Jonathan Edwards on the Conditions of Justification

[R. Scott Clark]

I think it's clear enough from the quotations which Don has kindly provided that, at best Edwards was confusing. His relative lack of clarity (e.g., moving between justification and salvation, i.e., between a narrower and a broader category rather fluidly) language does not compare favorably with Owen or Turretin or Witsius. One of my MA students is presently translating Van Mastricht on justification and has, in converstation, raised questions about the relations between some of VM's language and Edwards. I wonder if some of this language is not the theological corollary of his approach to Religious Affections? Certainly I don't not find this sort of ambiguity in Polanus or Wollebius for example.

In fairness, if I recall (and Don can correct me) the recently published (Yale edn) Miscellanies which has renewed interest in his doctrine of justification were notes from his notebooks and were not published works as such. I'm away from my office and don't have have access to my copy to check. George Hunsinger (a Barthian and Barth scholar at Princeton) has written on Edwards. He did an essay for MR and I think a longer piece for the WTJ and I think Bob Godfrey did a paper for the Puritan Conference in London a few years ago. Both came to similar conclusions about the ambiguities and problems in Edwards' language. I don't know what became of Bob's paper, but I believer there's an effort to get some of his heretofore unpublished research into print.

Blessings,

rsc

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by R. Scott Clark]

 

[Larry Hughes]

Rev. Matthew,

No disrespect at all was meant by short hand of your name, thank you for clarifying it for me so that I would not continue to do so.

Secondly, you took issue with people saying, we are justified by faith alone, BUT..., calling that BUT legalistic. James, however, says, "BUT wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (2:20.)

Here´s where you may have misunderstood me and perhaps the difference lies in what we each are surrounded by. I obviously am not warring with James.

The "œBUT" is not arguing with the text in James 2:20, that is pulled entirely out of context. My argument is not with that but those who are of a "œlegal spirit" in which they will on one hand if asked, "œAre you justified by faith alone" quickly respond, "œyes, BUT"¦". However, if questioned in the reverse, "œDoes faith have its fruits", they would respond, "œYes." Period and never qualify it showing forth the legal spirit for they speak in one direction, quoting James to support their isolated doctrine.

In short IF one cannot communicate the Gospel without qualifications and let it rest, one has NOT communicated the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And if one refuses to do so, at length likely one them selves does not understand the Gospel. And many, at least in my region of the United States use the term "œpreach whole council of God" as a kind of code meaning (blind to it themselves), "œI will refuse to endeavor to maintain the Law/Gospel distinction and confuse it." "œPreach whole council of God" has become an excuse for blind preaching that refuses to maintain the Law Gospel distinction and the new pavement to the road back to Rome, if not worse. Now, I assume upon your character that is NOT what you yourself meant.

People impugn Luther in tremendous ignorance, and I mean that without apology, for his "œstraw epistle" of James statement when Luther NEVER questioned the word of God. In fact, unlike many pastors today, he most highly used the analogy of faith. Luther´s question was not doubt upon the word of God but what constitutes the Word of God founded upon that which is firmly established, the doctrine. We have a plague today in the world, specifically much of the American church called "œhistorical arrogance". IN Luther´s day he couldn´t just go down to the local "œLifeway" and purchase ten copies of the latest English translation of the Bible, let alone other languages for the cannon was still being debated let alone translated. Yet, today, in historical pride, many persecute Luther on this point as if"¦

Luther never questioned the Word of God but what IS and constitutes the Word of God, this in fact is the highest application of analogy of faith. Along this line, here is an interesting thought experiment to do that a Christian brother of mine discussed with me: (This is purely hypothetical and a thought experiment) IF tomorrow it could be shown that James (again this is pure hypothetical for this is NOT what James really says, unfortunately, I´ve got to keep that warning high lest I be falsely accused of denying James as the Word of God) actually taught some form of works justification or works sanctification, without a shadow of doubting, would you still hold to "œJames" as the word of God? It´s an interesting question and thought experiment to get one into the reformers mindset of the time. Because if one would say, "œYes I would hold to James, so understood, as cannon", then one has gone outside the faith and placed "œcanonization" above the central doctrine of the standing and falling church. This is where Luther was at, but he understood that the doctrine of justification must be the highest. Yet, many today would slowly over throw Paul with James very similarly and then scoff at Luther. (Mormons make this "œbible as appropriately interpreted argument as well", it´s true in a way but it´s also used as a false defense). You have to ask yourself what is YOUR real central "œstanding and falling" doctrine from which ALL doctrine flows, is it justification by faith alone, or does the fruits produced thereof stand in parallel to it? Many would say in parallel, but this cannot be since true fruits ONLY arise from the source doctrine of Christ crucified, EVEN for the Christian. Those who parallel it in some sense or another do not preach the Christian faith and in fact are well on their way back to Rome. In fact you can hardly tell any difference between their message and that of a JW, Mormon or Roman service.

