Can learning biblical doctrine be a part of sanctification and not just conversion?

[TimeRedeemer]

Since learning biblical doctrine is a matter of time and effort and degree (is a process and imperfect in this life) would it be wrong to see it as part of sanctification?

I realize conversion (which happens after regeneration) needs biblical knowledge and a basic degree of biblical understanding (faith and repentance need biblical knowledge of what we are to have faith in and what we are to be repentant of), but it's hard to see that necessity and then take it to mean a Christian needs to have the understanding contained in John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ for conversion and justification.

Can we not see that regeneration, conversion, and justification can rest on a degree of doctrinal understanding that is short of understanding the doctrines of grace, yet then if a person truly has regeneration and has converted they will then strive, in time, to see the truth and develop more and more understanding of biblical doctrine and accept it (which to me sounds like part of the imperfect and progressive process of sanctification)?

And the main point I'm making is even if a regenerated person never gets to the 5 point Calvinist level of understanding they still have justification, just as degree of sanctification doesn't effect a person's foundation which is justification by faith alone.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by TimeRedeemer
Since learning biblical doctrine is a matter of time and effort and degree (is a process and imperfect in this life) would it be wrong to see it as part of sanctification?

I realize conversion (which happens after regeneration) needs biblical knowledge and a basic degree of biblical understanding (faith and repentance need biblical knowledge of what we are to have faith in and what we are to be repentant of), but it's hard to see that necessity and then take it to mean a Christian needs to have the understanding contained in John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ for conversion and justification.

Can we not see that regeneration, conversion, and justification can rest on a degree of doctrinal understanding that is short of understanding the doctrines of grace, yet then if a person truly has regeneration and has converted they will then strive, in time, to see the truth and develop more and more understanding of biblical doctrine and accept it (which to me sounds like part of the imperfect and progressive process of sanctification)?

And the main point I'm making is even if a regenerated person never gets to the 5 point Calvinist level of understanding they still have justification, just as degree of sanctification doesn't effect a person's foundation which is justification by faith alone.

Yes. A simple faith and trust in Christ is all that is required. Knowledge is usually a matter of growth. Otherwise, we consign most of the Church over history to hell....

[Edited on 2-11-2006 by puritansailor]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Patrick is right. Regneration gives us the ability to exercise faith, thus, one is born again, and then acquires content and information whereby through faith he/she beleives on the Gospel and the propisitonal truth of the Scriptures. That is not by osmosis, but through the Word. The Gospel is simple, but not as simple as to be devoid of content. Faith is exercised from a regernate heart on those propositions. Peter Van Mastricht in "Regneration" gives some good information here.

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Yes. A simple faith and trust in Christ is all that is required. Knowledge is usually a matter of growth.

[Edited on 2-12-2006 by Jeff_Bartel]

 

[TimeRedeemer]

So, Dr. McMahon, is your hardcore stance regarding things like Arminianism directed towards those who *seem* to know better, or who it would seem *should* know better considering they are writing books and teaching and have been availed of the truth and are rejecting it, rather than directing your hardcore stance against those who are still just in natural learning stages? Because this is what might cause the confusion.

I would argue that a person can teach in ignorance of the truth, but once they are made aware of the truth and they continue to reject it it's just a sign that they can't yet see the truth, which would mean they don't yet have the Spirit of Truth in them, which would mean...they're not being humble enough when they continue to teach and preach (most Christians who are currently ignorant of orthodox doctrine aren't out teaching and writing books and are more teachable). Of course convincing them that they don't have the truth is nigh impossible..., so may maybe harsh statements such as Dr. McMahon has written are a needed shock of reality for them...

Maybe it should be directed to teachers as the Bible is harder on and says things will be harsher for people who teach false doctrine...

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Maybe I stumbled upon the Biblical distinction here: If Dr. McMahon writes exactly what he writes but directs it to teachers of the false doctrine rather than the merely currently ignorant and learning it's not only OK and right but it's an act of charity towards the false teachers because the Bible states in various places that when you teach falsehood you pay a heavier price than merely being the victim of such false teaching...

 

[JohnV]

I don't know about Dr. MrMahon, but I do know about my own situation, Michael. I know, for instance, that when some of our pet theories are preached from the pulpit that this represents a plain departure from the Reformed faith.

