paulspassingthoughts said, on January 19, 2014 at 11:42 PM
Jon,
Very well, I choose justification. We were declared righteous before creation. No, regeneration doesn’t declare us Holy, we were declared holy before the earth was created. So what’s the issue?
Who is we? And if we were declared holy before creation what need is there for regeneration? I’m assuming when you say “declared holy” you mean a divine imperative that carries the meaning of actual holiness; total freedom from sin. What I’m getting at is this, if we are declared holy yet sin afterward I can see only two outcomes: forfeiture of the declared holiness or redemption through a substitute who provides the deficient holiness. Thanks for your responses.
I’m saying that if we are somehow declared righteous at some point and we sin after that then we are no longer holy and are enemies of God, UNLESS we have an alien righteousness imparted to us as long as we live.
You have misrepresented the reformed faith, Ligon Duncan and Martin Luther with this video. The reformed faith says we are regenerated and only then do we delight in God AND his law. However, our obedience is not perfect after regeneration. The law is good but if I am unable to keep every iota of it then I must have an alien righteousness to be reconciled to God.
paulspassingthoughts said, on January 20, 2014 at 2:07 PM
Jon,
You have correctly stated the Reformed view, and this is exactly the problem with Reformed theology on every level. This is why Reformed theology is a completely upside down gospel. Perfect law-keeping is not required in sanctification to maintain justification. The natural result of regeneration is an exchange of slavery life resulting in a change of direction, not perfection, though perfection is the desired goal. This “delight” in God’s law that you speak of is redefined by the Reformers, and not as defined by the biblicist. The former delights in the law because it shows us our continued need to be saved everyday, the latter delights in it because he/she is able to keep it in order to please God and show love towards Him. This can be done aggressively because justification is finished and totally separate. What we do in our sanctification has no bearing on our justifcation.
The most basic tenet that makes Reformed theology a false gospel is the idea that the law is justification’s standard. That keeps everyone “under the law” no matter who keeps it. Clearly, ever so clearly is the Reformed idea that justification demands a perfect keeping of the law. Supposedly, we are not under the law because Jesus fulfills it in our place, but that is still not a “righteousness apart from the law.” Clearly, if Christ has to fulfill it, it’s not a righteousness apart from the law because Jesus’ law-keeping has to be imputed to us in order to keep us justified–you said as much above.
Moreover, in regard to justification, you say (as all of the Reformers) we can sin. Yet, Paul stated that where there is no law, there is no sin. We can’t sin against our justification because there is no law to judge us. The very fact that the Reformers state that one sin in sanctification disqualifies our justification proves that they propagate a gospel where believers remain under the law and not under grace. Hence, Calvin stated that sins committed by Christians separate them from grace, and a perpetual application of the gospel is therefore needed. The endgame is living by the same gospel that saved us in order to keep ourselves saved because we are still under the law.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Time won’t allow me to engage at the moment but I hope to respond this evening if you don’t mind continuing this just a bit.
Well we finally boiled it down: you say there is no such thing as sin after justification and with that I disagree. I would say that your proof text is arguing for righteousness through faith in Christ not righteousness because there is no such thing as sin anymore for a justified person.
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (Romans 3:21, 22 ESV)
paulspassingthoughts said, on January 20, 2014 at 8:04 PM
Jon,
I didn’t say there is no sin after justification. I said there is no law that judges sin as sin that can result in us losing our justified state. Reformed theology makes no distinction between sin as a child of God versus sin that would be reckoned against our justified state. We are holy because we are born of God and we are His children. His seed is in us, and not keeping the law perfectly does not change that. Sin in the life of a Christian is reckoned to the person we were who is dead. That person was enslaved to sin and free to do good. The new person is enslaved to righteousness and free to sin. Perfect law keeping is not justification’s standard–only for those who are under it (the law) and enslaved to sin. Reformed theology denies the new birth by saying that the Christian is still enslaved to sin by virtue of the fact that he/she cannot keep the law perfectly. In Reformed theology, clearly, Peter does need his whole body washed continually after salvation regardless of what Christ said to him. Clearly, the woman at the well does need to continually drink of the same water again and again because the thirst has not been quenched–regardless of what Christ said to her. Furthermore, my argument doesn’t come from the one verse that you said I cited which I didn’t cite specifically–my position is based on several texts throughout the New Testament.
Moreover, Christ did not keep the law perfectly so that His obedience could be imputed to our sanctification for the purpose of KEEPING us saved through faith alone in His death and perfect obedience both. That’s a distortion of imputation. God’s righteousness was imputed to us apart from the law, and our sins were imputed to Christ. We died once with Christ and were raised once (sealing our justified state). Reformed theology redefines that onetime event as a perpetual experience from perpetually revisiting the gospel. That doctrine as you know, is called mortification and vivification. We remain totally depraved while our ability to merely experience rebirth is increased. It is heresy of the first order and backdoor antinomianism. It joins law to justification, and separates it from sanctification–opposite of Scripture.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
[…] via Calvinism’s Denial and Redefinition of the New Birth. […]
LikeLike
God’s holiness requires absolute perfection. Are you saying perfection is the consequence of the true new birth?
LikeLike
Jon,
I would love to answer your question. Perfection in justification or sanctification?
