Received Email Exemplifies the Crux of Reformed Heresy
“Clearly, this person speaks well for the whole Reformed community that posits the idea that perfection must be maintained in sanctification for the purpose of meriting God’s declaration in a final judgment. We must have a righteousness in sanctification that ‘rises’ to the level of perfection in order to ‘merit’ God’s declaration.”
Look, this isn’t really complicated. And even if it is—suck it up, God gave you a brain—use it! You persevered in thinking to get your degree in whatever, and I have a newsflash for you, this is much more important. Another newsflash: your pastor isn’t going to answer for you. Yes, this may be a shocker for you, but in the end, it is just going to be you and Jesus face to face. You will not be able to blame your pastor, your mommy, your daddy, your sister, your brother, etc., etc., etc. And be sure of this: you will not be able to blame John Calvin either.
Is our just standing finished or not? Will Christians stand in a future judgment that will coronate; or said another way, officially manifest our just standing? Does what we do in sanctification determine whether or not we will be found just at a future judgment? Or, is our just standing (righteous standing) already determined, and we will therefore stand in a judgment for rewards rather than a final coronation of righteousness? Therefore, is there a separate resurrection and judgment for sanctification because our just standing has already been determined? This is the crux of the issue.
And why is that important? Because the paramount eternal questions follow: we were saved by faith alone and declared righteous, but does that mean we must continue to live by faith alone in order to maintain our just standing? And if we can add works to our faith, is there a certain way that we have to do it in order that it is considered to be faith alone by God? Or, is our justification settled, and caution concerning obedience to God’s counsel unnecessary? Is justification settled and no longer the issue, but rather blessings and other issues? Is the declaration alone enough? Or do I have to be just in this life as well? And if I need to actually have righteousness in this life, is it perfection, or something else?
By faith alone, we believe that Christ died for our sins. Our sin was imputed to Christ, and then He bore the punishment. Our sin, and the old nature that was enslaved by sin, died with Christ. Then, the righteousness of God the Father was imputed to us APART from the law. We were then raised with Christ in His resurrection, and given all of the power and blessings of salvation through the new birth.
We are presently righteous for three reasons in our present state: there is no law to judge us for justification purposes, and where there is no law, there is no sin. We have the seed of God within us, and the mortal body that we live in suffered death with Christ, and we are therefore no longer under the covenant of the law for justification. So, we presently live apart from the law because like the death of a spouse that frees us from a marriage covenant, our death with Christ frees us from the covenant of the law….FOR JUSTIFICATION. We are NOT under law, but UNDER GRACE. And we ARE righteous because we ARE born again of God, and there is no law to judge the sin of our mortal body….FOR JUSTIFICATION. That part of us that “delights in the law of God” in the “inward” part of us is in fact holy and righteous. We are therefore enslaved to righteousness, and free to sin. Formally, we were enslaved to sin and free to righteousness. Therefore, the direction is different. We now move from sin to what we are enslaved to; formally, we were enslaved to sin.
We are holy and righteous in our inward being, that is why the “law of our mind” is in conflict with “the law of flesh and sin.” Before, there was only conflict between our conscience and the works of the law that God writes on the heart of everyone who is created, but now our conscience is set on fire and we are empowered to follow it and God’s specific, full counsel for life and godliness.
Now, consider an email I received today from a notable Reformed person who I will not name:
Paul,
Would you, or a member of your group, please comment on whether you believe a person´s “righteousness” in sanctification ever rises to the level of perfection that it merits God´s declaration of justification? This is really the issue.
Yes, that is absolutely the issue. Notice, in true Reformed fashion, our practical righteousness in sanctification (the Christian life) must rise to the level of “perfection” in order to “merit God’s declaration of justification.” In other words, law is still the standard for our just standing and the imputed righteousness of God is not “apart from the law.” Law is still the standard. Also, in regard to dying with Christ, it is no longer like a spouse who is no longer under a law covenant (Paul used marriage as the example), but the covenant of law must be maintained.