Yes indeed, we grow in understanding and in doctrine as we grow in faith through the sanctifying work of the Spirit. And this is not only true for individuals, but also for the local church as a group. For some grow less quickly than others, so patience is also being taught at the same time, as well as love for each other in stooping down in our intellect to teach and admonish each other.

In Presbyterianism we have a tendency to think of the church being identified with a Presbytery instead of a body of believers. Its not a church if it doesn't have a Presbytery. But the converse is also true, and perhaps more so, that you cannot have a Presbytery if you don't have a church. So looking down on people is to be excluded. We have to grow together as a body.

Yet there remains also some things that must be dealt with beyond that aspect of spiritual growth. There are false teachers, over which even the unordained have power given by God. We are to reject them, and to do so openly. And we are given signs by which to recognize them. We must deal with them as false teachers, not slough them off as still being sanctified. Perhaps they are, but in this case it would be through discipline or through stern admonitions.

So just as we need to practice love and respect in dealing with our brothers that we may grow together, so also we must deal with those who persist in error, and especially those who incite error among God's people. These have to work together or neither one means anything.

One of the errors the churches are ignoring right now is the error of the breaking of the limits of office, the misrepresenting of Christ's commission to preach His Word. Men are preaching their theories on the pretext that they themselves believe their theory to be Biblical, and that the GA has not ruled their theory as breaking with the Confessions. They are saying this: my own theory, plus GA saying that it is not breaking the Confessional covenant, equals that it can be God's Word in my view. Therefore it is God's Word when I preach. They forget that the huge chasm between their theory and actual proof that the Bible teaches it still remains. And they have no commission to teach what the Bible does not teach. None whatsoever. So this practice is patently unReformed, because the Reformed strictly believe in Sola Scriptura when it comes to doctrine.

So coming to understand some theories is OK as far as it goes, and may be part of the sanctifying process; but raising them to Biblical status is quite another thing altogether, and clearly works against the Spirit. If we have confessed to the Reformed faith, then we are accountable to it as well. Sanctification is a purifying process, not a mixing in of the flesh.

This is how I make the distinction. We must ask if it is of God or of man; and if it is not clearly of God, then we may not say that it is. So it must be regarded as being of man until then. And indifferent is indifferent; it cannot be confused with essential or foundational. You make a precept of man a cornerstone, then the building will collapse. And it certainly is not the firm building that true believers live in.

As I said, I don't know about Dr. McMahon. I know that there are things being said now. Without reference one way or another to that ( we must exercise extreme caution ), there are things that need to be said more sternly than we are used to these days; and there are things that need to be said with much greater care for each other than what is practiced these days. Discernment here is essential.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I think learning doctrine can be every bit a part of one's sanctification as it can be every bit a part of one's road to apostasy. We must have a heavy diet of prayer, reading of the Scriptures, the hearing of the Ministry of the Word, and see doctrinal study as icing on the cake, not the whole of our knowledgable sanctification.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

I of course would never suggest orthodox doctrinal understanding is all of sanctification. I was just speculating as to whether it is part of sanctification, after the basic degree of doctrine we must know to have faith and to repent regarding conversion (to know what we are to have faith in and what we are to repent of).

Another point: because seeing the doctrines of grace you have to be God centered rather than man-centered which involves mortifying such things as vanity and worldly pride and self-will there is a real development of being that has to occur to see Calvinism (which is a nickname for biblical doctrine). To me this is more evidence to see ability to see and accept doctrine at the level of the doctrines of grace as being part of the process of sanctification.

As for being hardcore in calling bad doctrine what it is and stating that it is evidence of lack of regeneration (the default conclusion is you call it heresy and those who hold to it as heretics) there is definitely value in that. It gets people's attention. It's one thing to have the Standard, it's another to raise it high so others can be made aware of it.

[Edited on 2-13-2006 by TimeRedeemer]

 

[JohnV]

Doctrine is not just what you say you believe, it is also what you live by what you believe. Doctrine is lived.

 

[TimeRedeemer]

Originally posted by JohnV
Doctrine is not just what you say you believe, it is also what you live by what you believe. Doctrine is lived.

Agree. Acting from God's will rather than self-will involves doctrine as practice because we know God's will from the Word of God.

Also, there's a formula: knowledge plus practice (of that knowledge) is what becomes understanding. Knowledge alone doesn't become understanding, and practice divorced from biblical knowledge is not understanding. Both are needed.