Piper on sola fide

1. Last month John Piper did a post which some self-identified Calvinists view as an attack on sola fide:

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-really-save-us-by-faith-alone

However, it's the critics who seem to be confused about Reformed theology. 

2. In Calvinism, sin has two basic dimensions:

i) An objective dimension, viz. guilt, culpability. 

That's the forensic dimension of sin.

ii) A subjective dimension: moral corruption. A predisposition to commit sin. Sinful attitudes. Sinful inclinations.

That's the psychological dimension of sin.

3. It follows that in Calvinism, salvation has two basic, corresponding dimensions:

i) An objective dimension, viz. justification, imputation.

That's the forensic dimension of salvation. That's concerns our legal or spiritual status or standing before God. Something God does for (elect) sinners. 

ii) A subjective dimension, viz. regeneration, sanctification.

That concerns our moral and spiritual transformation. Our subjective state or psychological condition, as rational, moral agents. That's something God does in (elect) sinners.

4. In addition, Reformed soteriology has a Trinitarian division of labor. The work of Christ rectifies the objective dimension of sin. His death on the cross redeems (elect) sinners.

Likewise, the work of the Spirit rectifies the subjective dimension of sin. Spiritual renewal. 

5. Reformed theology says we are justified by faith alone, not that we are saved by faith alone. There's more to salvation than justification. There's no salvation without sanctification. The work of Christ alone doesn't save you. The Spirit's work is necessary, too. 

Critics of Piper's statement are eerily reminiscent of antinomians and Sandemanians like Charles Ryrie, Zane Hodges, Charles Stanley, and R. T. Kendall.

Michael Brown on Joseph Prince

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-michael-browns-interview-with-joseph.html

Is faith a condition of justification?

The debate over Piper's foreword to Schreiner's monograph of justification has reignited:

http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2015/10/faith-alone-and-the-importance-of-precise-terminology.html

Justification is simply the forgiveness of sins (negative removal of guilt) and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (positive reckoning as righteous). 

That's an accurate, compact definition.

Entering into a right relationship with God is not part of it. Entering into a right relationship with God is a consequence of being forgiven and reckoned as righteous. In traditional terminology, we would speak of this right relationship as our adoption as God’s children and reconciliation with God (or peace with God). Justification is a purely forensic verdict in which we are freed from guilt and are reckoned as righteous before God. 

Up to a point, that's true. That's God's side of the transaction.

However, justification is, in part, a result of a human mental act: justifying faith. So justification is a consequence of divine and human acts alike. Hence, there's a theologically accurate sense in which a sinner can enter into a right relationship with God (Piper's colloquial synonym for justification) by exercising faith in Christ. Justifying faith is a part of it. A human part of it.

Of course, from a Reformed standpoint, faith is, itself, a result of monergistic regeneration. So it's not an independent human contribution to the transaction. 

The second confusing terminology is his use of the word “conditions.” He wants to say that faith is the sole condition of entering into a right relationship with God. But if we replace “entering into a right relationship with God” with “being justified,” then it is not true that faith is the sole condition, since faith is related to justification not as a condition but as a means. Faith has never been viewed as a condition of justification in Reformed theology or in the Reformed confessions.

Evidently, "condition" evokes certain connotations for Lee. One problem is a failure to define the term.

"Condition" is a standard term in philosophical usage. As I define it, a condition involves a dependence relation. Take a necessary condition: a sinner is justified if and only if he exercises justifying faith. Faith is an antecedent condition that must be met for justification to obtain. 

Put another way, if A is the case, then B is the case. If justifying faith obtains, then justification obtains. 

Conversely, unless justifying faith obtains, justification will not obtain. 

Lee says faith is a "means" rather than a "condition." But that's a false dichotomy. If faith is a necessary means to an end (=justification), then that's equivalent to a necessary condition. If the end cannot obtain apart from that particular means, then it's a necessary means–which is equivalent a necessary condition. 

