Some Passing Thoughts on Obedience and Sanctification
I miss being able to post daily as I am very busy right now, and am also trying to complete part 3 of a previous post. However, I appreciate comments / questions that come in that enable me to launch from a pre-established basis, affording the time to write a post that I wouldn’t ordinarily have. So, the question and my answer will be the post for today:
“Are we able to know by what means he [the Holy Spirit] helps and enables believers? Specifically, is there a way a believer can somehow avail themselves of the HS’s help to love or otherwise obey? If so, how does one do that?”
It’s many faceted, but it boils down to obedience. By what means? And how? Answer: obey. No matter how passive one’s view of sanctification is, you always have to do something; and trust me, knowing us, no matter how minuet it is, we will have to eventually do it whether we feel like it or not. Even if you buy into Piper’s theology that we will do it because it is our delight, our tendency is to always want to be delighted, so we will have to obey and go to work (or something our wife has wanted us to do, for like, 5 years) instead of reading our Bible all day long as a way of “beholding as a way of becoming” (Let me just stop here and share: nobody annoys me more than John Piper).
Ok, get ready to be really offended. But after I say what I am going to say to answer your above question, let me also say that I am in good company and will quote RC Sproul from his book “Pleasing God” to dampen some of the indignation. Here we go: the Holy Spirit helps those who help themselves. O my, anymore, you say that to people and the blood vessels start popping out in their necks. However, I would probably rather state it this way: the HS manifests His power as we walk according to truth. All in all, I think your question is best answered by James in 1:25 – blessings are IN (a preposition explaining where) the DOING.
Well, at the very least, let me be burned at the stake with RC Sproul: “Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
I heard something amazing from Rush Limbaugh the other day. The Russians supposedly prove to their school children that there is no God by presenting two potted plants; they then tell the children to water one on a regular basis, but only pray for the other plant’s growth. While one should not be surprised that such reasoning comes from reprobate minds, at least such a test recognizes that the one plant will surely die without water, unlike many of the sanctification paradigms of our day.
I don’t think anybody explains this better than the apostle Paul in 1Corintians 3: 5-9;
“What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.”
paul
Gospel Sanctification Counseling: Part 2
“By ‘walking in the Spirit,’ Baldwin means walking in the gospel. The prior means to walk according to scriptural truth while the latter means to understand the gospel more deeply, resulting in Jesus obeying for us.”
See full article here: http://goo.gl/Hli7
What Does Gospel Sanctification “Look Like” in Counseling?
So, in regard to those who propagate Gospel Sanctification, how do they counsel? Well, I don’t think anything presents a better “word picture” (quotations hereafter not necessarily from Baldwin’s article) than Bill Baldwin’s piece written in 1996. By the way, I have begun this post with some illustrative Gospel Sanctification lingo which replaces as many verbs with nouns as possible for fear that counselees will get the idea that they should actually do something about their problem. “How,” or “do” is always replaced with what we see Jesus doing instead of us. Hence, “what does that look like?” And, we don’t instruct, we “make word pictures.” I have received feedback from one counselee who informed me that he was counseled by “visual diagrams” of his life drawn by the counselor. And the counselor wasn’t a New Age fruit ball, he is a certified biblical counselor and on the staff of a training center.
In the following article written by Baldwin, look for the following Gospel Sanctification tenets:
1. Sanctification is Justification (salvation / gospel) continually reapplied to life. Instruction is out, “preaching the gospel to ourselves everyday” is in.
2. The role of the Law is exactly the same in sanctification as it is in justification. Hence, GS counselors don’t use the Law (God’s word) for instruction, but rather use it as a school master to continually lead the counselee back to Christ because we are unable to keep the Law, Christ must obey for us. Therefore, the sole purpose of Scripture is to “show forth more Jesus,” not anything Jesus would instruct us to do.