In any case thanks for your kind replies.

Christ alone,

Ldh

[Edited on 7-4-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[MW]

Mr. Hughes,

Samuel Rutherford complained in his day of Antinomians calling the orthodox legalists. And I have read much in reformed writers which you have condemned as legalist.

The distinguished name of Herman Witsius having been mentioned, perhaps his thoughts on the subject will be appreciated. His Irenicum specifically addresses this issue. I will append a significant portion on chapter 16.

<quote>
2. In the matter itself, there is that I approve and what I disapprove. I approve indeed of the scope of all this doctrine, which has this for its object that men may be called off from all presumption upon their own righteousness, and trained up to the exercise of generous piety, which flows from the pure fountain of divine love. But I do not equally approve that it seems, at least in a great degree, to take from good works all that fruit and utility so frequently assigned them in scripture. Free justification is so to be consulted that nothing be derogated from the benefit of sanctification. And as the oracles of the divine Spirit which speak of the former, are to be explained according to their utmost emphasis, lest the merits of Christ alone be any how diminished, so those which treat of the latter are not to be extenuated by unnatural interpretations. We must accurately distinguish between a right to life and the possession of life. The former must so be assigned to the obedience of Christ that all the value of our holiness may be entirely excluded. But certainly our works, or rather those which the Spirit of Christ worketh in us and by us, contribute something to the latter. And here again, that excessive rigidity of disputation is inconsistent with the moderation and mildness of the scriptures. Which I shall show distinctly and in order.
3. 1st, Scripture teacheth that man must do something, that he may obtain the possession of the salvation purchased by Christ. "œLabour" (said he) "œfor the meat which endureth unto everlasting life," which indeed he interprets afterwards of faith, but so, that there he plainly reduces it to the catalogue of works; for justification is not the subject, John 6:27-29. And Paul expressly say, "œWork out your own salvation with fear and trembling," Phil. 2:12. And again, "œTherefore my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, immoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know, that your labour is not in vain in the Lord," 1 Cor. 15:58.
4. Neither because Christ is the way to life, is the practice of Christian piety therefore not the way to life. Christ is the way to life because he purchased us a right to life. The practice of Christian piety is the way to life because thereby we go to the possession of the right obtained by Christ. For it is more than a hundred times designed by the name of life: again, the way of righteousness, the good way, the way of peace; yea, that nothing might be wanting, it is called the way of life and salvation. Prov. 6:23, "œThe commandment is a lamp, and the law is light, and reproofs of instruction are the way of life." And, chap. 10:17, "œHe is in the way unto life who keepeth instruction." Chap. 15:24, "œThe way of life is above to the wise." Ps. 50:23, "œWhoso ordereth his way, I will cause him to enjoy the salvation of God." And what does Christ himself understand by that narrow way which leadeth unto life, Matt. 7:14, but strict practice of Christian religion? which is called the way of salvation, Acts. 16:17.
5. It is certain indeed that the true Christian lives to Christ, that is, to his glory: but it does not follow from thence that he does nothing for his own advantage. It is not contrary to the duty of a holy man to desire life, love days, and enjoy good, Ps. 34:13. Nor did Eliphaz the Temanite advise Job amiss: "œpray, acquaint thyself with him, and be at peace: whereby good shall come unto thee," Job 22:21. Nor is it unlawful to anticipate how good it shall be for me if I live to Christ. "œIt is good for me, to draw near to God," Ps. 73:28.*
6. In fine, it is not inconsistent to do something from this principle, because we live, and to the end, that we may live. No man eats indeed but he lives, but he also eats he may live. We both can and ought to act in a holy manner because we are quickened by the Spirit of God. But we must also act in the same manner, that that life may be preserved in us, may increase, and at last terminate in an uninterrupted and eternal life. Moses said excellently of old, Deut. 30:19, 20, "œI call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set life and death before you: therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, in loving the Lord thy God, obeying his voice, and cleaving unto him, for he is thy life." Deut. 7:1, "œObserve to do, that ye may live." And chap. 30:6, "œThe Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart to love the Lord thy God, that thou mayest live." Truly these speeches are not legal, but evangelical.-
7. 2ndly, A mercenary baseness is certainly unworthy of the high born sons of God: but their heavenly Father does not forbid them to have any regard to their own advantage in the exercise of holiness. He not only permits, but also willeth, "œthat by a patient continuance in well-doing, we seek for glory, and honour, and immortality;" and to them who do so, he will render eternal life, Rom. 2:6, 7. And though he requires us to love him above all, yet he does not command that all love to ourselves be entirely banished. For we are not bound to love our neighbour, and not to love ourselves. It is also just that the study of holiness be excited in us by this love to ourselves. For, pray, what is the end of all these promises, where-by God hath commended his precepts to us, but that stimulated with a desire after them, we might the more cheerfully obey him? Not to love the benefits promised is to contemn the goodness of God who promiseth. Not to be animated to piety through a desire after them is to abuse them to a purpose quite opposite to that for which they were designed of God. David himself confessed that the "œprecepts of God were far more desirable than gold, yea, than fine gold; and sweeter than honey, and the honey-comb," even on that account, "œbecause in keeping them there is great reward," Ps. 19:10, 11. And the faith of Moses is commended, "œbecause he had respect to the recompence of the reward," Heb. 11:26. Yea, that faith is required of all who "œcome unto God, whereby they must believe that he is the rewarder of them who diligently seek him," verse 6.
