DO have our part in all of these, of course. They are conscious actions on our part.

I know that.
You know that.
Brad knows that.
Brad's pastor, if he's any kind of PCA pastor at all, surely knows that too.

So since we all know that, do we really have go through the list of all the things grace doesn't mean every time someone mentions how great God's free grace is? Can't we just revel in grace without feeling a need to say "Now don't get the wrong idea, you still need to do ______ and _______ and _____"?

Such things probably would be good to mention when dealing with someone who resists repenting and calling on God in faith. But does that mean they must be mentioned in every post that mentions grace? I hope not. I hope I can express an appreciation for grace without having do list all the things I don't mean by that every time.

The unnamed pastor made a comment that "do your part" is contrary to the gospel. I think I understand what that pastor means. I think he's refuting the idea that God requires you to make a certain amount of effort to be good—to meet him part way—before he'll be inclined to help you. Such ideas ought to be refuted. So I agree with that pastor.

I do NOT take it to mean there's no effort ever, of any kind, that's part of the Christian life. I also do NOT take it to mean that the faith, repentance and ongoing sanctification God works in me is somehow divorced from the gospel of Jesus.

But I will sometimes say "I love God's grace!" and "I'm so glad God doesn't make me meet him part way!" without feeling a need to always add those explanations.


----------



## MW

Jack K said:


> Brad knows that.



We trust Brad knows that. The absolutism of grace is wonderful to adore as sinners who know we can do nothing of ourselves. In the context of this discussion, however, where "our part" in faith, repentance, sanctification, and perseverance is precisely the point under debate, a statement which denies "our part" is, at the very least, contentious, and that is putting the most charitable interpretation on it that we can.


----------



## Jack K

armourbearer said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brad knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We trust Brad knows that. The absolutism of grace is wonderful to adore as sinners who know we can do nothing of ourselves. In the context of this discussion, however, where "our part" in faith, repentance, sanctification, and perseverance is precisely the point under debate, a statement which denies "our part" is, at the very least, contentious, and that is putting the most charitable interpretation on it that we can.
Click to expand...


Yeah, the original topic was our effort in sanctification. I sought to explain that to understand the Grace Movement we need to understand what those guys mean when they talk of "effort" being bad. They mean a self-effort that's divorced from all the promises and blessings we have in Christ and from the encouragement and power these give us.

I took Brad's pastor to mean something similar by "do your part." I suppose we need Brad to explain in order to be certain. But given the explanations that came earlier in the thread, I certainly would not assume he meant that we have no role in faith, repentance and sanctification.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jack K said:


> So since we all know that, do we really have go through the list of all the things grace doesn't mean every time someone mentions how great God's free grace is? Can't we just revel in grace without feeling a need to say "Now don't get the wrong idea, you still need to do ______ and _______ and _____"?



Wow, you made it more complex than I ever thought to. I never thought about this this way. And that is part of this problem. Did you even read or go through what I said in my blogs? in this post? http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/timothy-kauffmans-recent-critique-brown-tchividjian-keller-73282/

That is precisely the problem Jack. You have taken them (the Grace Movement) (or me and the Reformers) to mean...... What? 

This discussion goes farther than.....? I really want to discuss this. I hope I am not being ungracious. We are not speaking or discussing this out of a vacuum here. This discussion has been going on for a long time with no definitive answers to our questions in my estimation. *Is the Gospel only outside of us? *You can say others have said this or that about the gospel and that it has to be qualified. Let me ask you this. *What is the Gospel? * *What is Grace?* These are two questions that I have found simple answers for that *these guys seem to cloud up*. 

I found out what the gospel was 30 years ago and found that some have redefined it separately from the Bible. We can name denominations here. But I won't. Maybe we can call it brainstorming. Sorry if I am taking this out of context. I am trying to be merciful and patient. Some have done this from their imagination and outside of the scriptures. I am sure this is true even though I am a simple laymen. These things have a place where they can be defined from. *Is the Gospel only an outward declaration* *as some have put it? You know who I am talking about. * *What is Grace?* *Is Grace just unmerited Favor?* Answer this shortly and without a long sidetrack and we will move on finally. I believe these two questions will clear up a lot. The answers to these simple American Evangelical questions will clear a lot up in my estimation. At least they will tell everyone where the theological thought of today really stands as opposed to..., Yes, I am biased, the Confessions. I am not opposed to being different. Believe me. I am opposed to not loving our neighbor as ourselves. I am opposed to not holding forth the truth. I love those who don't love me. I hope they love me. But I will always tell you what I believe and have believed. I am not trying to crucify anyone here. I just want the facts to be known. 

In my estimation the Grace movement needs to study Grace. It doesn't fully understand what it is. And no I am not a shining armour of grace.


----------



## J. Dean

This almost sounds like the Lordship Salvation Controversy all over again. 

BTW, for the record, I picked up Tullian's book Saturday (I haven't finished my coffee, so I'm not even going to attempt to type his last name right now). I'm about a third of the way through it, and it is overall a very good read. And for the record, I'm not picking up even a hint of antinomianism in the book. What I _am_ getting is Tullian's emphasis on the gospel and the cross of Christ, and for us to remember that the cross isn't just for us at the time of our conversion. He's making it clear that we need to rest in Christ and His work, and not to exercise sanctification by our own efforts apart from God.

As I alluded to earlier in this thread, those of us who were exposed to Arminianism earlier in life know all too well that it's not that far a step from sanctification to works-righteousness if we're not careful. That is a real danger, even for those of us steeped in Calvin and the Puritans. Even understanding that our sanctification/mortification of sin does not save us, we can fall very easily into a trap of questioning our salvation based upon how sanctified we are (or worse yet, how we "feel") instead of resting on the work of Christ. 

As Paul said, if it's of works, then grace is no longer grace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry Dean but you are off. You are not listening. I fully lean upon Christ for my justification. ALONE!


