Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 12, 2011
“When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel.”
“You wrote: “The New Calvinists apparently think God judges everything on a standard of absolute strict justice when it comes to man’s deeds, therefore everything is polluted with filthy sin.” Do you think God and His requirements have changed? Do you believe He never judged anything on a standard of absolute strict justice? Was this justice relaxed when Jesus died, or did He fulfill everything according to a standard of absolute strict justice? If you are right, perhaps God isn’t as holy and just as I had thought.”
Ans.: No, I don’t think God’s requirements have changed. I was referring to my impression of New Calvinists I am aware of. My last Sonship pastor taught that we Christians were sinning every nanosecond before God. He did think God accepted our good works, but only as a “dirty shirt.” Of course, this guy was not the smartest in the room since he also thought our hearts were “like dirty bird cages.” I’ve heard other New Calvinist (“Piper is bad”) go overboard on Christian obedience that comes from faith being truly and properly sin, polluted, tainted, etc. before God. Haven’t you? I really think they are misrepresenting God and the pattern to be observed in the Bible. I believe we ought to call it righteous if we obey God and sin if not. We need to stop acting like God sees everything we do painted in black. Observable in the Bible, God calls someone righteous for what he did. Or, God crediting righteousness for an act He approves. But when He calls something “righteous”, I don’t think we should be thinking – “sinful.” Whatever God wants to call it, that’s what it is. If He says “righteous,” I’m on-board, it’s good enough for me. He’s the Judge – right?
Now keep in mind that I don’t believe our righteous acts are anything comparable to the pure mind and actions of Jesus Christ! I’m the first to acknowledge imperfections in our righteous acts. I believe in just going by the pattern of Scripture. Not everything we do is “filty rags” before God. This “filthy rags” thinking leads to great confusion. It makes it look like God sees no difference between righteousness and wickedness.
About the atonement of Jesus. On strict justice I deserved separation from God and suffering punishment for eternity in hell. I believe Christ suffered and died making full satisfaction for sins before the Father, but Christ didn’t separate nor spend an equivalent of eternity in hell. Again, Justice is whatever God calls it.
“If I recall correctly, you are Presbyterian. Is that right? If so, should I assume you agree with everything your denomination believes and practices because you are associated with them? I suspect not. Why then do you, Paul and others like you insist on assuming that because people hold some beliefs in common,they must all believe all the same things?”
Ans: Right, I was an elder in a PCA chuch for years. Left the denomination because of the Sonship Movement going on locally. There is a heirarchy of truths. If highly important we should all believe the same, contending for the faith once delivered.
“Do you really believe God accepts us as righteous based on our works? Your comment about Cornelius makes it appear you believe that. Or could he have been a Jewish proselyte who had not yet fully made the transition into the church. I don’t think we are actually told he wasn’t circumcised are we? We are told he was a devout person who feared God. This is language that was usually used of proselytes. You certainly aren’t suggesting that his works were acceptable to God in and of themselves apart from the cleansing blood of Christ? My Bible says we offer acceptable sacrifices to God THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. Are you suggesting that our works are acceptable to God apart from Christ? Do you think your works are no longer tainted by any sin whatsoever? If they are tainted by any sin at all, isn’t it “filthy” sin? Is there any other kind?”
Ans.: No I don’t believe God accepts us as righteous BASED on works and no faith. Only one work pays for sin, that’s not mine. Cornelius was obviously obedient from faith, the gift of God. His faith and his actions were working together. “He who believes in his heart and confesses with his lips…” “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive. In the drama of life people call on the Name of the Lord, and He answers, accepts them and hears their crys. “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (Jn 3:21).”