Faith is not the ground of justification, but the means by which we are justified…

Which suggests that for Lee, "condition" denotes "a ground." But Piper said "condition," not "ground." Moreover, although a ground might be a condition, it doesn't follow that a condition is a ground. Sometimes they overlap, but "condition" is a broader concept, a more general category, than a "ground" 

Faith is a purely passive and receptive instrument. 

Hovering in the background of that nomenclature is the conflict with Rome. The traditional jargon is fairly opaque unless you contrast it with the opposing viewpoint. One objective is to preclude the notion that faith is meritorious. Preclude the notion that faith merits justification. Without that background, the significance of the terminology is obscured. 

In addition, Catholicism has a different concept of justification. Infused righteousness rather than imputed righteousness. 

Although these crucial distinctions, and it's important to educate people on what they mean, Piper's paragraph is consistent with all that. 

It's also a mistake to think we must repeat traditional formulations. There's nothing wrong with introducing newer words to denote older concepts. For one thing, we sometimes need to update our language to communicate to the current generation. Language changes.

In addition, the newer terminology may, in fact, be an improvement over the older terminology. Using philosophical jargon for theological concepts can lend greater precision to the formulation. 

Faith is an open hand that receives the gift…receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith.

"Resting…the open hand" is picturesque imaginary. Dear to people who were raised on that. Nothing wrong with that. But metaphorical language is loose and illustrative. So I don't see why that's superior to a technical term like "condition." 

To say the justified "rest" in the righteousness of Christ is not self-explanatory. That's something you have to unpack. So I don't see how that's an improvement over faith as a necessary condition for justification.

It's beneficial to use both kinds of language. Philosophical jargon is more precise while figurative terminology can enable to the reader to "visualize" the concept. They work best in combination.

Piper goes on to say, “There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.” 

This is terribly confusing. If we have been justified by faith, we are righteous in God’s sight and therefore entitled to heaven. Christ’s righteousness is sufficient. We do not need to meet any other conditions for attaining heaven. If we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, then we are legally righteous in the eyes of God and qualified to attain heaven.

Actually, I think Lee's objection is confused. In Calvinism, the various conditions of salvation are coordinated: all and only the elect are redeemed, regenerated, justified, adopted, sanctified, glorified, &c. So it's true that if anyone condition obtains, all the other conditions will obtain.

If you were justified, then that ensures your salvation. But the same could be said with respect to the other conditions. If you were regenerated, that ensures your salvation. If you are redeemed, that ensures your salvation. If you were elected, that ensures your salvation. 

Likewise, if you were justified, that ensures that you were regenerated. If you were regenerated, that ensures that you will be justified. And so on. Each condition entails salvation. Each condition entails every other condition. 

But by the same token, we do not attain heaven apart from the other conditions. Each and every condition must be met to attain heaven.

That doesn't mean we do it on our own steam. This is all the result of saving grace. But that's the point: salvation by grace is a package deal. All or nothing.

For instance, you can't be justified unless Christ died for you. The atonement is a necessary condition of justification. Justification is grounded in the merit of Christ's sacrificial death. Penal substitution.

I suspect that Piper is shadowboxing with antinomianism. 

In this sense, it is true to say that no one who enters heaven will be devoid of good works and evangelical obedience. But these things have no role to play as means or conditions of attaining heaven. They are the fruit and evidence of saving faith. We do not attain heaven by means of or on the condition of producing the fruit of faith. 

Once again, the problem here is that Lee is working with an undefined notion of "condition." That word triggers certain connotations for him.  He doesn't indicate where he derives his operating definition.  

Sanctification is a condition of attaining heaven. A necessary condition. 

We are saved by the work of the Spirit (in regeneration and sanctification) as well as the work of the Father (in election and justification) and the Son (in redemption). 

Is justification a sufficient condition to "attain heaven"? Sufficient insofar as justification entails the satisfaction of the other conditions. But insufficient in itself. 

