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. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 16, 2012 at 10:32 PM

    Randy,

    A choice that is impossible to make is not a choice. By definition, the ability to choose is utterly based on the idea that one possess the rational faculties (that is, is NOT totally depraved) to prefer one thing over another, and to select that thing Nature and instinct are not the “ability to choose”. That would be like saying, “Sure, that milk cow can choose to accept Jesus Christ as Savior…but she never will, because she’s a cow.” What you are talking about is merely a nuanced and slightly more savvy way of saying “man is predestined…it’s a mystery”. It’s always a mystery and a paradox with you guys…with some kind of ludicrious-in-heady-clothing non sequitur to explain it.

    Like

  2. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 10:36 PM

    Argo,

    Perhaps, a better course than the one you have chosen would be to actually discuss texts of Scripture relevant to the issues we are discussing, in their proper contexts. Whether you like it or not, there are texts of Scripture that deal with the issue of God’s sovereign will in the matter of the sinner’s salvation. If you wish to be honest with the Scripture’s teaching, you need to understand those passages as well as the texts you believe support your position.

    Like

  3. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 16, 2012 at 10:46 PM

    Andy,

    The Calvinists’ love of proof-texting notwithstanding, the fact is that I do not need a single scripture verse (no, Randy, not even in the ESV) to point out that you used a completely contradictory statement–nonsense, if you will–to support your argument. This has nothing to do with context, unless you are implying that the Bible also uses similar nonsensical statements in support of its premises. If so, please show me the verse. Specifically the one that says “I will determine his eternal damnation by giving him a choice…but not really, [wink, wink]”.

    Like

  4. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM

    Argo,

    Can a person chose to obey God’s law or not to obey God’s law? I believe the clear biblical answer is YES! Yet, the apostle tells us that ” the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God and is not subject to the law of God, not indeed IS IT ABLE TO BE.” Rational faculties are not the issue. Of course sinners have the rational faculties to choose. The issue is sinful nature. Does faith arise from sinful nature? Sinners will, by nature, always run form the light. That, my friend, it the plan teaching of Scripture.

    Like

  5. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on July 16, 2012 at 11:22 PM

    By the way, I didn’t think I would ever encounter a person more ignorant than Paul D. You have changed my mind.

    Like

  6. Unknown's avatar Lin said, on July 17, 2012 at 3:26 AM

    Argo, Here is one of my favs:

    “Of course sinners choose to rebel. Sinners can only do what is their nature to do. Sinful nature doesn’t produce faith in Christ.”

    Choice language presupposes “ability”, right? Well, in our world it does anyway. So the Calvinist can say the sinners “choose” to rebel even considering their definition of TD. So they have a choice to “rebel” (because they are going to anyway because it is their nature so we can throw in “choice” when we have already said they have total inability….blah blah blah.

    So, they “choose” to rebel. Double speak

    However, when you nail them on it, you are just “:ignorant”. You just don’t understand Calvinism or you misrepresent it or whatever.

    Funny how illiterate folks can understand the Gospel . Does not make for puffed up knowledge, though.

    Like

  7. Unknown's avatar Lin said, on July 17, 2012 at 3:29 AM

    “. It’s the exact same situation with “God declares some saved and some not; buuuuuuut….those not, it’s their own damn fault”.

    How would you like to have a father who blamed you for something you could not even do? It is insidious.

    Like

  8. Lin's avatar Lin said, on July 17, 2012 at 3:35 AM

    Argo,

    Read this thread and see if you can spot the Calvinists

    http://sbctoday.com/2012/07/16/interview-with-a-former-calvinist-ronnie-rogers/

    Listen you know Calvinism is suffering from an identity crisis when Piper has Doug Wilson in to teach the YRR pastors at DG. First Driscoll, then Rick Warren and now the slavery was good, Doug Wilson.

    Like

  9. Argo's avatar Argo said, on July 17, 2012 at 5:16 AM

    Lin,

    Really, you nailed it. It’s nothing but doublespeak. If you don’t accept the “clear”, or “plain” and “obvious” logical inconsistency and contradiction in their “sound doctrine” then you are just the most ignorant person in the world. Notice it always boils down to that. The very fact that you do not accept their premise is just proof in their minds that you are totally depraved. And it is this kind of argument that they love because they can always resort to this. The moment you try to point out that they are using definitions for words and concepts that can’t possibly be true, well, they just point to you and tell you you’re an idiot, or are depraved, and see, you made their very point, which is God has to choose for you (oh…no, sorry, not choose for you,just create a situation where it’s impossible to choose and then call it choice; which, er, is the same thing, but whatever….mere semantics to them). This is how they maintain their power over the “depraved” masses. They just keep redefining premises and words and concepts at will and then merely declare you to stupid to understand when you point out the obvious: that when a Calvinist claims that something is “clear” and “plain” in Scripture, that they don’t have the first damn clue what that something is really saying. Their entire premise is flawed…so it follows that their theology is skewed from the start. They claim that man does not really posses reason, can never choose good, and they just don’t see for some reason that this makes every major concept in the Bible moot: “grace”, “salvation”, “election”, “sanctification”, etc., etc. Man can choose, but he never will, is just one of the nonsensical things you will hear them say in defense of their theology. They cannot see that in that one, itty-bitty statement they have just obliterated any rational reason for man to have ever been created in the first place and made God the most colossal time-waster ever. Thus, they ipso facto claim that God is imperfect, and then have the gall to say that WE are the heretics! The point of our lives is to accept Christ and be saved…but we don’t possess any faculty for doing that, thus, God must do it on our behalf. The only way to do this is to “elect” some and not others. Those that were elected were always going to be “saved”. Therefore, the term saved is a false term, because what exactly are the “elect” saved from? They are saved from nothing. Which by definition means they weren’t really saved. So when Jesus calls himself the Savior, he must be lying. And, again, we are the heretics? If the elect were always going to be saved anyway, then the cross is pointless. And we are the ignorant heretics?

    I must say that at times I’m forced to conclude that the reason they get it so wrong is because they simply aren’t smart enough to get it right. I hate saying that, because it makes me sound like “Grace” Writer Randy; but what other conclusion can there be?

    Oh…total depravity. Dang. You are right. I stand corrected. They must just be too depraved to see. Wow…thanks Calvinists. I like that argument, too! “You are too stupid to understand. Therefore, I win.” That’s the ticket.

    Like

  10. trust4himonly's avatar trust4himonly said, on July 17, 2012 at 8:05 AM

    Great articulate posts Lin and Argo……

    The thing is Randy, is if you believe the separation of justification and sanctification- great!! Then we do not have to argue right? So who are you defending then by coming on here? Calvin/Calvinism or Jesus Christ?
    Is it not Jesus Christ we are to defend according to His Word? Why must I read Calvin to understand Salvation? Why must I be a Calvinist to fully grasp my standing with the Lord? If you want to go the Calvinist argument Randy then why worry about us here- it is already predestined for us then to be way off track and not possibly elect, according to some Calvinists? Does not Paul say to be Bereans and find out if something rings true to Scripture or not? We have found holes in the Calvinist doctrine and this is what this site is for. You can take it or leave it.

    Like


Leave a comment