LikeLike
Either one
LikeLike
Jon,
Very well, I choose justification. We were declared righteous before creation. No, regeneration doesn’t declare us Holy, we were declared holy before the earth was created. So what’s the issue?
LikeLike
Who is we? And if we were declared holy before creation what need is there for regeneration? I’m assuming when you say “declared holy” you mean a divine imperative that carries the meaning of actual holiness; total freedom from sin. What I’m getting at is this, if we are declared holy yet sin afterward I can see only two outcomes: forfeiture of the declared holiness or redemption through a substitute who provides the deficient holiness. Thanks for your responses.
LikeLike
Jon,
So, you are saying our Christian life must maintain the justification standard or it makes the declaration untrue. Is that what you are saying?
LikeLike
I’m saying that if we are somehow declared righteous at some point and we sin after that then we are no longer holy and are enemies of God, UNLESS we have an alien righteousness imparted to us as long as we live.
You have misrepresented the reformed faith, Ligon Duncan and Martin Luther with this video. The reformed faith says we are regenerated and only then do we delight in God AND his law. However, our obedience is not perfect after regeneration. The law is good but if I am unable to keep every iota of it then I must have an alien righteousness to be reconciled to God.
LikeLike
Jon,
You have correctly stated the Reformed view, and this is exactly the problem with Reformed theology on every level. This is why Reformed theology is a completely upside down gospel. Perfect law-keeping is not required in sanctification to maintain justification. The natural result of regeneration is an exchange of slavery life resulting in a change of direction, not perfection, though perfection is the desired goal. This “delight” in God’s law that you speak of is redefined by the Reformers, and not as defined by the biblicist. The former delights in the law because it shows us our continued need to be saved everyday, the latter delights in it because he/she is able to keep it in order to please God and show love towards Him. This can be done aggressively because justification is finished and totally separate. What we do in our sanctification has no bearing on our justifcation.
The most basic tenet that makes Reformed theology a false gospel is the idea that the law is justification’s standard. That keeps everyone “under the law” no matter who keeps it. Clearly, ever so clearly is the Reformed idea that justification demands a perfect keeping of the law. Supposedly, we are not under the law because Jesus fulfills it in our place, but that is still not a “righteousness apart from the law.” Clearly, if Christ has to fulfill it, it’s not a righteousness apart from the law because Jesus’ law-keeping has to be imputed to us in order to keep us justified–you said as much above.
Moreover, in regard to justification, you say (as all of the Reformers) we can sin. Yet, Paul stated that where there is no law, there is no sin. We can’t sin against our justification because there is no law to judge us. The very fact that the Reformers state that one sin in sanctification disqualifies our justification proves that they propagate a gospel where believers remain under the law and not under grace. Hence, Calvin stated that sins committed by Christians separate them from grace, and a perpetual application of the gospel is therefore needed. The endgame is living by the same gospel that saved us in order to keep ourselves saved because we are still under the law.
LikeLike
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Time won’t allow me to engage at the moment but I hope to respond this evening if you don’t mind continuing this just a bit.
LikeLike
Jon,
As long as you would like for there is no more important conversation.
LikeLike
I admire their tenacity, even though they know that this is an argument they cannot win.
They are so cute to watch when they try.
Using the Bible to “prove” a patently false gospel only works when they hold the keys of “authority ” and can threaten, blackmail, and fear-monger.
LikeLike
Well we finally boiled it down: you say there is no such thing as sin after justification and with that I disagree. I would say that your proof text is arguing for righteousness through faith in Christ not righteousness because there is no such thing as sin anymore for a justified person.
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (Romans 3:21, 22 ESV)
Grace and peace to you.
LikeLike
Jon,
I didn’t say there is no sin after justification. I said there is no law that judges sin as sin that can result in us losing our justified state. Reformed theology makes no distinction between sin as a child of God versus sin that would be reckoned against our justified state. We are holy because we are born of God and we are His children. His seed is in us, and not keeping the law perfectly does not change that. Sin in the life of a Christian is reckoned to the person we were who is dead. That person was enslaved to sin and free to do good. The new person is enslaved to righteousness and free to sin. Perfect law keeping is not justification’s standard–only for those who are under it (the law) and enslaved to sin. Reformed theology denies the new birth by saying that the Christian is still enslaved to sin by virtue of the fact that he/she cannot keep the law perfectly. In Reformed theology, clearly, Peter does need his whole body washed continually after salvation regardless of what Christ said to him. Clearly, the woman at the well does need to continually drink of the same water again and again because the thirst has not been quenched–regardless of what Christ said to her. Furthermore, my argument doesn’t come from the one verse that you said I cited which I didn’t cite specifically–my position is based on several texts throughout the New Testament.
Moreover, Christ did not keep the law perfectly so that His obedience could be imputed to our sanctification for the purpose of KEEPING us saved through faith alone in His death and perfect obedience both. That’s a distortion of imputation. God’s righteousness was imputed to us apart from the law, and our sins were imputed to Christ. We died once with Christ and were raised once (sealing our justified state). Reformed theology redefines that onetime event as a perpetual experience from perpetually revisiting the gospel. That doctrine as you know, is called mortification and vivification. We remain totally depraved while our ability to merely experience rebirth is increased. It is heresy of the first order and backdoor antinomianism. It joins law to justification, and separates it from sanctification–opposite of Scripture.
LikeLike
David,
He “justified” us. What’s the difference?
LikeLike