Sanctification and the gospel

http://gospelreformation.net/affirmations-denials-on-the-gospel-and-sanctification/

The sanctification debate

I'm going to briefly comment on this post:

http://heidelblog.net/2014/05/faith-alone-is-the-instrument-of-justification-and-salvation/

It's striking that Scott Clark has decided to side very publicly with Tullian Tchividjian on the sanctification debate. To my knowledge, Tullian's prominent critics hadn't linked his position to WSC. Ironically, Clark is now playing right into Frame's indictment of "the Escondido theology."

Some orthodox Reformed pastors are being charged with antinomianism because they allegedly over emphasize grace—how sinners who face eternal condemnation apart from the free favor merited for them by the perfect, whole obedience of Christ can over emphaize grace I am uncertain but that is the charge. Further, it is charged that some of these advocates of free grace downplay the moral, logical necessity of sanctification and good works as a consequence of Christ’s free justification of sinners. 

Clark doesn't quote any critics who say Tchividjian and his ilk "overemphasize grace." It's revealing that Clark frames the issue in the same way antinomians (i.e. the Evangelical Grace Society) frame the issue. They allege that making good works (or sanctification) a condition of salvation compromises salvation by grace.

That, however, reflects, a truncated view of grace. They are defining grace in purely external terms. Justification. What Christ did for us on the cross. 

That denies the internal aspect of grace: spiritual renewal. 

In Calvinism, salvation by grace covers both the external dimensions of salvation (e.g. justification; Christ's imputed merit) and the internal dimensions of salvation (e.g. monergistic regeneration, sanctification, preservation). 

Reformed critics of antinomianism are by no means overemphasizing grace. To the contrary, antinomians are underemphasizing grace by reducing grace to what God does to and for us in contrast to what God does in us and with us. 

Put another way, if you lack good works, you lack grace. If you lack sanctity, you lack the grace of sanctification. That's not law v. grace. Rather, that's a graceless state. 

With those caveats out of the way, one feature of the response by some to the renewed emphasis on grace is the assertion that though we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone we are saved partly through works. 

i) It would be more accurate to say we are justified by faith alone and we are saved by grace alone. Moreover, there's a cause/effect relation. Justification is contingent on faith, faith is contingent on regeneration, regeneration is contingent on grace. 

ii) Are the critics of Tchividjian actually saying we are "saved partly through works"? Do they use that phrase? Or is that Clark's summary attribution?

It would be more accurately to say we are saved party through the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. Because sanctification has a cooperative aspect, the Holy Spirit prompts born-again Christians to use the means of grace. 

It's not that we're saved partly through works. Rather, good works are the fruit of a spiritual root. If you lack the fruit, you lack the root. 

The difficulty is that some Reformed folk are not satisfied with making Spirit-wrought sanctity, which produces obedience that comes to expression in good works, a logically necessary fruit of justification and the evidence of their regeneration, justification, union with Christ,  adoption etc.

It's unclear what Clark means by saying good works are a logically necessary fruit of justification. Justification is not a cause of sanctification. Justification is categorically different. Justification is a forensic status. Sanctification is the fruit of regeneration. A necessary extension of regeneration.

Perhaps Clark means you can't have justification without good works. True. Justification and sanctification are a package deal. The God who justifies the elect, sanctifies the elect.

But, of course, the logic is reversible. If you can't have sanctification without justification, you can't have justification without sanctification. 

Moving up the pecking order

Justin McCurry has made an interesting observation about the Tullian Tchividjian controversy:

Justin K. McCurry

Okay, I understand challenging Tullian to debate, but why not challenge someone else, like from Escondido? Tullian is a popularizer, why not challenge a scholar. Why go after low hanging fruit?

Ian Clary Well, seeing that Carl Trueman offered to ride shotgun, Tullian could get R. Scott Clark to join him. That would make it all the more interesting.

Justin K. McCurry Yes Tullian is wrong, but he just repeats himself. It would make more sense to move further upstream, and remove the dead deer from the water supply. 