Works tainted with sin? In the obedience that comes from faith it looks to me that a cleansing takes place. “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin (1Jn 1:7).” I believe we sin sometimes, and sometimes not. Our acts sometimes honor God (righteous ones), or they dishonor God (sinful ones). I don’t believe all Christian acts are truly and properly sin before the Father. We don’t “continue to sin” nonstop because God’s seed remains. “He who does what is right is righteous.” I don’t represent God viewing our acts as 50% breaking the law and 50% not breaking the law. To me, the Bible doesn’t speak much about righteous acts coming from faith as tainted with sin. God calls it “right” or “wrong.”
Now in the stand alone absolute sense, we say “no man is good.” Not even Jesus Christ! Who said: “Why do you call me good?” He points to the Father, the Source of the Trinity. Christ is indicating that everything He is and has comes from the Father. He is “the begotten Son.” And for us also? “What has a man gotten that he has not received.”
“Could you give some detail about your definition of “Antinomianism?” That term has been used so differently throughout Church history that I am not sure what you mean by it.”
Ans.: Antinomianism – no law; lawless; against the law; seeing no value in obedience toward God; faithless.
People who don’t believe the 10 Commandments and other Biblical commands applicable for our day are said to be antinomian. People who ignore or divert focus from imperative Sovereign Commands are antinomian.
People who don’t believe God’s commands can be obeyed in any sense are antinomian.
Example from church: A guy wanting to join the church says he believes in Jesus Christ. We tell him to be baptized because Jesus said “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” The guy refuses baptism, he’s against the law, he’s antinomian. He says he wants Jesus, but he doesn’t want to do what Jesus says.
Bill,
Thanks for the clarifications. I would likely agree with most everything you said. I would take exception to what you said about sin derailing God’s plan since ultimately even the “derailment” as you call it was part of the plan and purpose of God. Not important though since I understand what you are saying. There are a few minor areas where we might disagree, but they are minor.
Perhaps now you can see how it is supposed to work. I don’t assume you believe things you don’t believe. I don’t assume you believe everything everyone in your denomination believes simply because you belong to the denomination. You then state your position, and I react to what you actually say you believe, not to what I want to impute to you without a shred of evidence. Seems to work out pretty well, don’t you think?
Now, let’s try to apply that to others. Don’t assume they believe something unless they actually say they believe it. Good plan, don’t you think?
I happen to believe that believers under the New Covenant are enabled by the Spirit to perform acts that are righteous, the righteousness required by the law that is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4). This is, of course, accomplished for us believers by our vital union with Christ. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to obey the things that Christ has commanded us. In fact, if we don’t obey him, there is no evidence that we were united to him when he died. You and I both know that not all our works are unrighteous, but what about those times when, despite our best intentions, we act out of wrong motives, become angry because someone slights our opinions etc? Does that not render our actions less than absolutely righteous? I found it interesting that I just used the verses you cited from 1 John in a booklet I am writing on sanctification. I believe those verses refer not only or even primarily to those sins we commit when we act out of character with our Christian profession and rebel against what we know will please our heavenly Father, but to those actions in which we are aiming at our Father’s glory, but fall short. These verses concern our communion with God, not our relationship. That fellowship or communion is restore when we confess our sins. He is faithful to forgive us our sins in accord with His promises. He is just to forgive us our sins, founded on the redemptive work of Christ. On what other basis could He be just in forgiving our sins and restoring our communion? The problem is, this brings the redemptive work of Christ into the work of sanctification. I’m not saying that is a problem for me, but I think it is a problem for those who have difficulty with the idea that we are sanctified by the redemptive work of Christ. I would be interested in hearing your response to this.
Regarding “antinomianism” would you then say if a person believes God’s eternal law continues, is not lawless or against the law, sees value in obedience toward God and is not faithless he is not an antinomian?
Suppose he takes seriously all the imperatives of the covenant under which God has placed him, is he an antinomian? Would you then say if a person believes we can obey God’s commands by the enabling of the Holy Spirit, he isn’t an antinomian?
“Regarding “antinomianism” would you then say if a person believes God’s eternal law continues, is not lawless or against the law, sees value in obedience toward God and is not faithless he is not an antinomian?
