Paul's Passing Thoughts

The True Gospel Verses Calvinism: Part 1

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on July 15, 2012

“The difference between Calvinism and the true gospel is a fine line of distinction with eternal consequences.”

Justification is a finished work  that guarantees glorification apart from anything that happens in progressive sanctification….Justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification completely apart from progressive sanctification.”

“All bible verses must be interpreted by, verse….for justification, or verse….for sanctification.”

This post is actually in reply to the following question posted in the comment section of this blog:

Paul, please explain in layman’s terms how Calvinism views justification and sanctification.  I am trying to understand this. Does this have anything to do with the saint’s persevering?

My initial response was several hundred words which were deleted somehow when I was near completion; I must have hit a wrong key or something, but this time I will be smart and type it on Microsoft Word first.

Let me begin by addressing this part of the reader’s question first: “Does this have anything to do with the saints persevering?” No. Please, let’s just focus on the foundation—you can address all of the many other issues later, but you will be unable to address them definitively until you have an understanding in regard to the first part of your question: “….how Calvinism views justification and sanctification.”

Short answer: It views them as being the same thing, and that’s a false gospel, and I will explain why (the forthcoming long answer). But first, know this: election does not necessarily mean that God predetermined before creation who was/is going to be saved and not saved. How God weaves His sovereignty together with our choices is a mystery. For example,  “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps (Proverbs 16:9).”  Does this mean that we shouldn’t bother planning because the Lord has already determined our steps? Hardly. Proverbs 16:9 is speaking of the mystery/paradox of God’s weaving together of what we do and His sovereign will. Does prayer change things? Certainly it does. When we present the gospel to someone, do we say, “I am just here to find out whether you are one of God’s chosen or not. So, I am going to present the gospel to you, and if you believe and repent, you are one of the chosen, if you don’t, you are toast for eternity.” No, we persuade with all diligence and knowledge (like the apostle Paul did) as if it depends on us, because to some degree, it does. Bottom line:

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Romans 10:14).

God’s offer of salvation is a legitimate offer.

Justification 101 (For now, forget about sanctification, this concerns justification only!)

Nevertheless, when they/we believe, we know it’s because of Romans 8:30, which will be the focus of my explanation/long answer. Let’s now observe Romans 8:30:

And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Done deal. Finished before the creation of the world. He predestined us, then called us, then justified us, and finally, glorified us. The word “justified” is dikaioo. It is a legal declaration of innocence that sets one free. Christians are declared righteous before creation, and glorification (when we will be instantly transformed completely at the resurrection) is guaranteed. We cannot mess that up. It’s a finished work by God before we were born. How can we possibly mess that up? We can’t.

Law/Justification [Gospel]

Also, the law can’t touch us. Why? We are already declared righteous, that’s why. Stop everything you are thinking about and take note of this: the law is no longer the standard for maintaining our salvation/justification.  Do not turn your mind off here because of familiarity—this is not what you think it is. Pay attention! The difference between Calvinism and the true gospel is a fine line of distinction with eternal consequences. Caution: this is a concept that it so simple that it escapes us. We are no longer ….key word alert,….UNDER the law. In the book of Romans, Chapter 7, Paul compares our relationship to the law as a marriage covenant that is no longer valid because one of the spouses died:

Do you not know, brothers —for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

Now, I will slightly digress and bring danger of confusion, but will then quickly return to the subject of justification. Paul is talking about justification in this passage, and then finishes the thought with a mention of justification’s purpose; sanctification: “….in order that we might bear fruit to God.” BUT, as we shall see, other than the fact that justification makes sanctification (our kingdom living) possible, the two are totally separate, and the separation of the two is the key to understanding the issue at hand, and the true gospel in general.

….for justification.

We, as Christians, are dead to the law. It can’t touch us. We are no longer UNDER it:

Romans 2:12

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

But not us. The law can’t judge us, we are no longer under it:

Romans 3:19

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Note that the world is under the law, but we are not. We have no regard for the law whatsoever, ….for justification.