Tullian is just reading the cue cards. Why not talk to the people writing them?

Justin K. McCurry ". Again, Tullian stuck his neck out and got called on it. "

Yes, but Escondido has been saying this for a long time, and there has been back and forth discussions all along with no debate challenges. (Except for the Tipton/Horton discussion on Reformed Forum). 

"Why would you not flock to him?" 

White Horse Inn has been on air for a long time, with folks like Horton, who has been the subject of complaint. People probably flock to Tullian. But I think folks at WSC get way more mentions, and are way more nuanced than someone like Tullian. I'm not saying don't debate Tullian, I'm just wondering why hasn't this happened with someone from the HQ.

"Second, he's the popularizer and a debate against him would show the people at the popular level why he's wrong"

To me, it's like an adult arguing with a child, to show him that he's wrong. But Tullian isn't the hinge of the issues going on in this whole discussion. By all means debate him. But this should have been done a long time ago, with someone else. It just doesn't appear to be the obvious solution at this point. 

"Plus, the academics won't debate--at least, not as easily as Tullian will."

I haven't seen anyone try. I've just seen books written from long distances.

Joshua Gielow Scott Clark has said Tullian is freeing the masses with his law/gospel perspective.

Justin K. McCurry I think if a couple of folks from WSC like Clark, Horton (Perhaps Hart?) would join and they discuss it in a forum setting, there would be something beneficial in it. Maybe a part 2 in The Future of Protestantism

Joshua Gielow John Frame dealt with these guys and they just him off. It would be the same in a debate.

Joshua Gielow And VanDrunen.

Justin K. McCurry "I think a much larger crowd would get interest because of a debate with Tullian rather than anyone else"

Why would it matter if more people got interested in a debate with Tullian? Is the goal to have a popular debate? Or is the goal to get to the truth of the matter? Do you really think Tullian would be the best representative of his law/gospel views? It just seems equivalent to swimming in the shallow end of the pool.

"but at least a debate needs to occur with him."

Again, I am *not*, I repeat *I am not* saying the debate shouldn't happen. 

I am *not* defending Tullian. 

My questions were meant to highlight what hasn't been done. There have been *no* debates, or attempts to debate with professors from WSC. Which as far as I've seen from constant criticism, is the center of the problem. 

Repeating "but it should happen" or "this will get more attention" doesn't address the thrust of my questioning. lol

Trueman at cross-purposes

Carl Trueman has an unwittingly ironic post on Tullian Tchividjian. 

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/05/a-call-for-muchneeded-facetofa.php

Tchividjian has been accused of antinomianism. Because he pastors an influential, high-profile, (nominally?) Reformed church, that's a cause for concern. 

I haven't bothered to investigate the allegation. At this point I'm prepared to defer to the judgment of his accusers, who seem to be responsible accusers.  

Trueman makes a point of highlighting the fact that Tchividjian is affiliated with TGC. Trueman is obsessed with TGC. He seems to think it's symptomatic of all that's wrong with evangelicalism. And that's because TGC, as a free association of independent ministries, isn't under the duly constituted authority of a proper ecclesiastical body–by Trueman's yardstick. 

But here's where the unintentional irony comes in. Tchividjian isn't the senior pastor of an independent church. He's not a lone ranger. Rather, he belongs to a confessional Presbyterian denomination. That's precisely the kind of ecclesiastical oversight which Trueman champions. 

If Trueman were consistent, he'd leave it to the PCA to police Tchividjian. I'm no expert on PCA canon law, but it's my understanding that a PCA pastor is answerable to his session. If his session is delinquent, the pastor is answerable to the regional Presbytery. And if the Presbytery is delinquent, the pastor is answerable to the general assembly. The general assembly can appoint a committed to study the issue and report back. It may issue a majority report and minority report. The general assembly can vote on the report (although it's not required to do so). If it votes on the report, that becomes official, enforceable denomination policy. That's my understanding.