Suppose he takes seriously all the imperatives of the covenant under which God has placed him, is he an antinomian? Would you then say if a person believes we can obey God’s commands by the enabling of the Holy Spirit, he isn’t an antinomian?”
Ans.: No, of course not. What you have described is no antinomian!
The key to your evil doublespeak is what you say here: “This
is, of course, accomplished for us believers by our vital union with Christ.” No Randy, Christ doesn’t obey for us. I told you not to come back here. From here on, any comments you make on this blog will be edited to rebuke yourself.
“I happen to believe that believers under the New Covenant are enabled by the Spirit to perform acts that are righteous, the righteousness required by the law that is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4). This is, of course, accomplished for us believers by our vital union with Christ. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to obey the things that Christ has commanded us. In fact, if we don’t obey him, there is no evidence that we were united to him when he died. You and I both know that not all our works are unrighteous, but what about those times when, despite our best intentions, we act out of wrong motives, become angry because someone slights our opinions etc? Does that not render our actions less than absolutely righteous? I found it interesting that I just used the verses you cited from 1 John in a booklet I am writing on sanctification. I believe those verses refer not only or even primarily to those sins we commit when we act out of character with our Christian profession and rebel against what we know will please our heavenly Father, but to those actions in which we are aiming at our Father’s glory, but fall short. These verses concern our communion with God, not our relationship. That fellowship or communion is restore when we confess our sins. He is faithful to forgive us our sins in accord with His promises. He is just to forgive us our sins, founded on the redemptive work of Christ. On what other basis could He be just in forgiving our sins and restoring our communion? The problem is, this brings the redemptive work of Christ into the work of sanctification. I’m not saying that is a problem for me, but I think it is a problem for those who have difficulty with the idea that we are sanctified by the redemptive work of Christ. I would be interested in hearing your response to this.”
Response: Another translation- Rom 8:4 NIV “And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.”
I agree, by the Spirit we perform acts that are righteous according to God. No problem here. Carrying each others burdens and we fulfill the law of Christ. If He says the ground is Holy, I’m not calling it “unclean dirt.” If God says “clean,” don’t call it “unclean.” He’s God, Father knows best. In Ezek 36:27 says “I will put my Spirit in you and move/cause you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” This New Covenant Promise is telling us that God is the initiator, source, and cause of our law keeping. In some sense He considers us doing “righteousness.” He doesn’t move us by the Spirit and call it half righteous and half sin. God is not the source of sin. In my opinion, the blood assures that “the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us (Rom 8:4).” God must be sure of things, what He says gets done right. The blood cleanses, and continues to cleanse. Maybe that’s why everything had to be sprinkled with blood in the OT, foreshadowing the NT blood of Christ.
You say problem, “this brings the redemptive work of Christ into the work of sanctification.” And I say you’ve got no problem with me. Sure, that’s the way I see it. The best article on Sanctification I have read is by R. E. O. White the Baptist Theological Writer, University of London. I have the whole article to e-mail if you want. Copied portion, here’s what he says
QUOTE:
“An exclusively objective view of the work of Christ tends to regard sanctification as either an addendum to justification, or merely evidence of justifying faith. Yet justification and sanctification are not separate in time (I Cor. 6:11), for God’s justifying act sets the sinner apart for service; not separable in experience, but only in thought. Paul’s gospel of justification by faith was the moral dynamic of salvation (Rom 1:16); forgiveness itself has moral force, creating the will to goodness in the forgiven.
To those who wondered whether men counted righteous on the ground of faith might go on sinning with impunity, Paul retorted that the faith expressed in faith – baptism so unites the convert to Christ that he dies with Christ to sin; is buried with Christ to all that belongs to his past life, and rises with Christ to new life in which sin’s reign is broken. The new self is yeilded to the service of righteousness and of God in a surrender that issues in sanctification (Rom. 6:1-11, 19-22). Sanctification is not merely the completion (correlate or implicate) of justification, it is justifying faith at work. In the faith counted for righteousness, actual righteousness is born. As though to guard against justification without sanctification, John says, “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, just as He is righteous.” (1 John 3:7).