Clearly, this person speaks well for the whole Reformed community that posits the idea that perfection must be maintained in sanctification for the purpose of meriting God’s declaration in a final judgment. We must have a righteousness in sanctification that “rises” to the level of perfection in order to “merit” God’s declaration. And therefore, the old self did not die with Christ, and the works of the old man are therefore held against us.
Therefore, in the Reformed gospel construct, that must eliminate our works in sanctification. We must continue to live by faith alone. We must continue in the same gospel that saved us. Sound familiar? Any wonder that we must, “preach the gospel to ourselves every day”? Supposedly, when we live by faith alone in sanctification, Christ’s perfect righteousness is progressively imputed to our account, and we will thereby be found perfectly righteous in the final judgment. That is why the following two questions are really gospel questions: “How many judgments?” “How many resurrections?” That is also why premil, amil, and postmil are also gospel questions.
But, what shall we say about having to continue by faith alone in order to maintain our just standing? Is this not a form of works salvation because the works of justification are only finished if we continue our sanctified lives by faith alone? Supposedly, if we do not add works to our sanctification by faith alone—it either means that we never had salvation or we can lose our salvation. Either way, works must be added to our Christian life by faith alone.
How in the world would you do that? This would seem to lead to all kinds of complicated introspection and fear that we are working by faith alone, and not “in our own efforts.” You would be correct by noting that. That would be works in sanctification which in the Reformed gospel construct is obviously the same as works in justification. For all practical purposes: progressive justification; what they call, “progressive sanctification” because our sanctification is progressing towards a final proclamation of our just standing—if we do sanctification by faith alone—the same way we were saved.
Answer to the prior question: it is done through gospel contemplationism. Meditation is not considered to be a “work.” As we contemplate the works of Christ in every verse of the Bible, ie., “what He has done, not anything we do,” “the perfect works of Christ are presented to the Father, the law is satisfied, and we are justified.” Progressively, that is.
This is the Reformed gospel plain and simple. And it is a false one.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Paul,
All I can tell from that email is that he’s asking you what you believe. It’s unclear whether or not HE believes it. The fact that he writes “righteousness” with quotation marks leads me to think that he may not believe it. But I can’t tell for sure. Is there any more to the email?
LikeLike
Jeff,
The question is predicated on the presupposition that sanctification is a road to future justification.
LikeLike
Amen and amen! Thank you for continuing to teach the truth, line upon line, and rule upon rule, here a little and there a little, till we all understand!
LikeLike
Paul,
it seems to me the emailer didn’t imply anything. It was just a simple question. Obedience is only a problem in the life of someone who claims to be a believer if that person begins to trust in his obedience instead of trusting Jesus.
LikeLike
Jimmy,
If the emailer and his Reformed buddies are so educated (masters degree from Westminster), why are they such poor communicators? Why does it “seem” anything? Why don’t we know? Why is there so much discussion about what these guys are actually saying. Jimmy, it may be helpful for you to note that here at PPT we believe words mean things. If you don’t believe words mean things, and that Calvinists are so much higher than us in knowledge that their unctions need to be interpreted–you are not speaking the same language that is being spoken here at PPT. Here at PPT, we believe that the common man can partake in epistemology. The job of a teacher is to aid in clarification, not interpret for us.
But, in regard to your assertion, let me say the following: remember, he has a Masters degree. His use of quotation marks framing “righteousness” (here used in citing the word he used, not the improper use as emphasis) illustrates a misnomer. The very use of quotations in context illustrates that he doesn’t believe that the Christian can have any righteousness in sanctification. In English grammar, this is known as “scare quotes.” They are used to alert the reader that the term is being used in a nonstandard way: irony, misnomer, etc. The other use is mere citation of something stated by another person. So, if he doesn’t believe we can have righteousness in sanctification, why is it that he believes that? The answer is in the question its self, what he calls “the issue.” Answer? It would have to rise to the “merit” of justification: “perfection.” Hence, the standard for justification in sanctification, in his mind, and for that matter all of the Reformed, is a perfect keeping of some standard. Therefore, it rejects the Pauline justification apart from the law and the new birth. In the new birth, the righteous seed of God within us indeed makes us righteous, and their is no law because we are not under the law, but under grace.