The appellate process is inefficient. It operates at a glacial pace. Yet that's Presbyterianism. That's the ecclesiastical process Trueman recommends.

So why is Trueman advocating a public debate that bypasses the established channels of church discipline? Isn't that outside intervention subversive to the ecclesial accountability system that Trueman constantly touts? It seems as if he doesn't really have much faith in the process he champions. He's too impatient. It can't be trusted to yield timely, reliable results. 

Antinomianism: Reformed Theology’s Unwelcome Guest? review

"Mark Jones's New Book" by Paul Helm.

Libertine moralists

Based on rumors that Ergun Caner may be a candidate for the presidency of another SBC educational institution, Jared Moore and Mark Lamprecht have been attempting to forestall that eventuality by reminding people of Caner's past transgressions, for which he remains evasive, impenitent, and even defiant. Moore and Lamprecht are simply endeavoring to maintain minimal standards of ethical purity in a Christian denomination to which they belong. 

To my knowledge, Cancer decided to cash in on 9/11 fervor by recasting himself as a jihadist who converted to Christ. It was a smart career move while it lasted. But from what I've read, critics like James White and Turretinfan have produced stacks of evidence implicating Caner in a scam to reinvent his past. 

And it isn't just outside critics. The fact that Liberty U eased him out, despite the institutional incentive to put the best face on the situation, is independent corroboration.

However, Peter Lumpkins has, once again, been running interference for Caner. Here's what's striking. Lumpkins is a classic example of a legalist and moralist when it comes to teetotalism, but an antinomian libertine when it comes to a genuine ethical issue like Caner's résumé inflation. 

The Pharisees forbad what Scripture permits or prescribes while they permitted or prescribed what Scripture forbids. 

Lumpkins is a modern-day Pharisee. On the one hand, Scripture permits (even praises) moderate alcohol consumption. Conversely, it condemns the kind of blatant, massive fraud that Caner stands accused of. On the other hand, Lumpkins invents a nonexistent virtue (teetotalism) while condemning a nonexistent vice (moderate alcohol consummation). Conversely, he defends genuine wrongdoing. 

Where's the standard of holiness? 

Decadent Lutheranism

http://metalutheran.blogspot.com/2013/06/no-perspective-on-sanctification.html

Political antinomianism

Plenty of folks were lauding Chick-Fil-A and denouncing the pro-gay community when I checked my Facebook news feed on Friday. While I agreed with those who support Chick-Fil-A’s freedom of speech and view of marriage, I thought it might be helpful to add a complementary perspective into the mix. So I posted the following remark, “I’m not a prophet, but I suspect that it will be more tolerable on the Day of Judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for many who patronized Chick-Fil-A on August 1st.”

Hence, it’s not enough to be “straight” and support heterosexual marriage. Standing up for the First Amendment and morality is good and well. But what’s ultimately important is not where you stood (or stand) on “Chick-Fil-A Day” but where you’ll stand in relation to Jesus on Judgment Day.

But sometimes I wonder if our opposition to homosexuality and advocacy of Christian values doesn’t come across primarily as a misguided attempt to create a “Christian nation” rather than a humble endeavor to win our fellow non-Christian Americans to the kingdom that is “not of this world.” In the words of Joel Rainey, who actually went to Chick-Fil-A on August 3rd in an effort to reach out to gays,

    When I read about Jesus’ words and actions in Scripture, I see a Savior who aggressively pursues relationships with people who are far from God, and who simultaneously displays a strong reticence toward fighting over the control of temporary kingdoms. His mission was, and is, much larger!4

I just wanted to remind folks–whether believers or non-believers–that the ultimate issue isn’t what one does with the First Amendment or marriage but what one does with Jesus and the gospel. And in doing so, I hoped to prod my fellow believers to think not only in terms of preserving the moral fiber of our country but also (and more importantly) of promoting the gospel by means of declaring the fact that, as one of my good friends puts it, “we’re all in this sinful mess together.”6