----------



## ChristianTrader

If people want to better understand what those opposing the grace folks are getting at, this blog post may help - The Hole in Our Holiness – Kevin DeYoung


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thanks Hermonta. I appreciate that blog and Kevin Deyoung. But I want to keep my questions focused here with Jack. I may be ill equipped to answer him. He may be ill equipped to answer me. I specifically asked him some questions that I want him to answer. I want to discuss this. I pointedly asked him because he seems to be a partial defender of those who I am trying to understand. My questions are my own. I hope I am not being selfish here but am certain that I am being selfish because I have watched this unfold for so many years. I want to interract with guys on this forum and not blogs at this point.


----------



## J. Dean

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Sorry Dean but you are off. You are not listening. I fully lean upon Christ for my justification. ALONE!



Never said you didn't, my friend.

---------- Post added at 07:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------




ChristianTrader said:


> If people want to better understand what those opposing the grace folks are getting at, this blog post may help - The Hole in Our Holiness – Kevin DeYoung



That's a good posting.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

J. Dean said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Dean but you are off. You are not listening. I fully lean upon Christ for my justification. ALONE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said you didn't, my friend.
Click to expand...




Thanks for acknowledging that. 



J. Dean said:


> it's not that far a step from sanctification to works-righteousness if we're not careful.



This is hard to believe for me if we hold to sola Scriptura and conversion. I am not legalistic either. Believe me. LOL. In fact, I am so not legalistic.... And the step I would have to take is much farther than you might understand in light that I and all my Truly Reformed and Confessional Brothers believe Ephesians 2:8,9 and Titus 3:5. We have no works but filthy rags as Isaiah states. (Isa 64:6) But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

But I do know maybe a part of the Calvinistic faith that may hold to this. That might be the Welsh Calvinistic guys who hold to the sealing of the spirit or the second blessing. But that is not present in the circles I know or have been around my neck of the woods. Is it in yours? How is it if they believe the Bible as the Scriptures and Confessions state?


----------



## J. Dean

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thanks for acknowledging that. I am not legalistic either. Believe me. LOL. In fact, I am so not legalistic....



I try not to be, but believe me it's something I have to battle with. 

When you hear Arminianism for a good portion of your life, you start worrying about your good works, and not in a good way. You start judging yourself by whether or not you've "done enough," and it can be maddening, because whether you mean to or not you base your salvation ultimately on your own efforts. It's such a subtle sin, and before you know it you're looking at yourself instead of Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

J. I have preached in a Nazerene Church. I have been around the doctrine of entire sanctifcation since I started walking with God. When one depends upon scripture as whole it kills every pride. Every thought is judged. Nothing in my hand I bring. I do know that Jesus and His good word does a work that is fully Gospel. I must have been taught better. I am blessed. The Gospel saved me from what I was and what I would have been. But I don't measure upon that. I measure upon a relationship that is based upon His promises in the Written Word. I would have given up by now if it wasn't for that written word.

I truly believe John 5:24.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

J. Dean said:


> it can be maddening, because whether you mean to or not you base your salvation ultimately on your own efforts.



This is why I asked you if you read my prior posts and blogs. Grace brings awakening. Any awakening is purely of Grace. It is God's influence upon the heart and it's reflection. Maybe it is easier for me because I came from such a low place. But to Believe is such a work and grace and you need to know that. It isn't many wise who come. The wisest or smartest refuse because grace isn't there. Only a few wise come. If it wasn't true Einstein would be hills above us. It is because we need grace (Unmerited Divine Influence) according to His riches. This stupid fool was called as was my most excellent smartest friend. We were born for His glory and we both know this. We both have faults. My best friend is a Dean at some College. He has had to suffer more than I have but it is because God keeps him humble. I am lesser so I don't suffer as much.



> (1Co 1:19) For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
> 
> (1Co 1:20) Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:21) For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:22) For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:23) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:24) But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:26) For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:27) *But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty*;
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:28) And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:29) That no flesh should glory in his presence.
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:30) But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
> 
> 
> (1Co 1:31) That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.


But the wise are called and they are given a heavier burden than those of us who are not as wise. And it is Gospel.


----------



## Jack K

PuritanCovenanter said:


> But I want to keep my questions focused here with Jack.



But, alas, I'm still not sure I understand the questions. They seem to have something to do with...

- Making sure we understand that the gospel is bigger than mere justification. No problem there. I agree, of course. Though in terms of word usage we must allow that the NT does not always speak in precise, consistent theological terms. Sometimes it seems to use "gospel" in a narrower sense to refer to a certain aspect of salvation (sometimes to refer to justification). And when a preacher uses it in the narrower sense I don't necessarily assume he doesn't recognize the larger sense as well.

- Making sure we understand that we have active participation in our conversion and subsequent sanctification. No problem there, either. I agree. In fact, I don't know anyone of any prominence in the Reformed world who disagrees. Those I do know who speak of "effort" being bad don't mean that we shouldn't strive for holiness. Rather, they mean that we must do all things (including work at holiness) in faith, constantly relying on God.

Do you mean to argue that the Spirit has no role in our sanctification? That it's all our own work? I haven't thought that was your position, but it's starting to sound like that. It seems that when people talk about the ongoing work of God in a believer's life, you feel a need to refute that. As if the idea that God is at work in a believer's life is bad doctrine. But I don't think you really mean that. So I'm lost as to what you do mean.


Hate to type and run, but I'll be gone for a few hours. There's a foot of snow to clear, breakfast to eat, work to start on...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jack, Read what I asked you to. You are not answering my questions simply nor are you reading what I have written. Please take your time and you will correct what you have said above.

Please take your time. I am in no hurry and might not even respond for a few days. But it is obvious you have not done the homework I asked you to.

Please take your time. http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/tim...hividjian-keller-73282/index2.html#post936900


----------



## moral necessity

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is because we need grace (Unmerited Divine Influence) according to His riches



I am not aware of any reformed writers who refer to grace as "unmerited divine influence." I see where you're going with this, but, are you sure that you want to lose sight of grace still being "unmerited favor"? It's a fine tightrope we have to walk, and many, like myself, cringe when we hear phrases like this. It lead me back to the old scraping within myself and the absence of the joy and delight that unmerited favor brings. It alters the "guilt, grace, gratitude" formula, because grace now becomes influence instead of a motivator to good works. 

I'll bow out for a while, as I know you're wanting your questions answered with Jack.