The two experiences must not be identified. In justification, God at the beginning of Christian life declares us acquitted. In sanctification, God accomplishes his will in us as Christian life proceeds. Sanctification never replaces justification. Scholars argue whether Luther taught that “making sinners righteous” was the real ground of justification, as faith led on to good works, penance, saintliness – begun. Not so: Luther’s ground remains faith to the end. We are “always being justified, more and more, always by faith.” But the faith that justifies, by its very nature as union with Christ in his dying and risen life, sets in motion the sanctifying energies of grace.”
END OF QUOTE
About believers sin, yeah, we remain in union with Christ but fellowship is broken. We are graciously kept by Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd in us, and eventually granted repentance. In the mystery, “with your blood you purchased men for God, from every tribe and nation.” The life is in the blood, God’s way of being sure.
Hope this helps. Hope I answered all the questions. Glad to see you have a great interest in the things of God.
On the subject above, I thought this was interesting about the Reformers:
A HANDBOOK OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS by Van A. Harvey 1964 says this:
page 214: SANCTIFICATION “Superficially, the views of the Protestant Reformers seem similar (to Roman Catholicism). Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1500-64) did not draw a sharp line between justification and sanctification either (like Roman Catholicism), tending to interpret the new life as one aspect of justification.”
Page 215 “The Reformers themselves did not develop an elaborate theology concerning the relationship of sanctification to justification, although their writings abound with description of Christian freedom, the nature of Christian moral obligation, etc. Nor did they, like their followers, make a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Costa Rica,
your question:
“You wrote: “The New Calvinists apparently think God judges everything on a standard of absolute strict justice when it comes to man’s deeds, therefore everything is polluted with filthy sin.” Do you think God and His requirements have changed? Do you believe He never judged anything on a standard of absolute strict justice? Was this justice relaxed when Jesus died, or did He fulfill everything according to a standard of absolute strict justice? If you are right, perhaps God isn’t as holy and just as I had thought.”
Ans.: No, I don’t think God’s requirements have changed. I was referring to my impression of New Calvinists I am aware of. My last Sonship pastor taught that we Christians were sinning every nanosecond before God. He did think God accepted our good works, but only as a “dirty shirt.” Of course, this guy was not the smartest in the room since he also thought our hearts were “like dirty bird cages.” I’ve heard other New Calvinist (“Piper is bad”) go overboard on Christian obedience that comes from faith being truly and properly sin, polluted, tainted, etc. before God. Haven’t you? I really think they are misrepresenting God and the pattern to be observed in the Bible. I believe we ought to call it righteous if we obey God and sin if not. We need to stop acting like God sees everything we do painted in black. Observable in the Bible, God calls someone righteous for what he did. Or, God crediting righteousness for an act He approves. But when He calls something “righteous”, I don’t think we should be thinking – “sinful.” Whatever God wants to call it, that’s what it is. If He says “righteous,” I’m on-board, it’s good enough for me. He’s the Judge – right?
Now keep in mind that I don’t believe our righteous acts are anything comparable to the pure mind and actions of Jesus Christ! I’m the first to acknowledge imperfections in our righteous acts. I believe in just going by the pattern of Scripture. Not everything we do is “filty rags” before God. This “filthy rags” thinking leads to great confusion. It makes it look like God sees no difference between righteousness and wickedness.
About the atonement of Jesus. On strict justice I deserved separation from God and suffering punishment for eternity in hell. I believe Christ suffered and died making full satisfaction for sins before the Father, but Christ didn’t separate nor spend an equivalent of eternity in hell. Again, Justice is whatever God calls it.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Costa Rica,
your question:
“If I recall correctly, you are Presbyterian. Is that right? If so, should I assume you agree with everything your denomination believes and practices because you are associated with them? I suspect not. Why then do you, Paul and others like you insist on assuming that because people hold some beliefs in common,they must all believe all the same things?”