Slavery/Justification

Paul also described our relationship to the law in regard to not being enslaved by it. To be evaluated by the law is to be in bondage to it:

Romans 6:14

For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

Galatians 4

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

In fact, Paul said  for us Christians, ALL things are lawful!

1 Corinthians 6:12

All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything.

All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

But not expedient, or profitable….

….for sanctification. Sanctification 101

There are two kinds of sanctification, but only one kind of justification, and the two sanctification are totally separate from justification. If not, we are eternally doomed. Justification must be a finished work that we have no part in except for showing others how they can be justified like we are; saved, if you will. Note: Romans 8:30, the epic verse of justification, does not include the subject of sanctification because the two must be separate. One is a finished work (justification), the other, sanctification (or, kingdom living) is progressive. In fact, Dr. Jay E. Adams states well that sanctification (our Christian life) does not in any way draw it’s life or power from justification because justification is a legal declaration that determines our POSITION:

The problem with Sonship™ [same thing as New Calvinism prior to 2008] is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it. As a declaration of forgiveness, pardon, and adoption into the family of God, it is (remember) a legal act. It changes the standing, but not the condition, of the person who is justified.

That’s because justification is a finished work, and discipleship (sanctification) is not; it’s progressive. But, there is also a positional sanctification that is also a finished work that even preceded justification. But like justification, it is a finished work and cannot produce progressive life, because for crying out loud, a finished work doesn’t continue to produce a progression. This would seem evident. Remember this: sanctification is a word that merely means, “to set apart.” So, sanctification is a progressive separating from the world. As we progress in our sanctification, we look more like Christ, and less like the world. But there is also a positional separation from the world that is also a finished work that includes predestination, election, calling, justification, and a setting apart:

Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God (1Corinthians 6:11).

Notice the past tense of the verse. Our position is a finished work. We were washed, set apart, and justified. Peter asked Jesus to wash him. But Christ told him that there was no need for him to be washed because it had already been done, he only needed a daily washing of his feet:

The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus. Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.  He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”  “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not everyone was clean (John 13:2-11).

Justification and the New Birth

Though justification is a finished work, it passes the torch to something that is a mark of true salvation. This is where sanctification draws its power. This element of sanctification is a Proof of Purchase Seal that you and I have been purchased by God with the price of His Son. It is the new birth. We are born of the Holy Spirit into new creatures. Our spiritual growth is now a colaboring with the Holy Spirit who indwells us. He also colabored with saints of old, but His permanent indwelling of New Testament believers is probably related to the engrafting of the Gentiles. But whatever the reasons, remember that the saints of old were also justified by faith alone, and like us, they were not UNDER the law….for justification.

Paul makes this point in Galatians 3:13-18:

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.

Hence, the law CANNOT be our standard…. for justification. Paul makes that clear by pointing out that the law didn’t come for 430 years after Abraham was justified according to the covenant of promise. Nevertheless, we must be born again (new birth). Again, the new birth is proof of Justification, but is not powered by it. The new birth is the indwelling Holy Spirit colaboring with His new creatures. Theologians call this, regeneration. We, like the saints of old, MUST BE BORN AGAIN. Before the cross, and before Pentecost, Christ made this clear to Nicodemus in the present tense, and expressed surprise that he was ignorant of the new birth (John, chapter 3).

And this is very, very important: regeneration does not work towards/for glorification. Sanctification (the progressive type) is NOT a link to glorification. Remember, glorification is a finished work. Romans 8:30 speaks of it in the past tense. It is the guarantee of our justification. Both happened before the creation of the world. Some theologians call glorification, “final sanctification.” Perish the thought! Glorification is the manifestation of positional sanctification (both are final, finished works), NOT the completion of progressive sanctification. Though the completion of progressive sanctification happens at the same time as glorification—glorification is a finished work, and therefore is not the culmination of progressive sanctification’s progressive work; it is rather, redemption. Redemption is the manifestation of glorification when God cashes in on his purchase:

There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea.  People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near  (Luke 21: 25-28).

Though the Bible speaks of glorification as a future event, Romans 8:30 refers to it in the past tense. This is because it does not need progressive sanctification to complete it (again, progressive sanctification is not included in the list of Rom. 8:30), and the past tense usage points to the guarantee that accompanies justification.