Blessings and fellowship!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Charles,

This is a most excellent question. 


moral necessity said:


> I am not aware of any reformed writers who refer to grace as "unmerited divine influence." I see where you're going with this, but, are you sure that you want to lose sight of grace still being "unmerited favor"?



Do I want to lose sight of grace being just a narrow definition of this? No. Not if it is Biblical. Do I want the full understanding of Grace to be understood. Yes. Do I believe it has been? NO!. Grace has been dumbed down. Is it free and unmerited? Yes. Are you sure you have the right understanding of it. I have posted for years on this topic and it is just now being questioned by someone in this manner. Thank you. 


Wow, the search engine for years back is not helpful. 
Gotta find old posts I made.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/p...s-been-dumbed-down-moderns-my-estimation-596/


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The great difficulty in this discussion is trying to precisely put one's finger on the problem in a way that those who are being criticized will recognize themselves in when criticized.

It's not really the issue that this movement denies the necessity of personal holiness. You will hear them speak of the third use of the law as well as the definitive nature of sanctification.

Where I believe the main point of departure is on the definition of the Gospel and the relationship of the Law to it. I was listening to D.A. Carson recently who observed that the problem with some teachers is not that they don't have certain insights into an aspect of theology but that they make certain issues all-controlling.

I believe the all-controlling issue in this is a Law/Gospel distinction that sees Law as "Do" and Gospel as "Done". Put another way, Law is imperative (do this) while Gospel is indicative (Christ has done). You will often here this movement speaking of a confusion of the Law/Gospel distinction whenever law is seen as anything sanctifying in the life of the believer. Here's an excerpt that describes the view well:



> ...Paul even moves back and forth between those two senses, even in the same breath (Rom 3:19-22; Gal 3 and 4, etc.). The WCF refers to “the time of the law” and “the time of the gospel,” which fits that historia salutis sense. In that sense, of course, law and gospel have continuity, not antithesis. It’s from earlier to later, infancy to adulthood, more obscure to clearer, etc.. Also, the law still functions in the covenant of grace. Even though our personal performance of the law’s conditions isn’t the basis (unlike the national covenant with Moses as its mediator), the covenant of grace includes the commands of the moral law. Our relation to the law has changed in Christ. It can’t condemn me, which is why Calvin called the third use its “principal use.” However, the law’s job description has not changed. It can only do what “law” can do: reveal what God approves and disproves; judge and guide. So now it guides me. It tells me what’s pleasing. *However, the law itself does not tell me what God has done in Christ for me.* The gospel isn’t restricted to justification. In Romans 6, for example, Paul answers the antinomian charge by showing how the gospel is wider than forgiveness—it includes regeneration and sanctification. But our faith and obedience are always a response to the gospel, not the gospel itself. I am aware of some of those places where some Puritans said that Christ has turned the bitter commands into precious promises, but in my view that’s not a helpful way of putting it—although I agree wholeheartedly with their point. I think they’re saying that Christ has taken the fire out of Sinai, so that we hear his commands as a Father’s will rather than a Judge’s sentence. I’m all with them there. However, I think it’s a dangerous category mistake to say anything close to the idea that in Christ the law becomes gospel and the gospel becomes law.



I think, on the surface of things, nothing seems out of the ordinary. Sanctification is preserved in the Gospel after all. The issue, if you can detect it, is how the Gospel is defined.

Notice that law is seen as commands and Gospel is seen as Promise and so there's no way in which commands can become promise. A divide is made because the controlling Law/Gospel distinction is of this nature.

What the WCF operates on, however, isn't a view of the Gospel or the Law that sees one as Promise and the other as command. The classic understanding is that, while we are dead, Law only condemns because our flesh will only rebel against its holy precepts. In the Gospel, however, men are brought from death to life. The reason the Puritans spoke of turning commmands into promises is not because the nature of the law has changed (it reflects God's holy character) but because the nature of the _person_ has changed.

This is why Calvin spoke of the _primary_ use of the law as what we might call the 3rd use. If I'm born again, the law does not come to me as "Do this and you will live..." but "Because you're alive, you have been set free to do this...." As Luther put it: We are free to obey. Slavery in the Scriptures is not that we are enslaved to commandments but that we are slaves to sin. The freedom we have in Christ is the freedom to obey His commands. Our new natures are not in hostility to God so that all we can do is sin.

This is why the Law=Do and Gospel=Done distinction is not helpful but, because it's all controlling, the only way the Law can be viewed is as something that reveals a command that I cannot perform. Notice how it is noted that it "...cannot become the Gospel..." because the Gospel is restricted to the notion that God has Promised to accomplish everything. When I'm talking about God accomplishing righteousness for us then I'm talking Gospel in this schema but when I'm talking about commands of God that we can't accomplish perfectly I'm talking Law.

But this gets back to my note about how Carson said that people tend to make one true aspect all controlling. It's not that the Gospel is not a Promise or that I have to then call commands I cannot perform perfectly Gospel. The issue is this: the Gospel is defined much more broadly than just God accomplishing righteousness in Scripture. The Gospel is also God transporting us from death to life. The Gospel includes our participation in the age to come where all things are new. It includes that we were slaves ton sin and now are free.

I am not the Gospel and my actions are not the Gospel but it is the Gospel that made it possible for me to live a new life. I'm adopted by God and He's now my father. That's Gospel. It's not merely a promise of something that God has accomplished but it is a present reality for me because I'm now His son. I'm freed to obey God _now_. It's not only a promise of that which God has accomplished but a reality that I enjoy today. How am I to view the commands of my father? Must I choose to think of them as unable to do anything but condemn me for my inability to perform them? May I not delight in them? May I not see in these the words of my Father? When He is disciplining me by my failure to be a son, may I not stay rooted in the Promise of my status as a son, and view the discipline of the law not as condemning but as a rod in the hand of a loving Father?