Ans: Right, I was an elder in a PCA chuch for years. Left the denomination because of the Sonship Movement going on locally. There is a heirarchy of truths. If highly important we should all believe the same, contending for the faith once delivered.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Costa Rica,
your question:
“Do you really believe God accepts us as righteous based on our works? Your comment about Cornelius makes it appear you believe that. Or could he have been a Jewish proselyte who had not yet fully made the transition into the church. I don’t think we are actually told he wasn’t circumcised are we? We are told he was a devout person who feared God. This is language that was usually used of proselytes. You certainly aren’t suggesting that his works were acceptable to God in and of themselves apart from the cleansing blood of Christ? My Bible says we offer acceptable sacrifices to God THROUGH JESUS CHRIST. Are you suggesting that our works are acceptable to God apart from Christ? Do you think your works are no longer tainted by any sin whatsoever? If they are tainted by any sin at all, isn’t it “filthy” sin? Is there any other kind?”
Ans.: No I don’t believe God accepts us as righteous BASED on works and no faith. Only one work pays for sin, that’s not mine. Cornelius was obviously obedient from faith, the gift of God. His faith and his actions were working together. “He who believes in his heart and confesses with his lips…” “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.” If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive. In the drama of life people call on the Name of the Lord, and He answers, accepts them and hears their crys. “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God (Jn 3:21).”
Works tainted with sin? In the obedience that comes from faith it looks to me that a cleansing takes place. “But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin (1Jn 1:7).” I believe we sin sometimes, and sometimes not. Our acts sometimes honor God (righteous ones), or they dishonor God (sinful ones). I don’t believe all Christian acts are truly and properly sin before the Father. We don’t “continue to sin” nonstop because God’s seed remains. “He who does what is right is righteous.” I don’t represent God viewing our acts as 50% breaking the law and 50% not breaking the law. To me, the Bible doesn’t speak much about righteous acts coming from faith as tainted with sin. God calls it “right” or “wrong.”
Now in the stand alone absolute sense, we say “no man is good.” Not even Jesus Christ! Who said: “Why do you call me good?” He points to the Father, the Source of the Trinity. Christ is indicating that everything He is and has comes from the Father. He is “the begotten Son.” And for us also? “What has a man gotten that he has not received.”
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Costa Rica,
your question:
“Could you give some detail about your definition of “Antinomianism?” That term has been used so differently throughout Church history that I am not sure what you mean by it.”
Ans.: Antinomianism – no law; lawless; against the law; seeing no value in obedience toward God; faithless.
People who don’t believe the 10 Commandments and other Biblical commands applicable for our day are said to be antinomian. People who ignore or divert focus from imperative Sovereign Commands are antinomian.
People who don’t believe God’s commands can be obeyed in any sense are antinomian.
Example from church: A guy wanting to join the church says he believes in Jesus Christ. We tell him to be baptized because Jesus said “he who believes and is baptized will be saved.” The guy refuses baptism, he’s against the law, he’s antinomian. He says he wants Jesus, but he doesn’t want to do what Jesus says.
Hope this helps. Paul could do better.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
Thanks for the clarifications. I would likely agree with most everything you said. I would take exception to what you said about sin derailing God’s plan since ultimately even the “derailment” as you call it was part of the plan and purpose of God. Not important though since I understand what you are saying. There are a few minor areas where we might disagree, but they are minor.
Perhaps now you can see how it is supposed to work. I don’t assume you believe things you don’t believe. I don’t assume you believe everything everyone in your denomination believes simply because you belong to the denomination. You then state your position, and I react to what you actually say you believe, not to what I want to impute to you without a shred of evidence. Seems to work out pretty well, don’t you think?