Justification and progressive sanctification are totally separate. Progressive sanctification DOES NOT link justification to glorification. Justification is a finished work  that guarantees glorification apart from anything that happens in progressive sanctification. This is why progressive sanctification is excluded from this paramount justification verse….for justification, and speaks of justification and glorification in the past tense. Justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification completely apart from progressive sanctification.

One Law; Three Relationships/Standards

Hence, the law, which includes all of Scripture (see Matthew 4:4, 2Timothy 3:16) must always be read in this context: ….for justification, or….for sanctification. The standard/relationship…. for [our] justification is ZERO LAW. The standard/relationship….for [our] sanctification is….100% law! Why not? It’s not related to our justification anyway! Therefore:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven  (Matthew 5:17-20).

The word for “set aside” is lou. It means to “relax” or loosen. That is, in regard to the “least of these commandments.” So, do we interpret this way: “Whoever practices and teaches these commands”….for justification; or, ….for sanctification ? The framing of a house and the rightness of its foundation will determine its quality. Are the frame and the foundation going to be perfect? No. But is that the standard? One would hope so. We should strive for perfection in sanctification for many reasons, but most of all, because it has no bearing on our justification which is a settled issue. However, Christ links a poor attitude towards the law in sanctification to an absence of the new birth/ new creaturehood:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Unfortunately, the relationship/standard in regard to the unregenerate is perfection ….for justification because they are UNDER the law and in bondage to it. Christians are free from the law for justification and “uphold” (Romans 3:31) it…. for sanctification. That is why James refers to it as the “perfect law of liberty” in James 1:25. All Bible verses must be interpreted by, verse….for justification, or verse….for sanctification.

Eschatology and Justification

This is why in the study of biblical last things (eschatology), we find two resurrections and two judgments. One resurrection and judgment for the saved, and a separate resurrection and judgment for the unsaved. Unfortunately, the standard for the second set will be perfection, and nobody will measure up (Revelation 20:4-6; 11,12). We will be a part of the “resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14) and will not stand in such a judgment because we have already been declared just. Our judgment will be for rewards:

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Obviously, we can’t do this:  2Cor 5:10…. for justification. That would be a huge problem.

I will conclude with a visual chart to help clarify the above. In the second part, we will examine the difference between this and Calvinism.

176 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. trust4himonly's avatar trust4himonly said, on July 16, 2012 at 6:55 AM

    Lin you are exactly right when it comes to Calvinists being verbose and circular in their debates. This becomes an effective way of confusing the listener and making themselves sound more intelligent to the common lay person. Randy, how come Christ and the apostles were so clear and easy to understand but Calvin had to write 2,000 and some pages to make Salvation seem so complicated? And no I have never read Calvin’s institutes- don’t care to. I have seen though that Calvinists do love to make things so perplexing that you don’t know which door you have come out of. And there is such an arrogancy of “knowing” such theological knowledge- is this what Christ intended? Calvinists love to tag on “important” words (Gospel this and Gospel that; imputed this and imputed that) because of Hegelian dialetic. You can lose the true meaning of something when you water it down to where then it has no meaning or it means something totally different then the accurate meaning. Look at the word racist, now it includes even someone who might just be prejudice. Two different meanings completely, but blended now today. This is exactly what Calvinists do with Sanctification and Justification- two separate words and meanings, but start the Hegelian dialectic and …….wha la, you fuse the two and start taking away the accurate meanings of both. This happens continuously in cults.
    People are blind sheep and do not understand that God is NOT the author of confusion and DID NOT make THE GOSPEL hard to understand. We just just miss the obvious just because the other guy sounds so smart and right. We are not discerning and acting like good Bereans and study what is obviously stated in Scripture. We end up worshipping dead guys who were either trying to make more out what God intended or using it to control those around them- a little bit a narcisisstic complex going on there with Calvin I think. Oh granted Calvin was extremely intelligent, but so were the Pharissees.