Now, if the subject wants to write in and admit he used quotation marks improperly, that would be another matter.
paul
LikeLike
Someplace you talked about no mention of faith and joy together in Heb. 11. That isn’t true of Hebrews 10:34 or of Jesus’ life (Heb. 12:2).
LikeLike
Uh, Jimmy, those verses are not in Hebrews 11, so what’s your point? My point was that in a text that primarily focuses on faith, there is no emphasis on joy–I am not saying there is no joy in faith. Obviously. I use Hebrews 11 to illustrate that the Holy Spirit does not place the same emphasis on joy that heretic John Piper et al does.
LikeLike
The emphasis of the entire book of Hebrews is on faith. Just because the 11th Chap has been called the “faith Chapter” doesn’t mean it is the last word on the how faith acts. I am not really concerned with Piper’s teaching, only the Scripture’s teaching.
LikeLike
Jimmy,
I am merely stating that the feeling of joy and faith are not always walking together. Uh, really confused about the need for deep discussion on this….other than the fact that your Reformed buddies teach that feelings of joy validate true obedience that is true because Jesus is obeying for us in order to maintain our salvation by faith alone in sanctification.
LikeLike
Pau
LikeLike
Paul,
Since it is my email you are discussing, I don’t think I should be excluded from the discussion. I can tell you exactly what I intended. As I think we can all agree, it was a question, not a statement. Questions are intended to gather information, not impart information. I used quotation marks because I was responding to statements that were being made, based on John’s First Epistle, about believers being righteous. Since you have refused to post my comments, I resorted to email. For that reason, the question and hence the word “righteousness” was out of context with the discussion. I wanted to know if she or anyone else on your blog perceives the believer’s personal righteousness as a justifying righteousness. As you know, there is an ongoing debate not only with the RC’s but also with the “New Perspective on Paul,” regarding “righteousness.” Is the basis of justification an imputed righteousness or an imparted grace that enables our obedience in righteousness that becomes the basis of our justification. The latter would be “progressive justification.” My question is whether this righteousness we possess in sanctification can ever bear the weight of God’s righteous requirements.
Please let me answer some of the charges you have made about my beliefs:
1. In keeping with classic Reformed thought, I do think believers possess a personal righteousness that is produced by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Contrary to what one of your commentators has charged, we hold that the Holy Spirit indwells and leads the believer into obedient behavior.
2. As I have stated to you on numerous occasions, I believe justification is a declaration that occurs at the point of initial faith and that it does not “progress” in any sense of that word. It is, however, perpetual. Believers STAND in this grace of justification as well as in every other aspect of grace. It does not need to be maintained by Christ’s present obedience. Jesus is no longer in an obedient relationship. He obedience belonged to his state of humiliation, not to his current state of exaltation. The only work he carries on now is the APPLICATION of his once for all finished work. That finished work of redemption maintains our standing before God. Not only was he crucified but he is the crucified one. When Paul speaks of preaching Christ crucified, he uses the perfect tense. That tense speaks of an action that was completed at a point in the past with results continuing into the present. I stand justified before God because Jesus stands crucified before God. The reason the Law cannot condemn me is because I am united to him who fulfilled its last demand. It can exact nothing from me, because it collected everything from him.
3. Nothing I can do in sanctification can or needs to complete anything having to do with justification.
4. There is no reason to reject either a finished declaration of righteousness at the point of initial faith or an open manifestation of that righteousness when Jesus returns. One idea does not exclude the other. Relative to our adoption, another judicial declaration, we are heirs of God in the present, yet we earnestly await the full manifestation of that heirship and sonship when Jesus returns. Thus, Paul wrote that we “wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Rom. 8:23). One idea does not exclude the other.
5. What we do in sanctification does not determine whether we will be justified in a future judgment. It does indicate whether or not we have been justified in the first place. You, yourself, believe our obedience in sanctification gives us ground for assurance that we have been justified. Not everyone who has professed faith in Christ has been justified. If
The evidence a person’s faith is real is his obedience to Christ. A person who has not been justified through faith in the here and now will certainly not be declared righteous in a future judgment.