I’m not convinced that buying a sandwich from CFA on August 1st was the only way Christians could show their support for the CFA’s First Amendment rights and views on marriage. And while it may help to preserve our American liberties, I’m not sure how much it will serve to advance the cause of the gospel. In the words of the hymnwriter:

    For not with swords loud clashing

    Nor roll of stirring drum

    But deeds of love and mercy

    The heavenly kingdom comes.

http://drbobgonzales.com/2012/on-chick-fil-a-being-gay-and-judgment-day/

This is the kind of smug, otherworldly pietism that I often run across in certain Reformed Baptist circles.

i) You have ministers who talk down to laymen. Even if a layman says or does something right, the minister thinks his role is to remind the layman–as if the layman needs reminding–of another “complementary” truth. The minister imagines that, unlike the layman, he brings a balanced perspective to the issue.

The effect is to relativize away whatever good the layman did. But as Bishop Butler wisely observed, we should resist the impulse to discountenance what good because it wasn’t better.

ii) Ironically, it’s the position of Gonzales that’s unbalanced. The Bible preaches law as well as gospel. Duty as well as grace. It isn’t all gospel all the time.

Some Baptists like Gonzales promote political antinomianism.

iii) God put us in this world. This is the world we must function in. This is the theater in which we must practice our faith. This is where we must live out what we profess, until we die or Jesus returns.

We're living in the here-and-now, not the hereafter. We need to be faithful to the situation God has put us in. If we're faithful in the present, the future will take care of itself. 

iv) Christian men have a duty to protect and provide for their dependents. Christian political activism, or “push back,” is one of the ways we’re called upon to defend the welfare of our dependents. If, say, a totalitarian state takes control of your kids, then you can’t raise them in the faith. Then you can’t perform your parental duty as a Christian father. Likewise, if the state reserves the right to euthanize your elderly mother, you can’t perform your filial duty.

v) Sure, what “ultimately matters” is what happens to us after we die, not before we die. In that sense, if you have a toddler who wanders into a busy intersection, or a toddler who approaches a rattlesnake, it’s ultimately unimportant whether he’s run over. Ultimately unimportant whether he dies of snakebite. Yet you still have a duty to protect the toddler from harm.

If a mugger jumps your wife while the two of your are walking in the park, it’s ultimately unimportant whether or not he rapes her and murder her. Does that mean you should preach the gospel to the mugger rather than defending your wife?

If a lifeguard fished a drowning swimmer out of the water and resuscitated him through CPR, would Gonzales find fault because the lifeguard failed to evangelize the swimmer?

If a sharpshooter caps a schoolyard sniper, thereby saving the lives of innocent kindergartners, would Gonzales find fault because the policeman failed to evangelize the sniper?

vi) All goods are God’s goods. We should be thankful for every good thing. It’s more important to distinguish between good and evil than distinguish between greater and lesser goods.

vii) We’re not going to win everyone to Jesus. And the law is primarily for unbelievers, not believers (1 Tim 1:9-10).

"Unconditional eternal security"

Over at Arminian Invectives, Ben Henshaw has a running series on “unconditional eternal security.” Oddly enough, he has that filed under “perseverance.”

Problem is, Calvinism doesn’t subscribe to “unconditional eternal security.” There are some antinomian fundamentalists who take that position (e.g. Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie, Randall Gleason), but that’s in studied contrast to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.

I don’t know where Henshaw came up with the notion that perseverance of the saints is interchangeable with unconditional eternity security. I have noticed that some muddled Arminians detach adjectives from the TULIP acronym and misapply them to other Reformed doctrines. For instance, it’s not uncommon for Arminians to detached “irresistible” from “grace,” where it stands for monergistic regeneration, and then misuse “irresistible” as a general designation for Reformed soteriology.

Perhaps Henshaw is laboring under the misconception that if Reformed election is unconditional, then perseverance is unconditional. If so, his usage is idiosyncratic at best and illogical at worst.