    Like

  2. Christian's avatar Christian said, on July 16, 2012 at 4:24 PM

    Thank you so much for your thoughtful answer. I am going to study it so I can fully understand it. Would you consider doing one on the perseverance of the saints. I thought that meant once saved, always saved but I think it means something else to a neo-calvinist. I understand John Piper said you can’t know for sure that you will make it to heaven until the end, I guess if you persevered. I am just resting in Christ myself and serving him out of gratitude and love. Not because I have to do good “works”.
    Thank you.

    Like

    • pauldohse's avatar pauldohse said, on July 16, 2012 at 5:37 PM

      Christian, Yes, from what you say here, an understanding of the separation of justification and sanctification would be critical for you to understand. Given Piper’s theology which will be discussed in detail in the next part, it doesn’t surprise me that he has stated that you can’t know for sure that you are saved. Nevertheless, if you can supply some links for my data base–that would be great. For sure, Reformed theology holds to the idea that you can loose your salvation. I quote Piper and Horton accordingly in the next part. Perseverance is a heavy subject that speaks forcefully to the colaboring involved in sanctification. I will address it for you in part 3.

      > —–Original Message—– >

      Like

  3. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 8:39 PM

    esthersrequest,

    If you read Ryle on such passages as John 6 in his Thoughts on the Gospels, it is quite clear he believed at least four of the five points of Calvinism. The 39 Articles of the Church of England are clearly Calvinistic. I don’t usually call myself a Calvinist. but that does not negate the fact that if you examined my theology, you would conclude I am a Calvinist.

    N. T. Wight has clearly denied the gospel of grace. He is nothing like a Calvinist in any universe.

    A person does not have to use the term “Gospel Sanctification” to believe we are sanctified by the gospel. The gospel goes beyond “Christ died for me.” The gospel involves ” I died with Christ as well.” The first concerns my justification; the second concerns my sanctification. Ryle is clearly teaching that Jesus died as much for our sanctification as he did for our justification. That has nothing to do with confusing or conflating justification and sanctification. They are clearly separate and different, but both are accomplished by the same work of Christ.

    Like

  4. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM

    Christian,

    Calvinists do believe in “once saved, always saved” but you have to be once saved to be always saved. We do not believe everyone who makes a profession of faith will be saved in the end. There are false professors as well as true believers. The character of saving faith is that it perseveres. If a person professes faith, but then falls away, he will be lost. If he falls away, he was never one of God’s own in the first place. The Perseverance of the Saints means that God guarantees that all who have truly believed in Christ will persevere in faith until the end.

    Like

  5. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 8:59 PM

    trust4himonly,

    You wrote:

    “Randy, how come Christ and the apostles were so clear and easy to understand but Calvin had to write 2,000 and some pages to make Salvation seem so complicated? And no I have never read Calvin’s institutes- don’t care to.”

    My question is, how would you know Calvin made salvation seem complicated if you haven’t read him?

    Perhaps you could cite a Calvinist you have read who has complicated the gospel so that you can’t understand it. Perhaps C. H. Spurgeon was a Calvinist who complicated the gospel beyond your understanding; or perhaps J. C. Ryle. Just give me and example.

    Like

  6. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 9:03 PM

    esthersrequest,

    On what definitions do you think we disagree? Perhaps, before making such a broad assumption, you should present me with some important definitions to see if we truly disagree.

    Like

  7. Unknown's avatar Lin said, on July 16, 2012 at 9:03 PM

    Randy, one reason I don’t engage you guys anymore is taht you change definitions in midstream. One is unable to obey then one is able to obey Christ. It depends on the convo and issue involved.

    I just had a YRR tell someone that man “chooses” to rebel. (As in man has a choice while being totally “unable” and totally “depraved”) but man has no choice to be saved or not. This is the Calvinism doublespeak. Now, you guys dress it up with lots of fancy words and phrases. But you strip all that away and it is chaos and confusion.

    Ryle had a TON to say about what we should DO as in we CAN obey in sanctification. Synergistic. So, I am not going off on rabbit trails.

    I think you guys misuse the term “Gospel” and I fear where it is leading.