8. But at the same time this love to ourselves ought to flow from the love of God, be subordinate, and referred to it. It is not lawful to love God for our own sake, so as to consider ourselves as the end, and him as the mean, by the enjoyment of whom we are rendered happy. But since we are the property of God, whom we ought to love above all things, therefore we are also bound to love ourselves in relation to him. Our good is therefore to be sought, that in it we may taste the sweetness of the Lord, and that his peculiar treasure may be so much the more increased. Thus love to ourselves shall at last be absorbed in the ocean of love divine. The subject itself obliges me to repeat here what I observed elsewhere.
9. 3rdly, Neither is it agreeable to the perpetual tenor of the scriptures, that we reap no real advantage from duties rightly performed; that no evil is averted by prayers, fastings, and penitence; and that neither peace of conscience, nor joy of heart, are promoted by the exercise of virtue. Certainly this is contrary to the Mosaic doctrine, Deut. 6:18, "œDo that which is right, that it may be well with thee." Add verse 3, "œHe who followeth after righteousness and mercy, shall find life;" "œrighteousness, and honour," saith the writer of the Proverbs, chap. 21:21. Paul tells us "œthat godliness is great gain, and that it is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come:" and that "œgood works are good and profitable unto men," 1 Tim. 6:6; 4:8; Tit. 3:8.
10. That impending calamities are averted by penitence, is taught of God, Jer. 18:7, 8. And remarkable is Zephaniah´s speech, chap. 2:3, "œSeek the Jehovah, all the meek of the earth, who work his judgment: seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of Jehovah´s anger." Further, it is written in Isaiah, chap. 32:17, "œThat the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of righteousness, quietness and assurance for ever." In the same prophet we are also taught, that if any cease to do evil, and learn to do well, it shall come to pass that their sins, though as scarlet, shall be white as snow; and though red like crimson, they shall be as wool," chap. 1:16-18. He also teaches, "œthat if any man rightly observed the Sabbaths of the Lord, he should delight himself in the Lord," chap. 58:13, 14. When we believe the scripture asserting all these things, we do not believe that the exercises of virtue or religion merit any such thing, or that the efficacy of these duties is so great, that of themselves, setting aside the divine blessing, they can procure benefits or avert calamities: but we believe, so great is the goodness of our heavenly Father, that for Christ´s sake, he liberally rewards the sincere endeavours of his children, who rejoice to please him. "œFor God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name," Heb. 6:10.
11. 4thly, It is much more difficult to say what is controverted as to the evidences of grace, than what should be determined according to holy scripture. For sometimes it seems to be denied that any inherent qualities are proper evidences of justification. "œLet not thy comfort" (says one) "œdepend on thy personal sanctification, because no certainty and constant consolation can flow from hence. Again, From the effects of sanctification, a man has reason to doubt in his own soul concerning justification: wherefore no effect of sanctification can show the soul its justification. The soul which apprehends its justification in Christ, not only knows it, but also lives by and enjoys its delicious fruits, peace, joy, and strengthening, without any sanctification in itself." Lest any, however, infer from hence, that sanctification may be altogether separated from justification, it is immediately added: "œas we ought not to infer our justification from any effect of sanctification; so that apprehension of justification is not of God, which withdraws a man from the means and the rules of sanctification: for it is uncomely not to walk in holiness according to the word of God." And sometimes it seems to be acknowledged that sanctification and its effects are, in their kind, remarkable evidences of justification; but not sufficiently convincing without the witnessing of the divine Spirit. Things so intricate, who can explain?
12. How much clearer here is the simplicity of the scriptures? It teaches a double way whereby a man may come to the certain knowledge of his state: the one depends on the illumination of divine grace alone, and on the most liberal witnessing of the Holy Spirit to our spirit: but the other is committed to our own diligence. What kind of witnessing of the Spirit they conceive, and what they experience in their own souls, God and themselves know. I would not deny that there is a certain internal instinct, not to be explained by human language, which, by a secret conviction of conscience, assures the beloved of God concerning their justification and adoption.