3. Look for the dissing of enablement, or the idea that God enables us to obey. Gospel Sanctification rejects this idea.
4. Note the use of the Law to supposedly drive the counselee (Christian) to the conclusion that he/she can’t keep the Law. This is a favorite technique used by GS counselors, especially in church discipline situations (which Baldwin does not address, but is applicable to points I would like to make). GS church discipline (“redemptive church discipline”) combines church discipline with counseling and primarily seeks to teach the subject to be “gospel driven,” seeing the actual purpose for the church discipline as being beside the point. The counseling will move closer and closer to excommunication as the counselee continues to supposedly “cling to the Law.” What the counselor will do is demand that the counselee obey a long list of stringent imperatives, and as the counselee fails, he/she is moved to the next step of church discipline (and closer to excommunication). This is designed to drive the counselee to “despair,” especially as he/she sees excommunication looming on the horizon. The counselor will then show them the “new way” of living by the gospel. I have seen this mode of operation practiced by counselors firsthand.
5. Note that biblical imperatives are not for us to obey, but rather a “fruit catalog” to show us whether it is Jesus performing the works or us trying to do it in our “own efforts.”
6. Notice John Piper’s Christian Hedonism; when Jesus is obeying for us, we will always obey without hesitation and full of joy. When our obedience is joyless and grudging, we are obeying by “our own efforts.”
One last note before I present the article. GS proponents hate this article because Baldwin is completely forthright regarding how GS applies to counseling. Without further ado, here is the article:
Sanctification, Counseling, and the Gospel
by Bill Baldwin 8-2-96
Counselling must stimulate faith so that behavior flows from a redeemed heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. Often enough, people make this reply to that statement: “We’re presupposing faith, and a regenerate heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course it is impossible for the counselee to benefit from counselling without these things.” And we end up frustrated. They are frustrated because they think I’m accusing them of not doing everything at once. After all, there are good books already available on faith and the heart (the Puritans rambled on forever on that one) and the Holy Spirit. Now we need a book on counseling and if we repeat all the previous work we’ll be duplicating the efforts of others and getting nowhere. And I’m frustrated because I don’t believe my point has been understood.
Let me make that point briefly and then expound on it. It is possible to have a regenerate heart of faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and to produce actions that do not proceed therefrom. We do it every day. It is called sin. It is therefore essential that the counselor evoke the faith, stimulate the heart, and teach the counselee thereby to desire and receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Counselling cannot be about anything if it is not about faith and the heart and the Spirit of God.
Here is that same response in a longer form:
When I tell a man to change his behavior — and he realizes he must — it is the most natural thing in the world that he should do so by relying on his natural strength and the force of his will. It is therefore essential that the counselor solemnly warn him against such a course. He has heard the law and glibly said “I will do what it says.” He must know of the holiness of that law and the condemnation declared against all who try to commend themselves to God by lawkeeping. The law must drive him to the gospel of Christ.
And that gospel must long be dwelt upon that it may evoke faith — whether for the first time or as a stirring up and a repeated application of a faith already present. Only works that spring out of such a faith constitute the gospel obedience held out in Scripture.
The human mind, observed Calvin, is an idol factory. And our favorite idol stares back at us from the mirror each morning. When we are told to change our behavior, that idol is our first, most natural, and often unconscious recourse. The way of the gospel is strange, uncertain, and involved. Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.
If an act does not spring from a conscious exercise of faith stirred up by gospel truth, we can be almost certain the act does not spring unconsciously therefrom. And whatever is not of faith is sin. The majority of my life is spent in self-idolatry. Again and again I find myself feeling and acting as though I am my own, as though I have the power to do what I choose to, as though I live and move and have my being within myself rather than in God through Christ. I say, “Tomorrow, I will do such and such” without a hint of “Lord willing” in my mind. Unconsciously I have stopped relying on another for everything I do. I have left the way of faith and any other way is sin.
Am I so sinful then? Indeed, in my flesh — utterly sinful. But I have been called to walk not in the flesh but in the Spirit. Not by works but by faith. Have I then made so little progress in walking in the Spirit that, every time I relax my vigilance I begin to walk in the flesh? Every time my renewed mind falls asleep it wakes to find me in sin? Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death? I praise God and cling to Christ for in Christ even now I have no condemnation, and in that sweet assurance I look forward to the resurrection of this body, gloriously transformed at last to Christlike perfection.
Meanwhile I wrestle with temptation; I fall into sin but am not overcome. He who died for me now restores me and sets me on the path of life — Christ, the Way — again.
What do I learn about counselling from these truths? Simply this: When a counselee comes to me with a problem of sin, he has been catering to his flesh and — if he has tried to combat the sin at all — has been combatting the sin in the strength of his flesh. Hence his failure and his need. If I counsel such a man by giving him “practical” steps to change his behavior, he will certainly attempt those steps in the strength of his own flesh. He has already demonstrated that this is the usual way he deals with this area of his life — at least lately. Will he change now?
We cannot, we must not, “presuppose” the presence of faith and a regenerate heart and the Holy Spirit. What if you were a farmer contemplating a tree that bears little fruit, and much of it bad? Would you say, “I assume the roots are fine and I assume the soil’s good and I assume it’s getting enough water” and look for the problem elsewhere? The condition of the fruit tells you you must examine the roots and the soil. So here. A counselee bearing bad fruit in a certain area must be brought back to the root of Christ and the soil of the gospel and the rain of grace. We do not assume the presence of Christ, we drive the counselee to Christ by the law. We do not assume the presence of faith (for faith is either absent of weak); we stimulate faith by the gospel. We do not assume the presence of love for God and neighbor, we evoke that love by telling him of God’s love for him — not to guilt trip him into obedience but that his heart may burst with joy and a desire to be conformed to the image of Christ and to love with the love of Christ.
But what if the gospel doesn’t work? We expound the gospel but it fails to motivate and empower the counselee to love and good deeds? The question seems despairing if not outright blasphemous. For when we speak of the gospel, we speak of the redeeming work of Christ in his incarnation, perfect life, atoning death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of power whence he sends forth the Holy Spirit to equip us for every good work. If that “doesn’t work” we have no hope.
But the question is legitimate. What if the gospel does not reignite a spark of faith in the counselee so that he forsakes his sin, clings to Christ, stands in awe of his salvation, and goes forth to love and serve the Lord? What if the gospel doesn’t work? Then take him to the law.
Let me be completely clear. I do not say “take him to the law” so that the law may motivate him to do what is right. The law cannot. It was not created for that purpose and cannot be used for that purpose without producing pharisees and Judaizers. We must not cause the counselee to say, “The gospel wholly failed to motivate me to good works; but now that I see that God commands good works, I know that I must do them. And if I have no desire for good works, I will do them out of sheer, teeth-gritting obedience because God requires it of me.” Such obedience is wholly unacceptable to God. We must actively discourage the counselee from such thinking.
The counselor errs grossly if he uses the commands of God to motivate his counselee to an obedience born of the sheer force of his will.
A second error is like it but more subtle. The counselor may reason that the proper purpose of the law is to drive a man to Christ, but he turns Christ into a gimmick, a means by which the counselee may be enabled better to keep the law. The counselor has not fully understood the law and its demands and so the counselee misunderstands as well. The counselee hears the law and says “Yes, I want to do those things and I am sorry I haven’t been. Who will enable me to do them properly?” Such a man does not yet understand his own depravity. He desires merely to be enabled to keep the law rather than begging that the law might be kept and forgiveness obtained on his behalf. He asks “Where will I find the strength to keep the law?” rather than “Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death!” This man must be pried from the false Christ to which he clings and held closer to the fires of the law until he cries out, “I cannot keep it! Someone else must do it for me!”
This is as true in sanctification as in justification. We are justified by grace through faith in Christ. So are we sanctified. The law that first drove us to Christ again and again drives us back to him for repeated applications of his forgiveness and his righteousness.
The law must never drive us to desire to keep the law but that we should be freed from its shackles of condemnation. When we have been driven to Christ, when we have drunk deep of his salvation, our freedom from the law’s loud thunder, the glories that are laid up for us in heaven and in which we even now participate by faith. . . then we shall walk forth in newness of life. If we abide in Christ we will bear much fruit. We labor with counselees long and hard that they should walk by the Spirit. For we know that when they walk by the Spirit they will not carry out the desires of the flesh.
The law, stripped of its condemnation, will then describe the content of our behavior. And when we have questions in that regard as we walk by the Spirit, we may consult God’s standards to make sure that the new obedience we are gratefully bringing forth is not of our own devising.
But this is not the hardest or the most necessary part of counseling. Driving them to Christ by the law and teaching them to cling to Christ by faith must occupy most of our time. The nitty gritty “practical” concerns will largely take care of themselves if only we stick to this method.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying the law isn’t useful as a pattern of the good works that flow from sanctification. It is. But that is not the use that Paul or the rest of Scripture harps on over and over. Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that. And where they haven’t, take them back to Christ again that they may contemplate him in all his glorious perfection so that they may better understand what sort of God and man he was and is.
What if a man preaches the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and reduces Christ as a means to producing that pattern? What will result? Nothing or worse than nothing.
Hold fast the head and the body will move. Abide in Christ and the fruit will come.
Matthew 5:48; Be Ye Perfect?
It goes without saying that the fashionable take on Matthew 5:48 in our day is that Jesus told his disciples to be perfect so that after trying to do what He said, they would discover that they were unable to be perfect, and it would drive them closer to Him in total dependence.
This is interesting since the working hermeneutic for this passage is 5:2 which says: “And He opened His mouth and taught them, saying…” The reference to Him opening His mouth, which would normally be assumed, probably hearkens back to Matthew 4:4 because Jesus was also God. But my main point is that when we are being “taught,” readily available information is assumed. In other words, Jesus didn’t say it was an experiment designed to discover other truth, He said perfection was imperative. Also, Jesus is a perfect communicator. If He wanted to say: “Go try to be perfect and see how far you get because I want to make another point,” don’t you think He could have just simply said that? Our God is not a god of confusion.
More than likely, a light bulb moment I had this morning offers a better suggestion. I was thinking about a sin in my life that is all but eradicated. I like that, but then I thought about how this sin gets the best of me once in awhile, say, once every several months. Is that ok, (as I was being tempted to think)? No! Why? Because: what did Jesus say in Matthew 5:48? Perfection is the standard. It begs the question: do sins creep back into our lives because we are satisfied when they are laying on the ground near death? Yes, and it’s the same reason we stay away from the magazine rack at the grocery store if pornography is a dead sin in our life; because it’s dead, perfection is the standard, and we aim to keep that sin dead.
When that sin is laying on the ground near death because we have deprived it of provisions, and we hear it faintly cry-out in weakness, we mercilessly put our foot on its neck and press hard, because perfection is the standard.
paul
The Church’s Primary Foe Has Always Been Antinomianism, and Always Will be: Not Legalism
“Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness.”
In Phil Johnson’s “The History of Heresy: Five Errors that Refuse to Die” he says the following in the introduction: “In this seminar, we will look at five major heresies that have plagued the church again and again throughout history. Here are the five heretical groups we’ll talk about: the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Pelagians, and the Socinians.” Johnson’s thesis is that most heresies throughout church history fit into one of these five, or a combination thereof.
First on his list is by far the most recognized, legalism (Judaizers): “The apostles’ war with legalism permeates the book of Acts and most of the epistles.” Though this is somewhat true, the following is more accurate: heresies that promote disobedience; namely, antinomian type heresies, dwarf legalism throughout the Scriptures. The Bible begins with a deception that led to disobedience (Eve in the garden, Genesis 3:1-19), and ends accordingly ( Revelation 20:7-10). The Scriptures are also saturated with accounts of the same heretical endeavor between Genesis and Revelation.
In fact, legalistic heresies are barely mentioned in the Old Testament, if at all, and really don’t occupy that much of the New Testament, especially when compared to Antinomianism. By the way, in contrast to the popular myth of our day, the Lord’s contention with the Pharisees was not legalism, but rather replacing God’s Law with their own traditions which led to a disregard for the Law: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5: 19 ESV). Rather than “break” (KJV), to modify, relax (ESV), dissolve, or melt is a better rendering, and this is exactly what the Pharisees did by mixing God’s Law with their traditions (Matthew 15:3-9).
The following excerpt does a good job of explaining what Antinomianism is, and how much this subject is spoken of in Scripture:
SO WHAT’S IT MEAN?
‘Antinomian’ is pronounced [an-ta-nome´-ee-ann]. The word itself can be traced back to the Greek of the New Testament. It comes from putting two Greek words together: `anti (anti) and nomos (nomos). The first word “anti” taken by itself means, “over against or instead of”, and corresponds to our English word “anti”, which means “opposed to”.
The second half of the word ‘Antinomian’, which is the word “nomos”, means: (1) a law, rule, standard; (2) a rule of life or moral conduct. This is the same word that is translated “law” in “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”-KJV. Rom. 3:31. Consequently, when these two Greek words are combined, it gives the meaning: lawlessness; without, opposed to or against laws, standards, or rules of moral conduct.
IS ‘ANTINOMIAN’ A BIBLE WORD?
Yes, it most certainly is (in the Greek Language, that is). It can be found in the following form 25 times throughout the New Testament. This time it again comes from taking the Greek word “nomos”, but prefixing it with the negative particle “a” to give the Greek word “anomos”. The Greek word “nomos” was previously defined as: a law, rule, standard; a rule of life or moral conduct. When the negative article “a” is prefixed to it, the exact same meaning as our English word ‘Antinomian’ is derived. The Greek translation for this New Testament word is: lawlessness; the condition of being without law; having contempt for law.
It is usually translated (Strongs # 458, 459) using vague words like ‘iniquity’, ‘wicked’, ‘unrighteousness’ or ‘transgressor’ (in the Authorized Version-KJV). It’s even more vague in all the newer translations. Only 6 times was it clearly translated (KJV) as ‘without law’, ‘lawless’, etc., in 3 verses only. However, understanding this word’s true meaning, brings new meaning and clarity to all verses that contain it. Even though it is found translated ‘iniquity in Matt. 7:23, the words ‘Antinomian’ or ‘lawlessness’ could rightfully be put there instead. It would then read, starting at verse 21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work “lawlessness” (Antinomianism).
Other verses that condemn Antinomians to hell are: “The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do ‘Antinomian(ism)‘.” “And because ‘Antinomians‘ shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with ‘Antinomians‘? and what communion hath light with darkness?” “For the mystery of ‘Antinomian(ism)’ doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all ‘Antinomian(ism)’, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good work (Matt.13:41; Matt. 24:12; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 2:7; Titus 2:14) [ see full article: goo.gl/hkoP ].
Therefore, though legalism is a big problem, the constant representation of legalism as the primary foe of the church is unmerited and misleading, and is often a ploy by the Antinomians themselves. Church history would agree with this as well. The apostle Paul said the mystery of Antinomianism was already at work during his time, and would be culminated by the appearing of the sultan of Antinomianism, the antichrist, or who he called the “lawless one” ( 2Thess. 2:7-12). Likewise, the apostle John said that in his time “many antichrists have come” and “antichrist is coming” (1John 2:18). John also said this is how we know that we are in the last age; it will be dominated by a spirit of lawlessness (1John 2:26- 3:10). In addition, Christ said the last days will be earmarked by cold hearts resulting from “lawlessness” (Matthew 24:12). Interesting, cold hearts don’t cause lawlessness; cold hearts are “because” of lawlessness. Something to think about. Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness. And the present handy-work of his minions does not result in a climate of legalism, but rather lawlessness. This is undoubtedly what Samuel Rutherford had in mind when he entitled his treatise against Antinomianism, “A Survey of Spiritual Antichrist.”
Never the less, the thinking of the contemporary church is that Antinomianism is not the primary threat to the church’s purity. A few contemporary, and well noted teachers such as AW Tozar would disagree: “Fundamental Christianity in our times is deeply influenced by that ancient enemy of righteousness, Antinomianism” ( AW Tozar: “Paths to Power” WingSpread, 1964 ). Indeed, it seems that the mentality of our day is that Antinomainism disappeared after the great Antinomian controversies of the 17th century. Church historians such as Tim Cooper have downplayed that controversy (and the Antinomian threat in general) by asserting that Richard Baxter, Samuel Rutherford, and others less notable, greatly exaggerated the threat (Tim Cooper: “Richard Baxter and Antinomianism” University of Cantebury, 1997). Of course, this is very unlikely when we consider what the apostles taught regarding lawlessness. It seems clear that the threat began in a significant way (the mystery of lawlessness) when Christ appeared, marking the beginning of the “last age” (Heb. 1:2), and will presumably increase with intensity until the “lawless one” appears. Therefore, we should expect that Antinomianism is very much alive and well in our present time as well as in times past.
In the great Antinomian controversy of the 17th century, Richard Baxter and Samuel Rutherford took no prisoners and named names. The names were Robert Towne, William Dell, John Eaton, Tobias Crisp, John Traske, and John Saltmarsh. Like the Antinomians of our day, these men fiercely objected to the charge, but Baxter and Rutherford were not swayed, and Saltmarsh became a favorite target of Baxter till the end of his (Baxter’s) ministry. JC Ryle mentions this controversy in his “20 Letters on Holiness” which was Ryle’s own response to the Antinomian influences of his day in the 19th century.
Without a doubt, the most distinguishing mark of Antinomians in the past and present is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. James Durham said the following in regard to this point: “In some respects an opposite error to Popery, …the Antinomians … make all sanctification to be justification …” Tim Cooper, in the above cited dissertation, said this: “The Antinomians accepted that the Law should be preached to sinners, and both sides agreed that it played no part in the justification of those sinners, but the Antinomians refused to grant it a role in their sanctification” (p. 63). Another way of stating it would be “sanctification by faith alone,” just like justification is by faith alone. AW Tozar said the following in describing the Antinomian position: “What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly. The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God. Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian.” JC Ryle said this in contending against the Antinomians of his day:
“It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say “faith alone justifies.” But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say “faith alone sanctifies.” The saying requires very large qualification. Let one fact suffice. We are frequently told that a man is “justified by faith without the works of the law,” by St. Paul. But not once are we told that we are “sanctified by faith without the deeds of the law.” On the contrary, we are expressly told by St. James that the faith whereby we are visibly and demonstratively justified before man, is a faith which “if it has not works is dead, being alone” ( James 2:17).
How Antinomians have attempted to make this all fit together is varied, but necessarily accompanied by doublespeak and nuanced language because many of them throughout history have been, and are presently joined at the hip with orthodox Christianity. Such was the case with Dell, Towne, Saltmarsh et al. Tim Cooper, while downplaying the threat of Antinomianism during the 17th century controversy, had this to say in regard to the Antinomians of that day:
“Yet it is not at all clear that this is what the Antinomians actually taught, and the confusion is not helped by their own ambiguity. For example, Robert Towne denied the law any place in sanctification, [by our efforts] while at the same time affirming “the use of the Morall Law to true beleevers. For it keeps them close in spirit and conscience through faith unto Christs righteousnesse” [In other words, it shows them what Christ did, or “Christs rightousnesse” in fulfilling the Law for us, since we are unable]. It was not the only place where he agreed that the law should be preached to believers, but his point was finely nuanced. “I wish that 1 be not mistaken, for 1 never deny the Law to be an etemall and inviolable Rule of Righteousness [ours? Or merely the “rule” itself?]: but yet affirme that its the Grace of the Gospel which effectually and truely confirmeth us thereunto” [Yes, because Christ also came (supposedly) to obey for us as well, and impute His obedience to us so that we don’t have to obey; this is considered to be part of the gospel by Antinomians]. Towne asserted that the law should be preached to believers because it set out the standard of righteousness, not forgetting that only the gospel of grace could ever bring the Christian to attain it. It was, perhaps, a subtlety that was lost on his opponents “(p.64) [not really, they knew what he was really saying].
Likewise, JC Ryle had this to say about the double-speaking Antinomians of his day:
“I may be told, in reply, that no one of course means to disparage ‘works’ as an essential part of a holy life. It would be well, however, to make this more plain then many seem to make it in these days.”
I do not believe that there has ever been a time in church history where the Dells and Townes have been missing, but in our day, the Baxters and the Ryles are nowhere to be found.
paul
2 comments