    Like

  8. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 9:08 PM

    Paul,

    You wrote: “For sure, Reformed theology holds to the idea that you can loose your salvation.” That is pure hogwash. You can’t find a Reformed Theologian who believes it is possible for a true believe to lose his salvation. We do believe many who profess to know God, but in works deny him, will be lost at the last day, but that is an entirely different matter.

    Like

  9. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 9:22 PM

    Lin,

    Where have I changed definitions in mid-stream? Of course sinners choose to rebel. Sinners can only do what is their nature to do. Sinful nature doesn’t produce faith in Christ.

    Of course sinners have a choice whether to believe or not. Is is simply that in a state of sinful nature, sinners always make the wrong choice. There is not a single one who in a state of sinful nature seeks after God. See Romans 3:11.

    What we can do as believers in the realm of sanctification is totally different from what sinner’s in a state of sinful nature are able to perform in the matter of coming to faith.

    Do you think the apostle Paul misused the term gospel? He told the Romans he was going to preach the gospel to them, then went on to talk about justification, sanctification and glorification. All of this is involved in the gospel. God’s purpose is not simply to forgive us by the work of Christ but finally to conform us to his image. That might just involve sanctification which will never occur apart from the redemptive work of Christ. That is good news!

    Like

  10. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 16, 2012 at 10:18 PM

    Lin,

    I like the way you call the Calvinists out on their doublespeak. Been listening to it for years and years. Oye. The fact is, you simply cannot reconcile “God desires all to be saved” with “Some are predestined for heaven, others for hell”. I’ve heard it described as “mystery” or “paradox”. The fact is that these two things are mutually exclusive. It isn’t a mystery, it’s a logical impossibility. It’s the exact same situation with “God declares some saved and some not; buuuuuuut….those not, it’s their own damn fault”. Now will some Calvinist please explain to me just how in the heck does that work? Unless the meaning of “mystery” has now become: whatever doesn’t make any damn sense in this universe or any other, I’m not sure that is something that can ever be explained in a way that won’t turn rational people away at the door. (And I have read Calvin’s Institutes…his explanation isn’t any better. It’s still a mystery…in flowery medieval language, though, it does come across superficially as a lot more convincing.)

    The point is that you cannot declare man totally depraved and an imbecile and then create a doctrine around this idea that will really make any sense at all…because everything has to be grotesquely contorted to fit the premise that man is irrelevant (and if he is in fact irrelevant, why does he even exist? But let’s assume he does exist…still he doesn’t possess a mind, nor does he possess the rational experience which would make him capable of grasping the significance of whatever place God throws him, heaven or hell, so what’s the point of him winding up in either place? He says “I’m here outside of any of my own volition and I’m expected to understand “why?”, and gnash my teeth, or raise my hands in praise for the consequences of a life that was completely outside of myself? Er…what?) . And I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out how the SOLE act that can actually make salvation in fact salvation, that act being man’s ability to choose Christ of his own free will, gets both barrels from the Calvinists because it assumes “man pridefully contributes to his own salvation”. Well, if man doesn’t contribute by choosing, salvation cannot be salvation at all, it’s ALL election. Unless man can choose, salvation can have NOTHING to do with it because salvation from nothing is not salvation…if man is predestined there, then he is not SAVED from anything. There is no rescue unless one is actually rescued from something, right? And Jesus by definition cannot be called the Savior, he is instead the elector. So the Calvinists claim that it’s blasphemy to say that man’s contributes to his own salvation by ACTUALLY AFFIRMING by their choice that Jesus is in fact a savior. Well, what else is blasphemy according to Calvinists? Er…well, belief. Yes, belief in Jesus! They very thing they preach every Sunday is actually a grave, damning sin because…whose belief? That’s right! Yours, you depraved idiot! So it seems to me, if we just do the opposite of what the Calvinists do,we stand a better chance in being assured of our salvation, and have to spend less time rubbing hands and furrowing brows with John Piper wondering about it.

    And the irony of this is so darn funny. I mean, Calvinists think the are the most important people in the whole wide world, when, according to their own doctrine, all they say and do is completely pointless. I’ve never understood why they don’t get this…and quickly find a new theology. Whatev…..

    Like


Leave a reply to gracewriterrandy Cancel reply