13. Nevertheless, since the ordinary dispensation of the gracious providence of God, which is common to all the elect, ought to be distinguished from those extraordinary revelations of the Spirit, which were peculiar to the prophets; and since this witnessing of the Spirit, of which we now treat, consists not so much in words as in facts; it is credible that the Holy Spirit generally so works in the souls of believers that he excites their spirit, otherwise languishing, to the diligent observation of those qualities which are in the soul, and of those things which are done in it and by it, and irradiates the eyes of the mind with a super-celestial light, lest they should be deceived by things more specious than solid, or overlook those things which God hath taught in scripture to be evidences of his grace. For the Spirit of God so beareth witness that he witnesseth together with our spirit, in exciting it to bear a true testimony, and in confirming its testimony, and convincing the conscience of its truth. My conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, Rom. 9:1; and thus indeed, even the witnessing of the divine Spirit is not altogether separated from the observation of the signs of grace. And it often happens that the Spirit of God so embraces his elect with these allurements of his most beneficent love, that while they enjoy those spiritual and ineffable delights, which earthly souls neither receive nor taste, they are no less persuaded of their election and justification than if they saw their names engraven on the very hands of God.*
14. But farther, it is a part of our duty to study to make our calling and election sure, 2 Pet. 1:10. That is, to endeavour that by evident signs we may be persuaded of the love of God towards us. But how shall we obtain that? If we give all diligence to add to our faith fortitude, to fortitude knowledge, etc. For if these things be in us, and abound, they will make us that we shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins, verses 5-9. Therefore from a consciousness of Christian virtues, there arises in godly men an assurance of their election and vocation: "œand these virtues" (as Bernard elegantly says, in his Book concerning Grace and Free Will) "œare certain seminaries of hope, incentives of love, evidences of hidden predestination, and presages of future felicity."
15. Paul also commands that every man examine and prove himself whether he be in the faith, and whether Jesus Christ be in him, 2 Cor. 13:5. To the right performances of which examination, it is necessary that first we be solidly taught from the word of God what are the distinguishing marks of a state of grace; then that we begin a diligent search of our own conscience, whether they can be found in us. If we consult the word of God, almost every where, we find that the heirs of present grace and future glory are described by their qualities and virtues, and by the exercise of these. See, if you please, Ps. 15 and 24, and Matt. 5; yea, in some places we are expressly taught that it is from hence that our state is to be known; 1 John 3:14, "œWe know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." Again, in the 19th verse, and "œhereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him." These words certainly signify something very different from, and diametrically contrary to, these assertions we lately heard.
16. Since the learned men confess that sanctification is a consequence and an effect of justification, and such an effect indeed, which is inseparable from a consciousness of justification, it is strange why they deny that it is a cer-tain sign of justification. Cannot therefore the cause be known from its proper effects? From one of two inseparable benefits, cannot the other be inferred?
17. The brethren confess that none can have a consciousness of his justification, but from faith and by faith. But how does a man know that he has faith? From the evidence of the thing, say they. For since the soul is immediately conscious to itself of its own actions, it knows whether it hears the testimony of God´s Spirit, whether it receives it, and by believing, answers it: for faith is the echo and, as it were, a certain repercussion of the divine voice speaking to the soul. I do not choose to oppose. But pray, let them tell the reason why the soul is less conscious of its affection than of its assent. How comes it that I do not as well know that I frequently think with pleasure concerning God, that I eagerly desire and long after familiar communion with him, and am solicitous to do what may be pleasing to him, and in fine, am grieved when I wander from the rule of duty; as that I know the sacred whispers of God to my soul is truly the voice of God, and that my soul, by the assent of faith, answers to it? Hence I conclude that sanctification and its effects are by no means to be slighted, when we treat of assuring the soul as to its justification.
18. Neither will it be improper to com-pare the assurance which is from the witnessing of the divine Spirit with that which arises from discerning the evidences of grace. If the witnessing of the Holy Ghost be viewed in itself, and known to be the testimony of the Spirit himself, truly nothing surer than it, nothing more worthy of credit, can be conceived. Which Chyrsostom hath illustrated to excellent purpose: This is the voice not only of the gift, but also of the Comforter who bestows the gift. But when the Spirit beareth witness, pray, what doubt can remain? For if either man, angel, or archangel, or any such power should pro-mise this, it might be proper to doubt. But when the Supreme Being, and he indeed who bestows this gift, testifies to us, even by these things which he hath commanded us to ask, who, pray, can doubt of his fidelity?"