You see, I think the problem is that the Law/Gospel distinction makes us suspicious of God's law as only being able to condemn me and not as anything that can sanctify. Notice how the above sees only the Promise of accomplished work (done, indicative) as the only thing that can sanctify. The Law cannot serve that purpose under that schema. Put plainly, they believe the Law cannot sanctify because they view Promise/Done/Indicative as Gospel and, by this definition, only this can sanctify. The nature of the Gospel is limited in the process to describe the things that God has done. Now, in saying this, I'm not saying it's not utterly fantastic to note what God has done but I also think it sad to limit the definition of the Gospel to make God's law impotent to sanctify when I believe that part of what the Gospel bears with it is a change in our status to where the Law can now serve the purpose it was truly intended for.

I know this has been circuitous but I hope helpful. It's not so much that this idea denies law altogether and it doesn't deny definitive sanctification altogether. What is believes, however, is that only the announcement of God's completed work can be the means for sanctification. It tends to downplay or outright deny any role that the law can have in sanctifying the believer. Any effort or sweat that the believer is seen to put into this is viewed with suspicion as the believer is not resting in Christ's accomplished work.

From my perspective, this is a basic denial of the light of nature and our own analogy of human parenting. My sons never, for one moment, doubt that they are my sons. I've seen them work really hard to please me and never, for one moment, did they believe they were doing this in order to be sons of Rich. They did this because they were my sons. We need to return to a view of sanctification that has a proper view of the Gospel and the Law.

Before Christ came we were dead in sins and trespasses. In our blindness we thought this was the way: "Do and live".

When the love of Christ dawned in our hearts, our lives were transformed. We were no longer slaves to sin but slaves to Christ. Christ put sin as power to death on the Cross for us. We have been united to His indestructible life in the Resurrection and we are freed to obey. We live and because we live, it opens up the entire Kingdom of God to us where the commands of God are not a burden but the loving words of a Father.

This is the proper distinction. It is the distinction between death and life. It is not a distinction between Gospel=Done and Law=Do. The Gospel includes that Christ has secured our _freedom_ to obey and the new universe created by the Gospel makes the _entire_ Word of God sanctifying to that end.

NOTE: I've read and re-read what I wrote and am convinced it's a bit rough and needs some editing. I'm sorry if I'm not as articulate as I could be if I had more time but I typed this out quickly so please forgive me if there's stuff that's difficult to read.


----------



## Jack K

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Jack, Read what I asked you to. You are not answering my questions simply nor are you reading what I have written. Please take your time and you will correct what you have said above.
> 
> Please take your time. I am in no hurry and might not even respond for a few days. But it is obvious you have not done the homework I asked you to.
> 
> Please take your time. http://www.puritanboard.com/f48/tim...hividjian-keller-73282/index2.html#post936900



I'm afraid I don't know exactly which blog posts or which post in this thread you want me to focus more time on. I've read what you posted in this thread. I carefully read the Kauffman article that began the thread. I responded to that early on, agreeing with some of what he wrote but contending that his critique failed to accurately represent what the Grace Movement guys usually mean by "effort."

Yes, I'm defending the Grace Movement guys. I like to defend people when I feel their views have been misunderstood or misrepresented, even if I disagree with them. But in this case, I _do_ agree in large measure.

- I agree that we must foster a passion for holy living.

- I agree that to better appreciate our justification, our adoption, or any of God's definitive grace to us helps in our ongoing quest for greater holiness. It fosters gratitude and love for our Father.

- I agree that to better appreciate the promises of eternal life, glorification, or any of God's other promises for his children also helps in our ongoing quest for greater holiness. The "hope of heaven" is part of what keeps us going.

- I agree that our definitive sanctification is part of the good news of God's grace to us. We are changed and made able to obey God. To better appreciate this also helps. It gives us confidence in our battles against sin and keeps us from defeatist or lax attitudes, which would be inappropriate for God's holy people. 

- I agree that our _ongoing_ sanctification is also part of the good news of God's grace to us in Christ. Understanding this, we ought to strive for holiness _dependently_, faithfully looking to God instead of merely striving on our own as if his work in us is already complete. This too helps in our quest for holiness, giving us confidence that works alongside real spiritual power to overcome sin.

And I could go on. I could list many, many other things God gives us that help us to be holy. But I don't feel a need to try to list _all_ of them every time I mention _one_ of them. If I mention appreciating our justification, for instance, I would like folks not to assume I deny the others.

Some of the Grace Movement guys have been rightly critiqued for emphasizing how we must appreciate our justification to the exclusion of other things that also help us to be holy. But this doesn't mean that what they have to say about appreciating our justification is wrong. It's actually a good point. They just might do well to branch out sometimes.

They've also been critiqued here for speaking against "effort." That, I think, is a less valid criticism. I've not known any of them to be opposed to the sort of effort that strives, very hard, _alongside the Spirit_. As long as it's an in-touch-with-Christ sort of effort, they applaud it.

Finally, the discussion of what is most helpful in our quest for holiness must take into account the individual. Some people need more warnings. Others need more reminders of some aspect of God's grace. The skillful pastor knows his people.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> Law only condemns because our flesh will only rebel against its holy precepts.


 This is true but the Law also showed me someone who I could trust. I was actually drawn to God because of the Law. I wanted to know someone like this. That is something that a lot of people don't get. I have led a few people to Christ because of His beauty that is revealed by the law. Purity is a wonderful thing to long for. Especially since we know we don't posses it. In our right minds we all want someone we can love and trust. The Law showed me who that was. And I need Him and want Him so desperately. Sorry if this is off topic. Thanks Rich.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is the Gospel only outside of us?





PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is the Gospel only an outward declaration as some have put it? You know who I am talking about. What is Grace? Is Grace just unmerited Favor?



Jack I tried to help by making the print bold. Is this really that hard?


BTW, I whole heatedly love this.


Jack K said:


> Some people need more warnings. Others need more reminders of some aspect of God's grace. The skillful pastor knows his people.


----------



## Jack K

Rich:

Good thoughts. Expained well. Thank you.

Just keep in mind this (and I think you said something like it early on): Not all who believe that the announcement of God's completed work is a great help in living a holy life would also apply the law/gospel distinction the way you spoke of it. For example, I love to remind believers of their justification, adoption, and so on. I think it's a critically important help in living a holy life. But I still believe the law is also a critical and helpful tool in attaining holiness for those who are born of the Spirit.