In Calvinism, “eternal security” is conditional, not unconditional. It’s contingent on the “perseverance” of the saints. In fact, that’s why it’s traditionally dubbed the “perseverance of the saints.” Subtle, I know.

In Calvinism, “eternal security” is contingent on sanctification, contingent on faith. Good works are a condition of salvation.

Of course, there’s a condition behind the condition. If “eternal security” is conditional on perseverance, then perseverance is conditional on God’s preservation of the elect. And that’s a sure thing.

Perhaps Henshaw is laboring under the misconception that if something is conditional, it must be uncertain.

5 Problems with Unconditional Forgiveness

http://www.chrisbrauns.com/2012/06/21/5-problems-unconditional-forgiveness/

Andy Stanley

Andy Stanley’s position on homosexuality has come under fire from guys like Ken Silva, Denny Burk, and Albert Mohler. I don’t know much about Andy Stanley myself. I only heard him preach once. The sermon was hip, with some pleasant self-deprecating humor.

Andy is, of course, son of the famous Charles Stanley. Charles is a very gifted preacher. It’s possible that Andy doesn’t have the same talent, but parleyed his pedigree into a successful ministry. Then again, maybe that’s not fair. I don’t know enough to say.

In any case, I’d like to float a theory about Andy’s position on homosexuality. His dad is one of those fundamentalists, like Charles Ryrie, Randall Gleason, and Zane Hodges, who espouses an antinomian version of eternal security. This version of eternal security is opposed to the perseverance of the saints.

This became a cause célèbre when John MacArthur trained his guns on that position.

It’s possible that Andy’s position on homosexuality is related to his father’s antinomian theology. I don’t know that for a fact. I just offer that for consideration. A working hypothesis.

Lutheran antinomianism

Notice the predictable progression (or should I say, regression?) from Lutheran disdain for self-examination to brazen antinomianism:

*****************************

February 7th, 2010 at 09:34 | #1 Reply | Quote

Pr McCain, Thanks for this. I speak as an evangelical who recently started to explore Lutheran theology. I thank God for the clear understanding of our standing before God on the basis of Christ’s merits, not ours, that is at the heart of the Lutheran faith. But indeed I have frequently encountered examples of this undermining or ignoring of sanctification that you mention. I confess I have been shocked by the aversion to speaking in terms of sanctification that I have found. As you point out, certain exhortations of St Paul himself would be out of bounds in some modern Lutheran pulpits. You mention above the influence of certain theologians. Do you see this also as an overreaction to the (probably more serious) influence of pietism in Lutheran history?
Rev Allen Yount (CRSM)

February 7th, 2010 at 18:57 | #3 Reply | Quote

Stephen,
I think your on to somthing when you mention that there might be an overeaction to pietisism. I also think the influence of Forde and others helped fuel the fire of this, what I call semi-antinomism. Most confessional lutherans who are in this camp, are very strong on the 2nd use of the law, but very, very weak on the 3rd use. Many also in this camp will have no problem calling the “old” Missourians pietists and disliked the preaching of Walther and Maier for example. I had a conversation with a pastor awhile back and he thought Dr. Louis Brighton was a pietist, when I heard this, I knew I wasn’t going crazy on seeing this difference.
Fom what little research that I have done on this, this began with the liturgical renewal movement back in the 1940’s. Not that liturgical renewal was bad in of it self, but the theology that was imported from Germany that came with it. If you really what to see the stark contrast between the old and modern Missourians, take a look at Kretzmann’s Commentarys of the Bible. You can read it online here: http://kretzmannproject.org/. I also think the new TLSB does a nice job going back closer to an old Missourian / Synodical Conference understanding of sanctification, thats’ reflected in the notes.
Pastor McCain,
I think we might be in the minority on this, but keep fighting the good fight and I’m glad we have you as a voice on this topic.
MM
Matt P.