6. I do not believe “perfection must be maintained in sanctification for the purpose of meriting God’s declaration in a final judgment.” Perfection has been and is being maintained for every believer because we are united to him who is perfectly righteous and holy. If my perfection in sanctification were the basis of my justification, I would be doomed.
7. I do not believe –“We must have a righteousness in sanctification that “rises” to the level of perfection in order to “merit” God’s declaration. And therefore, the old self did not die with Christ, and the works of the old man are therefore held against us.” That is exactly the opposite of what I believe. That is Roman Catholic doctrine.
8. The Reformed construct does not eliminate our works of obedience on sanctification. I believe we are called on to obey. The issue is whether a person trusts in those works of obedience as the basis of his right standing before God. The Galatian problem was the tendency of the Galatian “believers” depend on something other than Jesus Christ ALONE for their justification before God and for the evidence of their heirship. They had begun well, but they were in the process of turning away from Christ and the gospel. If their turning away became complete, they would be lost. Christ would profit them nothing. True believers do not turn away. A person who trusts anyone or anything other than Jesus Christ ALONE has never trusted Jesus Christ at all.
If I were to offer a criticism of the Reformed, it would be that, at times, in seeking for evidence of saving faith in their works of obedience they begin to trust their “evidences” instead of trusting Christ. We must understand that “evidences” are never perfect; only Christ is.
9. We do not live “by faith alone” in sanctification. We do live alone by faith. Any walk that is not by faith is a sinful life. Nothing we do is acceptable to God apart from faith. It is “faith that works by love.” We don’t simply “learn and do.” We learn and do “by faith.” We “trust and obey.”
10. Paul, you wrote, “Works must be added to our Christian life by faith alone. How in the world would you do that? This would seem to lead to all kinds of complicated introspection and fear that we are working by faith alone, and not “in our own efforts.” [Perhaps you meant, fear that we are not working by faith alone but “in our own efforts.”]
As I stated, we do not believe in sanctification “by faith alone.” There is nothing wrong with introspection from time to time. If there is no reason for it, it can be a distraction from Christ. We can know if we are walking by faith simply by asking the question, “Am I trusting my feelings, my evidences, my obedience etc., or am I trusting Christ alone?” We do not finish the Christian life differently than we began it. It is a matter of faith in Christ from start to finish. We must live and obey “looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. . . .”
LikeLike
Randy,
I went ahead and passed this Reformed trash through moderation because I said I would post one response. Hope you enjoyed it.
LikeLike
Randy,
I can just about poke your lengthy treatise and get doublespeak and the ever-so-slight twisting of words here and there to posit deception. Example: “6. I do not believe “perfection must be maintained in sanctification for the purpose of meriting God’s declaration in a final judgment.” Perfection has been and is being maintained for every believer because we are united to him who is perfectly righteous and holy. If my perfection in sanctification were the basis of my justification, I would be doomed.”
First, you say that perfection doesn’t have to be maintained, then you explain how it is, but imply that it’s not a maintaining because of our union with God and that’s what maintains it. The perfection that doesn’t need to be maintained. It’s like MacArthur saying that we should never separate justification and sanctification, but if we don’t it would be progressive justification. You, like all authentic Calvinists, can’t grasp that there is NO standard in justification and where there is no law there is no sin.
Randy, you are a vile, false teaching snake in the grass and I don’t want you trying to comment here anymore, and I don’t want you emailing me.
Type away if you will, but your correspondence will be ignored. Like all authentic Calvinists, you are a troll, stalker, and control freak. Why don’t you go and be an elder at MacArthur’s church. They have their own in-house police force and everything. People who ask too many questions are escorted to their vehicles and told not to come back. You would be right at home. Go where your need can be fulfilled, but it will no longer be fulfilled here.
paul
LikeLike
[…] Received Email Exemplifies the Crux of Reformed Heresy. […]
LikeLike
[…] Received Email Exemplifies the Crux of Reformed Heresy. […]
LikeLike