Now what would you say about this statement:

The law easily feels burdensome, though, and is not helpful—even in believers—when the good news of completed justification, adoption and such are forgotten or ignored. So most of the time, when we teach the law it is wise to teach these things alongside it.

---------- Post added at 10:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 AM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is the Gospel only outside of us?



I'm afraid I have little interest in another extended discussion about how broadly we ought to use the word "gospel."

Suffice it to say that all of God's saving work is connected, and to remove any piece of it (including what God does in us) is an injustice to Christ and makes his triumph seem too small. Yet, it is often helpful to remember that the good works we do in Christ flow _from_ his work for us; they are not equal to it. Jesus calls us to lose our lives "for my sake and for the gospel's" (Mark 8:35). So although our transformation is included in the gospel, there's also a sense in which the gospel and our good works done in Christ are not the same thing.

Again, the word is not used in Scripture as it would be in a theological textbook. There's a range of meaning. We probably ought not to insist that everyone else always use it exactly as we tend to use it.

Getting back to the topic, it this just a matter about usage of the word? Or are you trying to make a point about the nature of our effort in sanctification? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just struggling to see the connection and to understand why this came up in this thread.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

There is nothing extended here. I just asked you a simple question. Can you answer simply? It isn't that hard of a question for you to answer. Just answer the question. There won't be any argument. Just say what you think. I just want to know what you think. Yes or No.

_Is the Gospel only an outward declaration as some have put it? _


----------



## Jack K

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is the Gospel only an outward declaration as some have put it?



No. But Scripture sometimes speaks of Christ's death for sin and his resurrection as the core of the gospel (as in 1 Cor. 15). So I don't get too riled up if some people use the word that way. Paying attention to that core can be helpful. It doesn't mean they deny the importance and connectiveness of God's transforming work in his children. No one I know does that.

---------- Post added at 10:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is nothing extended here. I just asked you a simple question. Can you answer simply? It isn't that hard of a question for you to answer. Just answer the question. There won't be any argument. Just say what you think. I just want to know what you think. Yes or No.



Ah, but simple yes or no is seldom the best way to answer that kind of question, as this thread shows. It opens the door for people to assume you believe things you might not believe, like what's happened to the Grace Movement guys when they've said simply that effort is bad. It'd be better to explain that a bit. Same thing with some of your questions. I want to be understood, not limited to one word that might be taken wrongly.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thanks Jack. I appreciate that. Never said they deny the connectiveness. 

Yes, a simple yes or no refutes those who say that it is only an outward declaration. You have placed yourself in a theological bent now. Am I incorrect here? Especially when people make such blanket statements and accuse others of serious error because they think the Gospel is something that is outside of themselves.

Am I misrepresenting you here? Just wanna make sure. 

Tell me if I incorrect here. I have a 21st birthday to do right now. My Son turned 21 today.


----------



## Jack K

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thanks Jack. I appreciate that. Never said they deny the connectiveness.
> 
> Yes, a simple yes or no refutes those who say that it is only an outward declaration. You have placed yourself in a theological bent now. Am I incorrect here? Especially when people make such blanket statements and accuse others of serious error because they think the Gospel is something that is outside of themselves.
> 
> Am I misrepresenting you here? Just wanna make sure.
> 
> Tell me if I incorrect here. I have a 21st birthday to do right now. My Son turned 21 today.



Um, I think you're correct about me. I believe God's saving grace includes our personal transformation and ongoing sanctification. I'm not particular about whether you call it all "gospel" or use that word in a narrower sense.

Broad sense: "Gospel" = all of salvation
Narrow sense: "Gospel" = the declarative aspects of salvation

I tend to use the word mostly in the broad way that includes ongoing sanctification. Yet I recognize that the Bible sometimes uses it more narrowly. And since sanctification is ongoing, it does build on the life we already have in Christ and on what God has declared of us. Therefore, I don't have a problem with people who say we grow in Christ as we more fully believe the gospel. That's one way to use the word. It still allows us to also affirm that personal Christian growth is, in a broader sense, itself part of the gospel.

So what "camp" am I in?

I think of myself as part of the Grace Movement. This is because I believe there's great value in the discipline of dwelling on all the aspects of God's grace to us. It helps to advance holiness. It's not the _only_ thing that helps with holiness, but it does help greatly. This does not mean I will agree with everything that everyone associated with this movement might say. But I was mentored by men who were on the leading edge of the movement back in the 70s—men with a deep appreciation for the ongoing value of believing all the doctrines of grace. Their view of the gospel was never simplistic or small. It was large, powerful and Christ-centered. It produced humble people who acted with boldness and repented with joy.

I don't find anything there inconsistent with Reformed theology or the passion of my friends here on PuritanBoard.


----------



## J. Dean

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This is why I asked you if you read my prior posts and blogs. Grace brings awakening. Any awakening is purely of Grace. It is God's influence upon the heart and it's reflection. Maybe it is easier for me because I came from such a low place. But to Believe is such a work and grace and you need to know that. It isn't many wise who come. The wisest or smartest refuse because grace isn't there. Only a few wise come. If it wasn't true Einstein would be hills above us. It is because we need grace (Unmerited Divine Influence) according to His riches. This stupid fool was called as was my most excellent smartest friend. We were born for His glory and we both know this. We both have faults. My best friend is a Dean at some College. He has had to suffer more than I have but it is because God keeps him humble. I am lesser so I don't suffer as much.



First of all, I deeply apologize for not getting back to you sooner. Got tied up with other things, among them a young 8th grade lady who seriously needs to have boundaries and parenting... but that's another topic.

I have not read your blog, I confess. I have seen it, have said "Oh cool! I'll have to check that out!" more than once... and have not. I've seen a couple of the headers for what you've posted here and said "Wow! I was thinking about that the other day! I'll have to check that out!"... and have not. Slothfulness and procrastination, unfortunately, have not been entirely ruled out of my life.