* I do not doubt, but that the testimony of the Spirit, where it is present, shines with such splendid rays of celestial light in the souls of believers, that they are most fully persuaded it is God who speaks. But I desire to hear from pious men, how they experience that testimony in themselves, whether by way of some constant act; or intermitting, indeed, but very frequently repeated; or whether they happen to enjoy these most pleasant whisperings more rarely, and by long interruptions and intervals of time. If they are perpetually, very frequently honoured with such pleasant and familiar intercourse, they owe the greatest gratitude to God. Neither can any reason be assigned, why others should envy them such extraordinary happiness. But neither let them, by rash judging, be injurious to the generation of God´s children, to whom it is not vouchsafed to be so blessed, that they can glory in such a frequent, much less the uninterrupted, witnessing of the Spirit: and whose faith is not generally the echo, or repercussion of the internal whispers concerning the remission of their sins; but an assent to the gospel, as preached by Christ and the Apostles, and committed to writing by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. But let us suppose, it is of late that some believer has enjoyed such pleasant whispers of the Spirit; does the memory of it remain so deeply impressed on the mind, that, after a considerable time, it will always be present in the soul with the same degree of light, and that reasons of doubting do not now and then arise? What if perhaps he deceived himself with his own imagination, and took that for a dictate of the Spirit which was nothing but the pleasant play of a deluded mind? In the charge souls which I have now borne upwards of forty years,* I have often had occasion to hear doubts of that kind from those, concerning whom I had no reason to think amiss. But since the habits of Christian virtues are permanent, though not always active in the same degree; and since therefore not their equal vivacity, but sincerity, is an evidence of grace; in fine, since it is not very difficult for a man to discern how he is towards God, and from what principle, and with what purpose he is engaged in the worship of God and the exercise of virtue; I have generally found that more solid and permanent tranquillity arises from the perpetual study of preserving a good conscience than from the obscure remembrance of God speaking to the soul, which does not use to be very frequent with the Christians of our age. Blessed are they who can say with Paul, "œour rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity, and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world," 2 Cor. 1:12.
19. 5thly, With respect to the beauty of Christian virtues and their acceptableness in the sight of the Lord, I thus judge, that none in this life obtains such perfect holiness but that it labours under its imperfections; on account of which, if God should deal with us according to the rigour of the law, and his highest right over us, it would be rejected. Hence it is, that our righteousness can by no means have place before him in order to justification. And if any should presume to obtrude it upon God for that very purpose, truly it would be loss and dung to the man himself. Neither do the brethren differ here, as to the substance of the matter. For I see it is taught on both sides, "œThat it is incumbent as a duty, even on the best of Christians, to renounce all the grace they possess, all the good they do, as contributing nothing at all to the expiation of sins or to the obtaining of a right to life: yea, that they are condemned, who deny that our most excellent obedience deserves the curse according to the rigour of law, and stands in need of pardon: or who neglect to inculcate on their hearers, that all these things must be renounced which may be found in ourselves, lest in any manner they be accounted the cause of the expiation or of the forgiveness of sins." But when, through the righteousness of Christ apprehended by faith, the believer´s person is made acceptable to God, then his virtues which he obtained by sanctifying grace, and the exercise of virtues flowing from the same grace, are likewise acceptable to God; and what blemishes of ours cleave to them, these are covered with the most perfect righteousness and holiness of Christ.
20. In the meantime, since that holiness to which we were predestinated by the Father, which Christ purchased for us by his blood, and which is infused into us by the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, is true holiness, and the very image of God, according to which we are renewed; it cannot but "“ even in consideration of itself, because it is holiness, and as it is holiness "“ please God; and in this respect Christian virtues are not filthiness and dung, but the beauty of the royal bride and the comeliness wherewith she is all glorious within, Ps. 45:13, 14. "œHoliness becometh the house of the Lord for ever," Ps. 93:5.*
21. Further, since God cannot but love himself, he also delights in that which is like him; and the more of his image he discerns in any thing, the more he delights in it. Charnock on the holiness of God (p. 509), expresses himself with elegance: "œGod is so holy that he cannot but love holiness in others. By his nature, he cannot but love that which is agreeable to his nature, and in which he finds the lovely draughts of his own wisdom and purity. It is impossible that he should not be delighted with his own image. He would not be holy by nature if he were not delighted with holiness in every nature. He would deny his own nature if he did not love everything wherein the image of his nature is expressed; so indeed, that if the devils themselves were capable of an act of righteousness, God, by the purity of his nature, would be inclined to love it, even in those naughty and rebellious spirits." Hence it follows that they who diligently apply themselves to the exercise of Christian holiness are as acceptable to him as they are odious who obey their lusts. Whatever others may think, I do not doubt but that is a generous and a laudable emulation of Christians whereby they endeavour to excel one another in the study of godliness; that, as they have been taught by the gospel how they ought to walk and to please God, so they would abound more and more; 1 Thess. 4:1, "œWherefore we labour, that whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him," 2 Cor. 5:9.*
</quote>