February 8th, 2010 at 09:35 | #5 Reply | Quote

Matt, it’s an interesting query you raise. I think the point here is that Luther is speaking directly to Christians who think that because they sit in Divine Service, hear sermons, and can wear the name tag: “I am a confessional Lutheran Christian” they are “free” to indulge themselves because, after all, we are baptized and take communion, etc.
First, Second, Third…call it whatever you will…some Lutherans have a problem discussing Christian living, as Luther does so powerfully and pointedly in this sermon.
Just last night I heard from a pastor who again told me, in no uncertain terms, that it is wrong to mention anything about our response to God’s grace at the end of the sermon, for that is Law, and the Law always accuses, therefore if we conclude a sermon that way we are just leading people to despair or to be hypocrites.
This is not a “made up” problem we face, it is a very real problem that has developed in our circles, and it deeply saddens me.

http://cyberbrethren.com/2010/02/07/are-lutherans-antinomian-some-are-but-genuine-lutheranism-is-not/

Upstate without a paddle

EDWARD REISS SAID:

“I am happy you admit doubt is not assurance.”

As if I ever said otherwise.

“But you give away the game again when you say a Christian can pass from assurance to non-assurance. Flopping between assurance and non-assurance is not assuring at all.”

Is there some reason you habitually frame issues in the most simplistic terms possible? To be in a state of doubt is not assurance at the time of doubt, or for the particular individual who happens in a state of doubt.

That’s irrelevant to other cases where an individual was never in a state of doubt, or in cases where he recovered from a state of doubt.

Why are you unable to bring any degree of sophistication to the analysis? Why do you chronically disregard essential distinctions? You seem to be intelligent, so I’m puzzled by why you find it necessary to invariably revert to the most simple-minded discussion of a complex issue.

“That a Calvinist can lose his assurance and regain it (if he is elect) is something I have maintained all along. I am happy you are finally coming around to my way of seeing things.”

And, once again we’re back to your congenital dissembling. This is not a position which I “finally came around to,” as if you managed to back me down and wring some fatal concession from my dying lips.

I drew the same distinctions in my 1/28 post on “The witness of the Spirit,” and that, in turn, referred back to an earlier exchange in which I also drawing the same distinctions.

Why do you imagine that telling the truth about someone’s stated position is optional for you? Why do you imagine that you’re exempt from Christian ethics?

Is this a reflection of how Lutheran antinomianism conditions the Lutheran to cut corners on morality? How Lutheran theology deadens the conscience? Indeed, that’s a predictable consequence of rejecting self-examination.

“The next step is to admit you look within yourself for assurance you are elect.”

There is more than one basis for assurance, as I’ve explained repeatedly.

“Unfortunately for the Calvinist position, if one does not have psychological assurance there is a real chance there is no promise from God for the individual because experiencing rebirth etc. are in the theoretical realm unless one knows one is elect. So, how can the Calvinist see if God's promises apply to him, that he is elect?”

Why do you keep posing questions I’ve already answered? The promises are conditional. Therefore, the promises apply to every individual who complies with the terms of the promise.

One of your problems is that you begin with your idiosyncratic redefinition of a “promise,” impute that idiosyncratic definition to the Calvinist, then act as though this generates some internal tension for his position. You lack the critical detachment to examine the opposing position on its own terms. Instead, you keep viewing it through the lens of your Lutheran presuppositions.

“You know the answer--look into himself for ‘internal evidence’ as the WC says. No matter how many times you say otherwise, a Calvinist has to look into himself for evidence of his election. It is right in your own confessions.”

i) I was the one who discussed the Westminster doctrine of assurance in my 1/28 post (see above). Don’t pretend that you’re bringing something to my attention that I hadn’t already dealt with.

ii) And the WCF doesn’t limit itself to internal evidence. You act as if the Westminster Divines shared your eccentric definition of what constitutes a promise. Then, based on your extraneous construction, which you impute to them, you proceed to collapse the objective grounds into the subjective grounds. But that’s just an exercise in mirror-reading–as you glimpse your own reflection at the bottom of the well.