Now, let’s try to apply that to others. Don’t assume they believe something unless they actually say they believe it. Good plan, don’t you think?
I happen to believe that believers under the New Covenant are enabled by the Spirit to perform acts that are righteous, the righteousness required by the law that is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4). This is, of course, accomplished for us believers by our vital union with Christ. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to obey the things that Christ has commanded us. In fact, if we don’t obey him, there is no evidence that we were united to him when he died. You and I both know that not all our works are unrighteous, but what about those times when, despite our best intentions, we act out of wrong motives, become angry because someone slights our opinions etc? Does that not render our actions less than absolutely righteous? I found it interesting that I just used the verses you cited from 1 John in a booklet I am writing on sanctification. I believe those verses refer not only or even primarily to those sins we commit when we act out of character with our Christian profession and rebel against what we know will please our heavenly Father, but to those actions in which we are aiming at our Father’s glory, but fall short. These verses concern our communion with God, not our relationship. That fellowship or communion is restore when we confess our sins. He is faithful to forgive us our sins in accord with His promises. He is just to forgive us our sins, founded on the redemptive work of Christ. On what other basis could He be just in forgiving our sins and restoring our communion? The problem is, this brings the redemptive work of Christ into the work of sanctification. I’m not saying that is a problem for me, but I think it is a problem for those who have difficulty with the idea that we are sanctified by the redemptive work of Christ. I would be interested in hearing your response to this.
LikeLike
Bill,
Regarding “antinomianism” would you then say if a person believes God’s eternal law continues, is not lawless or against the law, sees value in obedience toward God and is not faithless he is not an antinomian?
Suppose he takes seriously all the imperatives of the covenant under which God has placed him, is he an antinomian? Would you then say if a person believes we can obey God’s commands by the enabling of the Holy Spirit, he isn’t an antinomian?
LikeLike
Costa Rica,
your question:
“Regarding “antinomianism” would you then say if a person believes God’s eternal law continues, is not lawless or against the law, sees value in obedience toward God and is not faithless he is not an antinomian?
Suppose he takes seriously all the imperatives of the covenant under which God has placed him, is he an antinomian? Would you then say if a person believes we can obey God’s commands by the enabling of the Holy Spirit, he isn’t an antinomian?”
Ans.: No, of course not. What you have described is no antinomian!
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Randy,
The key to your evil doublespeak is what you say here: “This
is, of course, accomplished for us believers by our vital union with Christ.” No Randy, Christ doesn’t obey for us. I told you not to come back here. From here on, any comments you make on this blog will be edited to rebuke yourself.
LikeLike
Costa Rica,
Ok, I’ll agree, don’t assume what others believe.
To your paragraph below I respond down the page:
“I happen to believe that believers under the New Covenant are enabled by the Spirit to perform acts that are righteous, the righteousness required by the law that is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4). This is, of course, accomplished for us believers by our vital union with Christ. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to obey the things that Christ has commanded us. In fact, if we don’t obey him, there is no evidence that we were united to him when he died. You and I both know that not all our works are unrighteous, but what about those times when, despite our best intentions, we act out of wrong motives, become angry because someone slights our opinions etc? Does that not render our actions less than absolutely righteous? I found it interesting that I just used the verses you cited from 1 John in a booklet I am writing on sanctification. I believe those verses refer not only or even primarily to those sins we commit when we act out of character with our Christian profession and rebel against what we know will please our heavenly Father, but to those actions in which we are aiming at our Father’s glory, but fall short. These verses concern our communion with God, not our relationship. That fellowship or communion is restore when we confess our sins. He is faithful to forgive us our sins in accord with His promises. He is just to forgive us our sins, founded on the redemptive work of Christ. On what other basis could He be just in forgiving our sins and restoring our communion? The problem is, this brings the redemptive work of Christ into the work of sanctification. I’m not saying that is a problem for me, but I think it is a problem for those who have difficulty with the idea that we are sanctified by the redemptive work of Christ. I would be interested in hearing your response to this.”