As to the meat of your post above, I wholeheartedly agree... now. If you had tried to talk to me in my Arminian/pentecostal/early Nazarene days, I would have said "You can't talk about grace like that!" So zealous was I for making sure that people didn't forget the law that I had to (sometimes obnoxiously, now that I think about it more) hit people (figuratively) over the head about it anytime that grace was brought up. And it was an easy thing to do, because it's what I heard. It was "Yes, grace, yes forgiveness.... now eat some law!" I guess that's sort of the natural fallout for a system that believes in losing salvation, though. 

That's what Calvinism did for me; it made the gospel sweeter, richer, more meaningful, more relevant than it had ever been before. It made grace _grace_, and not just "grace, then law." Yes, obedience and sanctification come, but it's in gratitude rather than fear. I use the analogy of my relationship with my wife: am I good to her because I honestly love her, or just because I don't want her to divorce me? That's not a perfect analogy, but I think it makes the point well.

Did your preaching in the Nazarene church occur prior to your coming to Calvinism?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jack K said:


> Now what would you say about this statement:
> 
> The law easily feels burdensome, though, and is not helpful—even in believers—when the good news of completed justification, adoption and such are forgotten or ignored. So most of the time, when we teach the law it is wise to teach these things alongside it.



Well, if we forget we're adopted sons then we're acting contrary to who we are in Christ. When Christ tells us that "...if you love me, keep my commands..." then how do I look at this? Some will conclude that Love is the summary of the Law and the Law can only tell us what to do but can't give us any strength. This then gets re-translated to "Christ has loved for us and kept the commands for us...." In such a way of looking at it, I strip anything out of the idea of a disposition in me that can actually love (by Christ's power) and be impelled by His Spirit to do what He commands. Obviously, not perfectly, but I'm still a child of God now and I have in me the Spirit Who enables me. I believe, then, that I can see in myself a lack of commandment keeping that stems from a lack of love for Christ in my life. I pray not merely that I remember that Christ has died for my failure and has paid the penalty for my sin of loving less than I ought but I also pray that I might be transformed in such a way that His commands instruct me and build me up and sanctify me.

It's not a matter of simply falling back on indicatives. I believe, again, that the differentiation is that the law has sanctifying power for the believer because he is a new Creation and God uses the Law toward that end. Some deny that the Law (as they conceive all imperatives to be) to have any sanctifying power but only indicatives but notice what the Confessions say:

WCF:

I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

WLC:

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


Notice that, in addition to show us how much we are bound to Christ for fulfilling it and enduring its curse we are provoked to thankfulness and provoked to express the same in our greater care to conform ourselves to it.

In other words, the Law functions not only in one way (that Christ has fulfilled it and endured our curse - indicative) but it also _provokes us_ for our good. God uses it to sanctify us according to the Confessions and this is denied by some.

Again, it's not my point to deny that others see holiness as a requirement for believers but I think it is substantial that they deny that the law has any sanctifying power and this is the key difference. It arises out of a Law=Do/Gospel=Done distinction that I do not believe the Confessions support.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Jack K said:


> It's not the only thing that helps with holiness, but it does help greatly.


If you believe that the law is the "other thing" then you are not in agreement with the movement on this point.


----------



## Jack K

Semper Fidelis said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the only thing that helps with holiness, but it does help greatly.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that the law is the "other thing" then you are not in agreement with the movement on this point.
Click to expand...


I didn't have in mind just the law. But, yes, the law is a positive influence in a believer's life. It helps him to be holy.

However, this does not mean the law _alone_ is recommended. Preaching and teaching only the law (or mostly the law, where the indicatives are assumed but seldom explored with any depth) is not a helpful model for discipling. The indicatives have a critical role that ought not to be ignored. I work with kids and they, especially, tend to be hammered with imperatives and hardly introduced at all to the depths of Christ's love and grace in his indicatives. In my mind, this problem is what the Grace Movement addresses.

If some relative newcomers to the movement who're still working this out have tipped things too far, I don't buy that _their_ version defines the movement. Even if they sell some books. It's also possible that some of the stuff in some of those books remains helpful to believers who, through ignorance of grace, feel burdened by the law.

-----

I also want to sharpen myself when it comes to this issue, so I welcome suggestions for how to better communicate this (or tweak my theology, if that's needed). A HUGE difficulty within the Grace Movement is communicating these thoughts so that we speak to both (1) today's typical evangelicals and (2) theology-inclined folks who attend seminary and read the Puritans. Often, these two groups hear the same words and think we're saying very different things.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> When Christ tells us that "...if you love me, keep my commands..." then how do I look at this?



Augustine seemed to have some insight into this: "It is not that we keep His commandments first, and that then He loves; but that He loves us, and then we keep His commandments. This is that grace which is revealed to the humble, but hidden from the proud."

Any "grace" movement that cannot speak of God giving grace to the humble is simply not a biblical grace movement.

I honestly conceive the problem to arise because this is one of those "back to basics" movements. No other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid -- Jesus Christ. Very good! But once you have laid the foundation you must build upon it with "something." The possibility that one might build on it with wood, hay, or stubble does not justify leaving the foundation bare.


----------



## a mere housewife

moral necessity said:


> "God doesn't need your good works, but your neighbor does."



I'm sure this is something of a sidelight from a small perspective, but reading through this thread I was so struck by this statement of Luther's in Mr. Plauger's explanation of his thought. For in some sense it does ring so very true to what I have learned, and what I see in the lives of women I try to learn from: what are we here for, but because we are still, in ways we sometimes can't fathom, needful for one another, in serving one another here -- however much better it is to simply be with the Lord -- and certainly we can earn nothing further from Him with all these daily motions. But unless our good works are fundamentally God-ward -- accepted by, and taken up and used by, a gracious and merciful God -- it seems to me they can never be good enough for one another (however backwards such a statement seems). We would only destroy each other in the imperfection and the bitter futility of our efforts and the remaining corruption of our hearts if our works were not acceptable to, and sanctified by, our righteous Lord: it seems to me one of His greatest mercies to us, and one of the sweetest securities, that He promises to make His people a blessing on the earth, in spite of themselves.


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God doesn't need your good works, but your neighbor does."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure this is something of a sidelight from a small perspective, but reading through this thread I was so struck by this statement of Luther's in Mr. Plauger's explanation of his thought.
Click to expand...


Mrs. Zartman, I understand you wouldn't take it in the wrong direction but I can see this is one of those striking statements that could easily be misunderstood and misapplied. It could easily be taken to undermine the fundamental truth that man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever. We cannot add to God's essential glory but the truth is that we are given the capacity as human beings made and renewed in the image of God to manifest, declare, and reflect His glory. It ought to be "for God" that good works are done. First, as a means of glorifying Him ourselves. Secondly, as a means of leading our neighbour to glorify our Father in heaven. What makes good works imperative is the fact that God requires them in order to manifest His glory. Any benefit that flows to our neighbour is entirely dependent on this God-centredness. If God-centredness is taken out of godliness we are left with a form of godliness which denies the power thereof. Again, I know sincere believers would not ordinarily take the statement in this direction, but it is worth clarifying the point for the sake of a little one who might be naively led astray by it.


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you Rev. Winzer. I always very much appreciate your clarity and your concern for even the small perspectives some of us are able to take away from these discussions. I was trying in a bumbling way to say something of the same about how our works must first be offered to God to even be profitable to a neighbor, but it is because His glory is the focus even in serving our neighbor (and it is a great comfort to me that He is so gracious in accepting our faulty efforts to glorify Him, by serving others).


----------



## MW

a mere housewife said:


> Thank you Rev. Winzer. I always very much appreciate your clarity and your concern for even the small perspectives some of us are able to take away from these discussions. I was trying in a bumbling way to say something of the same about how our works must first be offered to God to even be profitable to a neighbor, but it is because His glory is the focus even in serving our neighbor (and it is a great comfort to me that He is so gracious in accepting our faulty efforts to glorify Him, by serving others).



Mrs Zartman, there was definitely no bumbling in what you were saying, and I was only looking to affirm the insight you offered by drawing attention to the problem inherent in the statement. Some statements, like run-down houses, require so much renovating that it might be better to just tear it down and build another. Blessings!


----------



## moral necessity

armourbearer said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> "God doesn't need your good works, but your neighbor does."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure this is something of a sidelight from a small perspective, but reading through this thread I was so struck by this statement of Luther's in Mr. Plauger's explanation of his thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mrs. Zartman, I understand you wouldn't take it in the wrong direction but I can see this is one of those striking statements that could easily be misunderstood and misapplied. It could easily be taken to undermine the fundamental truth that man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever.
Click to expand...


Rev. Winzer,

And you're right, because Luther's theology does not build from this foundation of Calvin's. It's more of a two-kingdom citizenry approach, with duties for each. 

Blessings!


----------



## J. Dean

moral necessity said:


> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> And you're right, because Luther's theology does not build from this foundation of Calvin's. It's more of a two-kingdom citizenry approach, with duties for each.
> 
> Blessings!


Yes but his quote is still true and applicable. God has no need per se for our works in the sense that He depends on us for them in a needful way.


----------



## moral necessity

J. Dean said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer,
> 
> And you're right, because Luther's theology does not build from this foundation of Calvin's. It's more of a two-kingdom citizenry approach, with duties for each.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but his quote is still true and applicable. God has no need per se for our works in the sense that He depends on us for them in a needful way.
Click to expand...


I agree very much...


----------



## a mere housewife

Mr. Plauger, I appreciated your explanation of Luther very much. I thought that perhaps the quote was fine as mere *description*, but that in any sort of prescriptive light, it is problematic? (For one is then directing service to be focused laterally, rather than to the Lord.) It is only because God doesn't *need* our good works, that He can, in His fullness, receive our very imperfect efforts, and bless them to declare His glory, and to give to those who are in need. One also loses something of the wonder of a God who is glorified in our serving of one another (as He came and served us), if our works are not primarily done to His glory.


----------



## MW

J. Dean said:


> Yes but his quote is still true and applicable. God has no need per se for our works in the sense that He depends on us for them in a needful way.



It is equally true that God does not depend upon our works to supply the needs of our neighbour. The quotation is equivocal in the way it is using the word "need." If it comes back to the point that God "requires" our good works in relation to our neighbour, it is equally true that God "requires" good works in relation to Himself.


----------



## moral necessity

a mere housewife said:


> Mr. Plauger, I appreciated your explanation of Luther very much. I thought that perhaps the quote was fine as mere *description*, but that in any sort of prescriptive light, it is problematic? (For one is then directing service to be focused laterally, rather than to the Lord.) It is only because God doesn't *need* our good works, that He can, in His fullness, receive our very imperfect efforts, and bless them to declare His glory, and to give to those who are in need. One also loses something of the wonder of a God who is glorified in our serving of one another (as He came and served us), if our works are not primarily done to His glory.



You're welcome! I appreciate your thoughts and agree with them. I'm pulling this from memory, but, I think Luther saw things from the vantage that, in this earthly kingdom, we are called to serve man with our various gifts from God. God did not need anything from us, but his creation needed from him, and the means through which God met those needs was through each other. He leveled the field so that all works were considered good works, if they performed this fuction of being God's hands and feet and helped others. The housewife at home was performing equally as good of a work as the minister in the pulpit. In a time where the "holiest" men became monks and isolated themselves in monastaries, secular gifts were viewed as less important and seen as having no spiritual value. The idea of God placing man here as his vessels through which he provided for their care was not emphasized. Instead, it was spiritual to leave your service to others and your vocation and serve God. Common works did not please God; only fastings, prayers, and pilgrimages did. Luther brought a spiritualness to the vocational calling of man, that these were our good works. The easiest way for the common man to grasp this was to paint the picture of two kingdoms in which we serve. Both are under God's rule. Yet, in the earthly, we are God's instruments even in our vocations, whether we are the carpenter or the minister, and we don't have to feel guilty or less spiritual if we remain there. In the heavenly, we are God's children and worship him in spirit and in truth. His theology was very practical, and sought to address the problems of his time. He didn't start where Calvin did, namely that our highest calling was to glorify God. It probably wouldn't have done much, as the monks he was addressing would say they were doing that already.

Here's a link to his "A Treatise on Good Works", if you're interested in skimming it. It's probably comparable to about a 30 page book, and will provide good insight into his theology on the topic. A Treatise on Good Works by Martin Luther - Project Gutenberg

Here is an excerpt: 

_III. If you ask further, whether they count it also a good work when they work at their trade, walk, stand, eat, drink, sleep, and do all kinds of works for the nourishment of the body or for the common welfare, and whether they believe that God takes pleasure in them because of such works, you will find that they say, "No"; and they define good works so narrowly that they are made to consist only of praying in church, fasting, and almsgiving. Other works they consider to be in vain, and think that God cares nothing for them. So through their damnable unbelief they curtail and lessen the service of God, Who is served by all things whatsoever that are done, spoken or thought in faith. 

So teaches Ecclesiastes ix: "Go thy way with joy, eat and drink, and know that God accepteth thy works. Let thy garments be always white; and let thy head lack no ointment. Live joyfully with the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity." "Let thy garments be always white," that is, let all our works be good, whatever they may be, without any distinction. And they are white when I am certain and believe that they please God. Then shall the head of my soul never lack the ointment of a joyful conscience. 

So Christ says, John viii: "I do always those things that please Him." And St. John says, I. John iii: "Hereby we know that we are of the truth, if we can comfort our hearts before Him and have a good confidence. And if our heart condemns or frets us, God is greater than our heart, and we have confidence, that whatsoever we ask, we shall receive of Him, because we keep His Commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in His sight." Again: "Whosoever is born of God, that is, whoever believes and trusts God, doth not commit sin, and cannot sin." Again, Psalm xxxiv: "None of them that trust in Him shall do sin." And in Psalm ii: "Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him." If this be true, then all that they do must be good, or the evil that they do must be quickly forgiven. Behold, then, why I exalt faith so greatly, draw all works into it, and reject all works which do not flow from it. 

IV. Now every one can note and tell for himself when he does what is good or what is not good; for if he finds his heart confident that it pleases God, the work is good, even if it were so small a thing as picking up a straw. If confidence is absent, or if he doubts, the work is not good, although it should raise all the dead and the man should give himself to be burned. This is the teaching of St. Paul, Romans xiv: "Whatsoever is not done of or in faith is sin." Faith, as the chief work, and no other work, has given us the name of "believers on Christ." For all other works a heathen, a Jew, a Turk, a sinner, may also do; but to trust firmly that he pleases God, is possible only for a Christian who is enlightened and strengthened by grace. 

That these words seem strange, and that some call me a heretic because of them, is due to the fact that men have followed blind reason and heathen ways, have set faith not above, but beside other virtues, and have given it a work of its own, apart from all works of the other virtues; although faith alone makes all other works good, acceptable and worthy, in that it trusts God and does not doubt that for it all things that a man does are well done. Indeed, they have not let faith remain a work, but have made a habitus of it, as they say, although Scripture gives the name of a good, divine work to no work except to faith alone. Therefore it is no wonder that they have become blind and leaders of the blind. And this faith brings with it at once love, peace, joy and hope. For God gives His Spirit at once to him who trusts Him, as St. Paul says to the Galatians: "You received the Spirit not because of your good works, but when you believed the Word of God." 

V. In this faith all works become equal, and one is like the other; all distinctions between works fall away, whether they be great, small, short, long, few or many. For the works are acceptable not for their own sake, but because of the faith which alone is, works and lives in each and every work without distinction, however numerous and various they are, just as all the members of the body live, work and have their name from the head, and without the head no member can live, work and have a name. 

From which it further follows that a Christian who lives in this faith has no need of a teacher of good works, but whatever he finds to do he does, and all is well done; as Samuel said to Saul: "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt be turned into another man; then do thou as occasion serves thee; for God is with thee." So also we read of St. Anna, Samuel's mother: "When she believed the priest Eli who promised her God's grace, she went home in joy and peace, and from that time no more turned hither and thither," that is, whatever occurred, it was all one to her. St. Paul also says: "Where the Spirit of Christ is, there all is free." For faith does not permit itself to be bound to any work, nor does it allow any work to be taken from it, but, as the First Psalm says, "He bringeth forth his fruit in his season," that is, as a matter of course. 

VI. This we may see in a common human example. When a man and a woman love and are pleased with each other, and thoroughly believe in their love, who teaches them how they are to behave, what they are to do, leave undone, say, not say, think? Confidence alone teaches them all this, and more. They make no difference in works: they do the great, the long, the much, as gladly as the small, the short, the little, and vice versa; and that too with joyful, peaceful, confident hearts, and each is a free companion of the other. But where there is a doubt, search is made for what is best; then a distinction of works is imagined whereby a man may win favor; and yet he goes about it with a heavy heart, and great disrelish; he is, as it were, taken captive, more than half in despair, and often makes a fool of himself. 

So a Christian who lives in this confidence toward God, a knows all things, can do all things, undertakes all things that are to be done, and does everything cheerfully and freely; not that he may gather many merits and good works, but because it is a pleasure for him to please God thereby, and he serves God purely for nothing, content that his service pleases God. On the other hand, he who is not at one with God, or doubts, hunts and worries in what way he may do enough and with many works move God. He runs to St. James of Compostella, to Rome, to Jerusalem, hither and yon, prays St. Bridget's prayer and the rest, fasts on this day and on that, makes confession here, and makes confession there, questions this man and that, and yet finds no peace. He does all this with great effort, despair and disrelish of heart, so that the Scriptures rightly call such works in Hebrew Avenama, that is, labor and travail. And even then they are not good works, and are all lost. Many have been crazed thereby; their fear has brought them into all manner of misery. Of these it is written, Wisdom of Solomon v: "We have wearied ourselves in the wrong way; and have gone through deserts, where there lay no way; but as for the way of the Lord, we have not known it, and the sun of righteousness rose not upon us." _

Blessings!


----------



## a mere housewife

Thank you Mr. Plauger. That excerpt raises a jumble of questions/thoughts, but they are probably too simplistic and certainly too much off topic for this thread. In my much lesser readings than yours, I do find Luther electric and worth reading, even where one questions. It does certainly tie into the points you made earlier in the thread about the way the article handled Luther.


----------