 

[Larry Hughes]

Rev. Matthew,

I'm not condemning ANY reformed writers on this subject, nor have I done so, but you've continued to set up that strawman for knocking down. I've ignored it until now. All I was doing was getting behind the language that's all and there is nothing wrong with that, last I looked ex cathedra doesn't exist in the protestant church. Please do not openly false accuse me and likewise if I have offended I DO apologize and ask your forgiveness.

It is not wrong to think through doctrine and question what is meant. My point was to the modern usage and unless you've walked a mile in MY shoes, which you have not, in heavy pietistic circles, then you have little to say on the matter. You have no knowledge of our region.

But if a man says that justification by faith alone in Christ alone is not sufficient then I stand here without movement. For in the last day of judgment I will plead nothing and stand under the blood of Christ which I so desparately need. That's the good thing about trials and suffering, especially final death; AT last a man sees the folly of all his "works" and has nothing left to plead for the hour has come and the stroke of the clock is at last. All wrangling is over. As I told my wife upon the news of a childhood friend of mine just recently converted who now lays dying wracked with massive cancer, having less than weeks to go, "Where is all the works preaching now, where's the pietism, where's constant emphasis upon third use of the Law at the expense of the Law and Gospel, what good will that do him now that his hour is at last and he can move no further than his death bed and near his approach of a holy God, where are those preachers of THIS day who so hide Christ from the needy!" The doctrine is in the end under trials, dare I say, quite practical at that point.

I appreciate your time and consider this matter closed between us. Apparently we come from two entirely different worlds and are talking past each other.

I give you the last word if you desire and shall respond no further so that it might yours.

Your Brother In Christ alone,

Larry

[Edited on 7-5-2006 by Larry Hughes]

 

[MW]

Dear Mr. Hughes,

My purpose was not to accuse you but simply to show that there are elements of orthodoxy in what you are calling legalism. That we need to be careful about how we use that term. That's all. I am not offended -- just concerned.