Response: Another translation- Rom 8:4 NIV “And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.”
I agree, by the Spirit we perform acts that are righteous according to God. No problem here. Carrying each others burdens and we fulfill the law of Christ. If He says the ground is Holy, I’m not calling it “unclean dirt.” If God says “clean,” don’t call it “unclean.” He’s God, Father knows best. In Ezek 36:27 says “I will put my Spirit in you and move/cause you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” This New Covenant Promise is telling us that God is the initiator, source, and cause of our law keeping. In some sense He considers us doing “righteousness.” He doesn’t move us by the Spirit and call it half righteous and half sin. God is not the source of sin. In my opinion, the blood assures that “the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us (Rom 8:4).” God must be sure of things, what He says gets done right. The blood cleanses, and continues to cleanse. Maybe that’s why everything had to be sprinkled with blood in the OT, foreshadowing the NT blood of Christ.
You say problem, “this brings the redemptive work of Christ into the work of sanctification.” And I say you’ve got no problem with me. Sure, that’s the way I see it. The best article on Sanctification I have read is by R. E. O. White the Baptist Theological Writer, University of London. I have the whole article to e-mail if you want. Copied portion, here’s what he says
QUOTE:
“An exclusively objective view of the work of Christ tends to regard sanctification as either an addendum to justification, or merely evidence of justifying faith. Yet justification and sanctification are not separate in time (I Cor. 6:11), for God’s justifying act sets the sinner apart for service; not separable in experience, but only in thought. Paul’s gospel of justification by faith was the moral dynamic of salvation (Rom 1:16); forgiveness itself has moral force, creating the will to goodness in the forgiven.
To those who wondered whether men counted righteous on the ground of faith might go on sinning with impunity, Paul retorted that the faith expressed in faith – baptism so unites the convert to Christ that he dies with Christ to sin; is buried with Christ to all that belongs to his past life, and rises with Christ to new life in which sin’s reign is broken. The new self is yeilded to the service of righteousness and of God in a surrender that issues in sanctification (Rom. 6:1-11, 19-22). Sanctification is not merely the completion (correlate or implicate) of justification, it is justifying faith at work. In the faith counted for righteousness, actual righteousness is born. As though to guard against justification without sanctification, John says, “Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, just as He is righteous.” (1 John 3:7).
The two experiences must not be identified. In justification, God at the beginning of Christian life declares us acquitted. In sanctification, God accomplishes his will in us as Christian life proceeds. Sanctification never replaces justification. Scholars argue whether Luther taught that “making sinners righteous” was the real ground of justification, as faith led on to good works, penance, saintliness – begun. Not so: Luther’s ground remains faith to the end. We are “always being justified, more and more, always by faith.” But the faith that justifies, by its very nature as union with Christ in his dying and risen life, sets in motion the sanctifying energies of grace.”
END OF QUOTE
About believers sin, yeah, we remain in union with Christ but fellowship is broken. We are graciously kept by Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd in us, and eventually granted repentance. In the mystery, “with your blood you purchased men for God, from every tribe and nation.” The life is in the blood, God’s way of being sure.
Hope this helps. Hope I answered all the questions. Glad to see you have a great interest in the things of God.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Costa Rica,
On the subject above, I thought this was interesting about the Reformers:
A HANDBOOK OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS by Van A. Harvey 1964 says this:
page 214: SANCTIFICATION “Superficially, the views of the Protestant Reformers seem similar (to Roman Catholicism). Luther (1483-1546) and Calvin (1500-64) did not draw a sharp line between justification and sanctification either (like Roman Catholicism), tending to interpret the new life as one aspect of justification.”
Page 215 “The Reformers themselves did not develop an elaborate theology concerning the relationship of sanctification to justification, although their writings abound with description of Christian freedom, the nature of Christian moral obligation, etc. Nor did they, like their followers, make a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification.”
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike