Calvin: Christians Must Keep Their Salvation by Pursuing Perpetual Forgiveness in the “Church”
Originally published August 14, 2013
“Why does American Protestantism have such weak sanctification? Calvin taught that the apostle Paul went from house to house preaching about the same gospel that saved us rather than teaching the full counsel of God, that’s why.”
I can see clearly now; it all finally makes sense. As a young Scriptural zealot, many things in the Protestant church confused me. I was the Baptist stripe of Protestant. And kudos to church historian John Immel, he is right; there is always a logic behind an action.
Why so much emphasis on the same gospel that saved us? Why were we constantly calling on people to be saved in the church? Why don’t we have any more answers to life’s difficult problems than the world? Why so much fuss over the buildings? Why is the Lord’s Table such an uppity pious affair when it seems to have been inaugurated during a casual dinner? Why have I always struggled to be wowed by that “ordinance”? Why all the crosses all over the place? On the church, in the church, around people’s necks. Geez. And why is the same bad behavior that is in the Catholic Church also in the Protestant church?
Fact is, American religion was founded on the Pilgrims who are not very often called what they really were: Calvinistic Puritans armed with the first Bible to ever arrive on American soil; The Geneva Bible which was John Calvin’s commentary on the Bible.
Talk abounds concerning the foremost figures of the Reformation, John Calvin and Martin Luther. Many opinions abound, but everybody agrees that they are the fathers of the Protestant Reformation and spiritual heroes. They are the George Washington and James Madison of our faith.
New Calvinism is a return to the purest form of the Reformation found in the John Calvin Institutes of the Christian Religion. And there is a reason New Calvinism is taking over Protestantism by storm: Protestantism originally came from Calvinism and is well primed to be retrofitted with the original. Forget doctrine, that’s the same thing as football fans talking about stats. It’s interesting, but it doesn’t matter, the game is played on the field. Calvinism is a tradition that has little to do with the election versus freewill issue as well, that’s just a family quarrel about which sibling gets to use the bathroom next. There are two kinds of Protestants in the world: staunch doctrinal Calvinists and those who function like Calvinists. Today, that translates into New Calvinists and everybody else that’s left. New Calvinists strive to continually define the logic that drives their actions; everyone else is just coasting on the basics, but are well primed to step over to the wild side.
Why is this? We find some answers in the Calvin Institutes; specifically, 4.1.21,22. Therein we read:
Wherefore, our initiation into the fellowship of the church is, by the symbol of ablution, to teach us that we have no admission into the family of God, unless by his goodness our impurities are previously washed away (20).
Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of reconciliation to be daily delivered to them.
This is a startling statement for any Christian paying attention. But it is also a grand example of talking about stats; i.e., Christ died once, for all of our sins and that is imputed, in totality one time, at our conversion for all past and future sins, versus how Protestants really function: a weekly focus on the gospel. Why? That’s how we keep our salvation, that’s why. New Calvinists say, “amen.” Baptists protest, but that’s how they function. I have watched it for 30+ years.
Calvin continues:
On the other hand, the Lord has called his people to eternal salvation, and therefore they ought to consider that pardon for their sins is always ready. Hence let us surely hold that if we are admitted and ingrafted into the body of the Church, the forgiveness of sins has been bestowed, and is daily bestowed on us, in divine liberality, through the intervention of Christ’s merits, and the sanctification of the Spirit.
22. To impart this blessing to us, the keys have been given to the Church (Mt. 16:19; 18:18). For when Christ gave the command to the apostles, and conferred the power of forgiving sins, he not merely intended that they should loose the sins of those who should be converted from impiety to the faith of Christ; but, moreover, that they should perpetually perform this office among believers. This Paul teaches, when he says that the embassy of reconciliation has been committed to the ministers of the Church, that they may ever and anon in the name of Christ exhort the people to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20). Therefore, in the communion of saints our sins are constantly forgiven by the ministry of the Church, when presbyters or bishops, to whom the office has been committed, confirm pious consciences, in the hope of pardon and forgiveness by the promises of the gospel, and that as well in public as in private, as the case requires. For there are many who, from their infirmity, stand in need of special pacification, and Paul declares that he testified of the grace of Christ not only in the public assembly, but from house to house, reminding each individually of the doctrine of salvation (Acts 20:20, 21). Three things are here to be observed. First, Whatever be the holiness which the children of God possess, it is always under the condition, that so long as they dwell in a mortal body, they cannot stand before God without forgiveness of sins. Secondly, This benefit is so peculiar to the Church, that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in the communion of the Church. Thirdly, It is dispensed to us by the ministers and pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the Gospel or the administration of the Sacraments, and herein is especially manifested the power of the keys, which the Lord has bestowed on the company of the faithful. Accordingly, let each of us consider it to be his duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it. Of the public reconciliation which relates to discipline, we shall speak at the proper place.
Why so much emphasis on the same gospel that saved us? Because it keeps saving us. Why so much fuss about buildings? Those are the temples where we find our need for perpetual salvation and forgiveness for sins that would circumvent our justification. Why are pastors put on a pedestal and allowed to rape, pillage, and steal? In them we have our absolution. Why so much fuss about the Lord’s Table and quarreling over real wine or grape juice? There is additional salvation in the sacraments. Why all of the crosses? Same thing: more gospel; more salvation. Why do we sweep scandal under the rug? It is a threat to the institution, and that’s where we find our salvation. Why does American Protestantism have such weak sanctification? Calvin taught that the apostle Paul went from house to house preaching about the same gospel that saved us rather than teaching the full counsel of God, that’s why.
Calvin’s statement about being “engrafted” into the “church” is interesting. The Potter’s House has just adopted Remnant Theology as opposed to Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology, or Dispensationism. Are we engrafted into a “church” or an “olive tree”? In Romans 9-11, what does that olive tree symbolize? Something to think about.
John Immel is right, action is always driven by logic. In our present day, doctrine is getting lip service while Calvin’s logic is driving the actions. That is why nothing going on in the church makes any sense right now.
And I doubt it ever will until God’s people come out from among them.
paul
Know Your Cuts of Calvinism
Originally posted July 2, 2013
1. Total Depravity: Pertains to the saints also.
2. Justification by Faith Alone: Pertains to sanctification also.
3. Mortification and Vivification: Perpetual death and rebirth for living by faith alone in sanctification to maintain justification. The reliving of our baptism “again and again.”
4. Double Imputation: Christ’s passive obedience to the cross for justification, and His active obedience as a substitution for our obedience in sanctification.
5. Deep Repentance (aka Intelligent Repentance): Seeks the death of mortification in re-experiencing our new birth.
6. New Obedience (aka New Fruit): The experience of Christ’s active obedience in sanctification (vivification).
7. The New Birth: Perpetual mortification and vivification.
8. The Objective Gospel: All reality is interpreted through the redemptive works of Christ.
9. Christ for Us: Christ died for our justification, and lived a perfect life for our sanctification.
10. The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event: Biblical commands show forth what Christ has accomplished for us and what we are unable to do in sanctification. Works are experienced only as they flow from the indicative event of the gospel.
11. Neo-Nomianism (New Law, aka New Legalism): The belief that we can please God by obeying the law in sanctification.
12. Progressive Sanctification: The progression of justification to glorification.
13. Progressive Imputation: Whatever is seen in the gospel narrative and meditated upon is imputed to our sanctification, whether mortification or vivification.
14. The Golden Chain of Salvation: See cut 12.
15. Good Repentance: Repenting of good works.
16. In-Lawed in Christ: Christ fulfilled the law perfectly and imputed it to our sanctification.
17. Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics (the Christocentric Hermeneutic, aka the Apostle’s Hermeneutic): The Bible as historical narrative for the sole purpose of showing forth Christ’s redemptive works.
18. Faith: A neutral entity within us with no intrinsic worth that is able to reflect the object of its focus outside of us. The object of focus can be experienced within, but remains outside of us.
19. The Heart: The residence of evil desires and faith. It can be reoriented (the “reorientation of the heart” or “reorientation of desires”) to reflect Christ via mortification and vivification.
20. Flesh: The world realm where evil is manifested and experienced.
21. Spirit: The Spirit realm where the imputed works of Christ are manifested and experienced (not applied through our actions).
22. Christian Hedonism: Seeks to experience the joy of vivification.
23. Obedience of Faith: New Obedience.
24. Christ in Us: “By faith,” and faith only has substance and reality to the degree of the object it is placed in; i.e., Christ outside of us.
25. Vital Union: Makes experiencing the gospel possible. Makes mortification and vivification possible.
26. Eclipsing the Son (aka the Emphasis Hermeneutic): Focusing on anything other than Christ. Anything that is not seen through a Christocentric prism creates shadows that we live in. The obstacles that create the shadows may be truth, but they aren’t the “best truth.” “They may be good things, but not the best thing.”
27. Sabbath Rest: Sanctification. We are to “rest and feed” on Christ for our Christian life. The primary day this is done is Sunday. Through preaching and the sacraments we “kill” (mortification, or the contemplation of our evil and misery) resulting in vivification throughout the rest of the week.
28. The Subjective Power of the Gospel: The manifestation of the gospel that flows from gospel contemplationism. We never know for certain whether it is a result of our efforts or the Spirit’s work (although the Spirit’s work is always experienced by joy); hence, the power of the objective gospel is subjective (Heidelberg Disputation: Thesis 24).
29. Mortal Sin: Good works by the Christian not attended by fear that they may be of one’s own effort (HD 7).
30. Venial Sin: Good works by the Christian attended with fear (HD 7).
31. Power of the Keys (aka Protestant Absolution): Reformed elders have the authority to bind or loose sin on earth (Calvin Institutes 3.4.12).
32. Redemptive Church Discipline: In all cases to convert one to cuts 1-31. This redeems them to the only one, true faith. This can be a long process, and said person is not free to leave a given church until the elders bind or loose.
33. Preach the Gospel to Yourself: See cuts 1-32.
New Calvinism’s Contribution to the Church: It Reveals What Calvin Really Believed
Originally published August 24, 2013
“A question we often hear is, ‘What is the difference between an Old Calvinist and a New Calvinist?’ The answer: maybe the music style and dress code, but that’s about it, Old Calvinists that don’t know what Calvin really believed about soteriology notwithstanding.…. This is the one area where New Calvinists can recommend themselves: they have a firm handle on Calvinology.”
Once upon a time, there was a family in Christianville that was highly respected among all of the town’s people. They owned the town’s water purification plant and purified the town’s water with a formula that had been in their family for centuries.
Then a distant relative of the family moved into town. He was obviously a fellow of the baser sort. “Well, every family has a black sheep” the town’s people reasoned. But then they found out this relative had also purified water in other towns with the same family formula resulting in the death of thousands. Apparently, for the first few years, the formula appears to improve the health of people, but ill effects follow in the long term.
The prestigious family objected and insisted that the family member had tampered with the original formula. What will Christianville do now?
No doubt, New Calvinism must be exposed and stopped, but its unwitting service to the church should not go unmentioned: it has exposed the original family formula, the same formula that evangelicals have fustigated the Catholic Church for over the years. For some reason, we are willing to buy into the idea that three Catholics founded an anti-Catholic movement and never stopped being Catholics. Truly, our Enlightenment forefathers would be ashamed of us for believing such.
Supposedly, the “Reformers” modified the original formula enough to bring life out of death. Now there is debate between the New Calvinists and the Old Calvinists in regard to the originality of that formula. Old Calvinists say the New Calvinists modified the formula. That’s not the case. A question we often hear is, “What is the difference between an Old Calvinist and a New Calvinist?” The answer: maybe the music style and dress code, but that’s about it, Old Calvinists that don’t know what Calvin really believed about soteriology notwithstanding. This is the one area where New Calvinists can recommend themselves: they have a firm handle on Calvinology.
Old Calvinists are obviously very threatened by what the New Calvinists have brought to light. Those who proudly label themselves with something that they misunderstood to begin with fall significantly short of being impressive. But their dilemma is understandable to a point. The Reformers interpreted all reality through Martin Luther’s Theology of the Cross. This seeks to use the Bible as a tool for gospel contemplationism only. The sole purpose of the Bible is to show us our sin (mortification), and God’s holiness, leading to a gospel visitation afresh (vivification). The Bible aids us in perpetual rebirth experiences. This is known as the Redemptive Historical use of the Bible.
But that is not the normative in regard to how people interpret literature or reality. Naturally, we interpret literature grammatically. Intuitively, we are exegetical beings. The way words are arranged in a sentence interprets our realty. Until Adam named the animals, they had no part in reality. You say, “Yes they did, even though they were unidentified, they were there—they had presence.” No, the word “unidentified” gives them their meaning in reality. Words interpret our reality. In the Redemptive Historical construct, all the words in the Bible must serve to show us our need to be saved perpetually—those words must continually show us our ruined state so that we can experience salvation (vivification) rather than being a participant in it via sanctification. That would be works salvation according to the Reformers.
To simplify this, it is fair to say that the Reformers brought an Eastern way of interpreting reality into the Western religious world. So, as Christians throughout the centuries read their Bibles, they are/were naturally drawn away from the original Reformed epistemology. The New Calvinists basically rediscovered the original epistemology of the Reformers. Their interpretive construct is critical for living by faith alone in sanctification as a way to maintain justification.
The proof in the pudding is interaction with Old Calvinists who scoff at the idea that New Calvinism is the same thing as their vaunted Reformed heritage. I cite here a debate I recently had with Calvinistic pastor Bret L. McAtee on a social network. The debate represents something that the laity must overcome in regard to seeking out truth and standing for it: academic antagonism. This is a Reformed mainstay. Much of the populous is eliminated from the debate because of a standard set up by the Reformers themselves. This was borrowed from the Eastern concept of social caste. The Reformers established a whole other standard of truth through councils, creeds, and catechisms attended by, “Divines.” Notably, those who drafted the Westminster Confession of Faith are known as the “Westminster Divines.” This is no more or no less than the Hindu Sage. True, Hinduism looks inward to interpret reality beyond the five senses while Reformed theology looks outward. But both interpret reality through an anti-grammatical construct. New Calvinists state implicitly that a literal, grammatical interpretation must bow to the redemptive interpretive process and its mortification /vivification experience.
Point being, throughout my debate with Pastor Bret L. MacAtee, he resorts to this, you’re a peasant and I am a sage communication technique. He also tried to use the Reformed debate technique of assumptive metaphysics. What’s that? That is the assumption that the reality established by the Reformers is truth because they state it so. And this has worked well. Most Christians associate truth with “orthodoxy.” Orthodoxy is a truth established by men. The Reformers play word games here by calling documents such as the Westminster Confession, “subordinate truth,” but that is disingenuous. In fact, those who reject orthodoxy are referred to as “heterodox,” and as we shall see, MacAtee makes that synonymous with rejecting the gospel itself. Part and parcel with debating a Calvinist is their attempt to set the metaphysical parameters of the debate. I did not allow this to happen.
Let’s review these important points: a debate with a Calvinist will always involve academic antagonism and metaphysical assumption.
Note: Posts on social internet threads don’t always appear in the intended order because of varied response times to particular points. Also, it was a lengthy thread, and only the posts that articulate my summation here are included, and in the order that best clarifies the points that are being made.
McAtee got the ball rolling by using academic antagonism right out of the gate:
BM: And that New Calvinism is authentic Calvinism is a howler of a statement.
PD: Bret, It’s a “howler” because you get your information from men. I get my information from 6 years of research on the Reformation and the Calvin institutes. You are clueless.
BM: LOL … Your indicting the wrong Chap Paul. Want to compare our reading over the years in Calvin and Calvin studies?
You’d lose.
And … I’ve read your books as well.
Those well versed in Reformed theology need not bow to this antagonism. We are in the truth business and are not bound by the musings of men. One must bring the debate to one or more subjects where Calvinism is vulnerable; in this case, progressive justification:
PD: Oh, so you believe in Progressive Justification?
BM: Nope … I believe in eternal justification, objective justification and then subjective justification … rightly explained and understood.
PD: “Nope”? Really? So tell me what book and chapter in the Calvin Institutes where Calvin talks about Progressive Justification.
PD: You there Brett?
BM: Yes yes Paul … I’ve read your open letter. An open letter that suggests you don’t know what you’re talking about and are a theological novice.
Two things here. First, his description of what he believes about justification is in fact New Calvinism to a “T.” New Calvinists, like Calvin, believed that grace remains completely outside of the believer and is only objective truth outside of us. Justification during our Christian life continues and is experienced subjectively. “Eternal justification” could refer to election or final justification which he seems to have left out. Nevertheless, note his description in relationship to the New Calvinist mantras, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us and the subjective power of the objective gospel. The illustration below shows the kinship between New Calvinism and what McAtee stated:
One Achilles’ heel for Calvinists is while denying that they believe in progressive justification, the title of book three and the fourteenth chapter of the Calvin Institutes is, “The Beginning of Justification. In What Sense Progressive.” This is what I was trying to get McAtee to explain. He once again resorted to academic antagonism by calling me a “theological novice” while this is one of several questions that he wouldn’t answer.
PD: So, when Calvin said that justification is progressive, he really didn’t mean that justification is progressive. Is that what you are saying?
BM: I’m saying you don’t know the difference between progressive and perpetual.
PD: Both move forward in time.
PD: No? Am I missing the definition in its “gospel context”?
PD: Both move forward in time—yes or no big guy.
This is the whole motif that Calvinists are on some higher plane of understanding to the point where what seems obvious to the peasantry really isn’t realty. Hence, “progressive” and “perpetual” are supposedly different concepts that the common man is unable to understand. Again, I ignored the academic antagonism and asked him if both words have the idea of moving forward in time. He wouldn’t answer the question; instead, he posed a question based on Reformed pseudo-church history:
BM: Only an idiot could believe that Cardinal Sadolet and Rome hated Calvin because he agreed with them on Justification.
This response combines academic antagonism and metaphysical assumption. The assumption is that, according to the Reformed motif, there was a great gulf in the view on justification between Rome and the Reformers, and the only reason Rome hated the Reformers is because of their diametrically opposed views on justification. This is not reality at all for a couple of reasons. First, Calvin got his theology from St. Augustine who is a celebrated spiritual hero in the Catholic Church till this day. Secondly, Augustine, Luther, nor Calvin ever renounced their own membership in the Catholic Church. Here is how I sated it further along in the debate:
PD: Bret, let me also say that a cursory observation of church history shows that Augustine, Calvin, and Luther never left the Catholic Church. Yet, you are incredulous that their take on justification would be basically the same. So is it, A. You just don’t know any better, or B. You know, but you are deliberately keeping your flock dumbed down? Augustine was a die-hard Catholic till the end while Calvin cites him more than 400 times in the Institutes. And the idea that they had the same basic approach to justification as Rome is an over the top idea?
McAtee continued to bear down with heavy doses of academic antagonism and metaphysical assumptions with this statement:
BM: Like all idiots you are reading Calvin through a keyhole and then reinterpreting him through the Keyhole instead of letting his whole corpus of thought inform you. You are an example of someone that got in way over his head into areas he was not yet ready to think about. You may yet return to Biblical Christianity Paul and leave your heterodox ways and thinking.
Please remember at this point that he refused to answer the simplest of questions: did Calvin mean progressive by “progressive,” and does both perpetual and progressive have the idea of moving forward in time? Instead, he suggests that all of Calvin’s massive literary droning would have to be read and studied to properly understand what Calvin meant by the very use of specific words. Of course, that is a ridiculous notion, but not a rare argument among the Reformed. The same argument is often used to defend John Piper who has also written a huge mass of literary droning. Note also that my “heterodox” (other than orthodoxy) is likened to a departure from “Biblical Christianity.” The mode of operation is to demean and argue from a reality that results in the desired outcome.
McAtee then introduces another Reformed technique of debate that we will call, drowning by orthodoxy. He then began to copy and paste a mass of Reformed orthodoxy that would take two days to read. The assumption is that I am not familiar with what he pasted into the stream. It assumes the response, “Oh my! I don’t understand any of this deep orthodoxy! And there is so much of it! Hark, I know nothing! What to do? His mind is so far above me!” Actually, I am very familiar with the information posted, especially his references to articles in the Trinity Review. Ironically, if that is a strong enough word, the founder of the Trinity Review bought into New Calvinism during the 90’s. I stated the following later in the thread:
PD: Furthermore Bret, you said you read my book, but yet you quote John W. Robbins’ Trinity Review above to make your point. As clearly documented in my book on pages 63-65, I show that Robbins bought into the Forum’s teachings via the SDA theologian Robert Brinsmead in 1995. As you know, New Calvinism came out of the Forum and Graeme Goldsworthy is popular in the movement till this day. Robbins reprinted Brinsmead’s magnum opus on justification in the Trinity Review, yet, you cite The Trinity Review as proof that Calvinists are not New Calvinists. Now if anything is funny, that is.
One of his several references to the Trinity Review follows:
The Trinity Foundation – Calvin on the “Pernicious Hypocrisy” of Justification by Faith and Works
http://www.trinityfoundation.org
That some serious slippage has occurred away from the classical Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide has been well documented in many religious publications. Certain teachers – Douglas Wilson.
Furthermore, his excerpts copied and pasted from the Calvin Institutes contained things like the following:
…a great part of mankind imagine that righteousness is composed of faith and works [but according to Philippians 3:8-9] a man who wishes to obtain Christ’s righteousness must abandon his own righteousness…. From this it follows that so long as any particle of works-righteousness remains some occasion for boasting remains with us [Institutes, 3.11.13].
This is yet another technique used by Calvinists to confuse those who are trying to nail their false doctrine by making distinctions between justification and sanctification—they continually refer back to justification and Sola Fide. Any attempt to make theological distinctions between the two is answered with more and more Reformed sanctification by justification orthodoxy. Even his Institute pasting was in context of what the Trinity Review said about it. This elicited the following responses from me:
PD: Brett, smothering me in all of this orthodox propaganda isn’t answering my question. Have you read CI 3.14 on what Calvin said about progressive justification or not? Why are you citing other people? I asked you as someone who says he reads the CI. You deny that your information comes from men, and then you cite a bunch of men. I want to know your specific evaluation of CI 3.14
[Note: all of his citations avoided the aforementioned title of CI 3.14 which resulted in the following reply: “I’m citing Calvin Paul. Read the quotes from the Institutes. You can’t make CI 3.14 disagree with the rest of what Calvin said on the subject. Good grief man … this is elementary hermeneutics” ( i.e., progressive doesn’t mean “progressive” because of other things Calvin wrote)].
PD: Right, he is applying justification truth to sanctification, so what’s your point?
PD: No Bret, I am not confused by your discussion of sanctification in a justification way.
I will shortly pause here and introduce yet another debate tactic of the Calvinist: the divine unction by a philosopher king declaring me to be unregenerate. Simply pronouncing a curse on your opponent has to be the quintessential easy button:
O Foolish Dohse … who has bewitched you?
Like all good Calvinists, McAtee believes in Calvin’s “power of the keys” that gives Reformed elders the power to loose or bind sin on earth. I have received several veiled threats by Reformed elders to bind my sin on earth. Some not so veiled.
McAtee’s comment about “elementary hermeneutics” was also addressed:
PD: “Elementary hermeneutics” ? Which hermeneutic? You act like there is only one.
BM: I’m talking about the place of Hermeneutics in interpreting literature. You’re hermeneutic on Calvin sucks.
PD: Redemptive or Grammatical Bret? Which one?
BM: Paul … I’m not talking about hermeneutics in terms of reading Scripture. I’m talking about hermeneutics in terms of reading Calvin which should be Historical Grammatical.
Here, McAtee seems to infer that there is a different hermeneutic for interpreting literature, and a different hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. I will let that statement stand on its own and move on to the part of the debate where McAfee concedes that perpetual forgiveness, the same kind of forgiveness that saved us, needs continued application in the church:
PD: (Quoting BM) “Do you really want to advance the idea that Calvin and Rome agreed on Justification? Is that really your position Paul?” (Answer) Both held to a linear gospel which is progressive justification. They disagreed on how to get from justification to glorification.
But when it gets right down to it, BOTH by ecclesiastical absolution. Citations from CI available upon request.
BM: LOL!
PM: Bret, may I list the very fair questions you have not answered yet?
BM: Paul … purple.
BM: Paul … should I post again the very fair quotes from Calvin’s own pen indicating that he did not believe in progressive justification and so did not believe that one had to be sanctified before one could be justified?
PD: Of course not, he believed sanctification was progressive justification. But here is the better question: Why did he believe a justifying forgiveness of sins needed to be continually sought IN the church?
After all of his vehement denial that Calvin believed in a progressive justification, he begins to concede that a perpetual forgiveness for sin in the church for the purpose of keeping us justified is needed:
BM: “Not by righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us”; that being justified by his grace, we might become the heirs of everlasting life, (2Ti 1: 9; Tit 3: 4, 5). By this confession we strip man of every particle of righteous, until by mere mercy he is regenerated unto the hope of eternal life, since it is not true to say we are justified by grace, if works contribute in any degree to our justification. The apostle undoubtedly had not forgotten himself in declaring that justification is gratuitous, seeing he argues in another place, that if works are of any avail, “grace is no more grace,”
(Rom 11: 6). And what else does our Lord mean, when he declares, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance?” (Mat 9: 13). If sinners alone are admitted, why do we seek admission by means of fictitious righteousness?
BM: Why do we expect corn plants to be irrigated outside a corn field?
PD: So, the point you are making here agrees with Calvin in context of sanctification. Justification must continually be sought in sanctification to retain a just standing before God.
BM: Section 11. In addition to the two former arguments, a third adduced against the Sophists, to show that whatever be the works of the regenerate, they are justified solely by faith and the free imputation of Christ’s righteousness….[Finally, BM quotes from the infamous 14th chapter of book three from the Institutes. Curiously, he only cites the section. Calvin’s point in sections 9-11 (BM’s long copy and paste is omitted here) is that Christians are not capable of doing any meritorious work before God. Therefore, they need “perpetual reconciliation” in the church. BM cites theses sections from the Calvin Institutes to make the very point that he denied throughout the whole debate].
PM: Bret, why did Calvin believe that a justifying forgiveness had to be continually sought in the church?
BM: The Church is the body of Christ where Christ is proclaimed. Where else would one go to be reminded that they are forgiven? [Do Christians need to be “reminded” that they have been forgiven? Peter said that we only forget that we are forgiven when we fail to ADD works to our faith (2PET 1:5-11)].
PD: Bret, he wasn’t talking about being “reminded” he was talking about perpetual “reconciliation.”
PD: What does “reconciliation” mean Bret?
PD: Do we need continual reconciliation?
BM: Paul … does Christ ever live to intercede for us?
Why?
PD: So, you are saying that is to keep us justified?
BM: Are you saying that we could be justified without His ongoing Intercession? Could we be justified by a Christ who was not at the right hand of the Father as our continual advocate? If Justification is merely in the death of Christ then there was no reason for Him to have been resurrected, ascended and set apart for the continual Priestly work of Intercession.
PD: Then why did Calvin teach that we have to continually seek that forgiveness in the church? If Christ is doing all of the work in heaven?
BM: Why do we expect corn plants to be irrigated outside a corn field?
[Note: We have to keep ourselves justified by staying in the cornfield of justification. He is conceding what he denied throughout the whole debate].
BM: The Church is the body of Christ. The minister the voice of Christ pronouncing the reminder of sins forgiven.
[Note: We have to be continually reminded that we are forgiven in order to stay justified].
PD: So, there is a continued need for forgiveness of sins to remain justified?
BM: Ask Jesus,
5 Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. 6 He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” 8 Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” 9 Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean.
PD: You make my point for me. Calvin clearly said the whole washing of the body is continually needed.
PD: Jesus said it isn’t needed, Calvin said it is. That is, “the washing” which Calvin called “ablution.”
McAtee unwittingly cited John 13:5-10 in an effort to make his point. Jesus’ point in the passage is that once a person is washed (justified: 1COR 6:11) they are clean and have no further need of washing. There is a need to seek forgiveness for daily sin that disrupts our family relationship with God. That is probably what Christ is talking about in regard to the washing of feet. I would probably include 1John 1:9 here as well. This is further seen in what Christ told the woman at the well. When one drinks the water of salvation, they will never thirst again. In other words, there is no need for a perpetual returning to the well of salvation/justification.
paul
Why Church Can’t Help People
My daughter sends me some articles from time to time written by Reformed academics who have completely taken over the institutional church in this country. What’s left of the church doesn’t possess any discernment and feeds off the who’s who of Christian academia. Historically, there have been about five Reformed resurgences like the one we are presently experiencing that always die out, and the reason they die out is very simple: it’s a false gospel. This post addresses the article because it is indicative of why Protestantism is a false gospel, and since authentic Protestantism presently dominates the American institutional church, there is no help to be found in it. To the contrary, it will rob hurting people of any hope they had left because many believe church is Christianity. Church is not Christianity.
Protestantism was founded on the false gospel of progressive justification. That false gospel produced a tradition of worship practices that survived a purist Protestant doctrine, but invariably paved the way for a return to the original article. In other words, Protestants come to a better understanding of the gospel, but continue to practice the traditions that came from the original article, which feeds the weakness of the original back into the church. So, Protestant Light gets blamed for the mundane, and the solution is to “return to our original roots that we have strayed from.” The original article dies out, but again, the traditions that came from the original continue; i.e., solemn observance of the Lord’s Table, alter calls (Absolution Light), “gospel” everything, ungifted pastors who buy their pastorate from institutional seminaries, heretics vaunted as spiritual heroes, the perpetual regurgitation of Reformed orthodoxy as truth, weak sanctification, avoidance of the difficult issues of life, canned worship services, an institution focus, canned gospel presentations, a program for everything, endless committees, little emphasis on individual gifts, the making of saved people and not disciples, doctrinal illiteracy of shameful proportions, etc., etc., etc.
In said article from The Gospel Coalition blog, the author proffers a solution for helping Christians who struggle with homosexuality. It is fairly easy to see that his solutions flow from the original Protestant gospel of progressive justification. Salvation has a beginning, a progression, and a “final justification.” Since salvation progresses, what they deceptively call “progressive sanctification,” we must supposedly progress in our salvation in the same way we were saved, by faith alone.
Hence, “desires” like homosexuality are completely out of our control. God may eradicate the desire, and then again, He may not because sanctification is of faith alone just like our salvation. To say that we have a role in change is the same as saying we have a role in our salvation according to the Reformed viewpoint. Remember, according to Reformed thought, the Christian life is a continuation of our original salvation; as we often hear, “Salvation is of grace from beginning to end.” This makes the Christian life part of the salvation process. However, salvation is not a process; it is a onetime event—the Christian life is completely separate.
Therefore, the author’s solution is a community that embraces a “theology of unfillment.”
This is the normative Christian experience— to live with incompletion, unfulfillment, and an awareness that the gospel’s imperatives will challenge and frustrate our natural impulses in many ways.
If we’re going to summon people to sexual chastity, we should be welcoming one another into a community in which we are all wrestling with unsatisfied desires that will only fully and finally be met in Christ. Such a community will help create a plausibility structure in which our same-sex attracted friends living with daily unfulfillment see that they are not the only ones.
Of course, this contradicts the biblical promise that God will give us the desires of our heart if we put Him first. But moreover, it follows the Reformed tradition of denying the new birth. The gospel is not a mere mental assent to the facts of the gospel, it is following Christ in death and resurrection. The old self dies, and is resurrected as a new creature, “behold, all things are new.” The new Christian will have new desires. Sometimes, the old desires will die off quickly and will be replaced with new desires, while in other cases the old ways will linger.
But, the Bible is clear, if remaining sin provokes us with desires that oppose the Spirit, we are not enslaved to those desires even though it may feel like it. The born again Christian is able to say “no” to those desires. Also, saying no to errant desires will rob the same desires of “provisions.” Obedience to sinful desires will enslave us to those desires, and for the Christian, that is totally unnecessary. In contrast, our inclinations as Christians will be enslavement to righteousness:
Romans 6:16 – Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.
This is true because…
Romans 6:1 – What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.
If a professing Christian has conflicting desires, or a desire to overcome passions that are contrary to God’s will according to the Bible, that is a very good sign, and he/she can do it—it’s a promise from God. This is why the institutional church cannot help people; it denies the new birth and disregards the Bible’s role in sanctification.
paul
Freewriting Notes for “Against Church”: The Problem with Church; Salvation Does NOT Sanctify
What’s wrong with church? Every honest longtime confessing evangelical will testify to the same experience; we have all been longing and searching for that elusive “revival.” Where is the power of Christ’s resurrection that the apostle Paul wrote of? Evangelicals spend their whole lives looking for the newest program that will usher in revival after the last one failed. Some programs offer a hope of revival, but soon burn out like a comet.
“Revivals” come and go. Church history is full of them. Christian scholars study them in order to “rediscover” the secret to escaping this mundane repetition we call church. We show up at a certain time, we are told when to stand, when to sing, when to sit down, when to raise our hand, what to think, when to put our money in the plate, when to leave, and when to come back. Our children cynically refer to the mandatory routine as “doing church.” Every now and then we recognize that we bring our Bibles with us to church, but really don’t need them, and wonder why; an unasked question that our children stopped asking themselves long ago. In most cases, Bibles are unopened during the week and church lost and found boxes are full of unclaimed Bibles. Precious few are excited about witnessing, and the vast majority of evangelicals have never led another person to the Lord.
Let’s be honest: church is boring except when it is controversial. We are so desperate for some spiritual excitement that we have our own Christian versions of Entertainment Tonight and The National Enquirer, and frankly, the church excels at supplying fodder for such. Sadly, the unchurched that have not yet been duped by the pitch, “We are different at Community Different Church, come visit and see for yourself” are now few and far between. The so-called New Calvinist revival of our day is really just a redistribution of sheep from smaller institutions to bigger institutions that offer more bells and whistles.
In all of this, no one asks if church might be the problem with church. While confessing, “The church is not a building; it’s the people,” emphasis on the institutional aspects of church dwarf any consideration of individuals. Committees abound for the sake of the institution while individuals are “left in the hands of God and His unfailing mercies.” If the church needs a coat of paint, you can bet a work day will be scheduled to get it done. But when a life needs renovation, Christians are utterly powerless to do anything about it. Pastors routinely farm-out serious life problems to the “experts.” The Bible is adequate for run of the mill problems, but the experts are needed for the “deeper” problems of life; besides, “at least they are saved.” Because He lives, you can face tomorrow because you are going to heaven anyway. Little of Christianity is about offering present hope and is mere fire insurance. When our children see this, they assume at least two things: God doesn’t have answers, and if He really created us, why not?
Could it be that the whole problem is profoundly simple? Could it be that the church is trying to live out the power of Christ’s resurrection through His death? And if so, why is that the problem?
It is the problem because Christ’s death is a onetime past event that is finished while the power of His resurrection is present continuance by virtue of the fact that it is power. Christ never needed a death or resurrection; He did that for us because we needed it, and many still do. Christ’s death and resurrection is a gift to us—the “good news.” One is a finished work, but the other is alive, and where there is life, growth is assumed. Life is not powered from death, life is powered from life.
The purpose of Christ’s death was to get rid of the old us, and for the new us to experience the power of His resurrection. Do we accomplish that through His death, or His resurrection? Did the old us really die, and is the new us really a completely new person endowed with the life and power of Christ’s resurrection? If that’s the case, why is the experience of Christ’s resurrection so elusive?
The problem follows: a literal resurrection of the individual empowers the individual and not the institution. The American church is comprised of splendid buildings full of broken people. In fact, at a conference in Columbus, Ohio Calvinist DA Carson stated that Christians are “broken people.” Well, look around, the mega-church buildings are not broken—far from it as they invoke awe in those who look upon them. More and more evangelical pastors are proudly coming out of the ecclesiastical closet and “resigning from the job of trying to fix people” because they can’t be fixed. Recently, Calvinist James MacDonald triumphantly proclaimed such while overseeing a multimillion dollar institutional church campus network. However, far be it from the church to resign from fixing the church building or in any way hinder the operation of the institution.
There is only one reason why the visible facilities of the church deserve so much honor, and by no means excluding things like four million dollar aquariums in the foyers: salvation by institution. However, the biblical emphasis is on the individual as a vital part of the body of Christ, and the temples being the very bodies of the believers:
1 Corinthians 3:6 – I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
16 Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
1Corinthians 12:12 – For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
This is why it is critical that God’s people disciple each other in private homes and not institutions; invariably the focus becomes the institution and not the individual member. The institution becomes the temple to the exclusion of the temples. Not only is it not God’s intention that His people meet corporately in a large central location, but it never was the model until it was introduced in the 4th century. Synagogues operated in private homes and were separate from temple worship and priests. Synagogues, which later became the home fellowships of the 1st century Christian assemblies, were operated by the laity. Though priests were treated with honor when they visited, they had no authority in the local synagogues. The only exception was Philo’s Hellenistic influence on Jewish culture which led to institutionalized synagogues. Even the priesthood of the temple was redefined as a holy nation of royal priests, originally in reference to individual believers (1Peter 2:9).
Adding to the misplaced emphasis on church as institution is the idea that God’s kingdom is presently on earth. The good news of the kingdom means that God’s kingdom is presently on earth and seeking to eventually take dominion over all things. Of course, this fuels the concept of institution dramatically. In contrast, believers are “aliens,” “sojourners,” and “ambassadors” here on earth.
1Peter 2:11 – Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles to abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul. 12 Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
2Corinthians 5:20 – Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Symptoms of salvation by institution can be seen everywhere in contemporary evangelicalism. A minority of truth-loving Christians are often dumbfounded by the mysterious behavior of Christianity at large in the institutional church. Nevertheless, most of this behavior can be explained via salvation by institution. If God appointed a glorious institution to usher people into heaven, we can expect the buildings to reflect God’s glory while the inner rooms are full of wickedness, and if not wickedness, compromise.
How this concept crept into the church historically encompasses the subject of ancient philosophy that will be addressed later; this chapter focuses on the necessary gospel that flowed from the philosophical concept of salvation by institution. Salvation by institution is church, and church therefore needed its own gospel that functions in an institutional construct. This is a gospel that necessarily focuses on the wellbeing of the institution and not the individual. If individuals have all they need to be a temple in and of themselves—they don’t need an institution. That’s a problem for institutions. Therefore, the individual must be stripped of all ability, and must be completely dependent on the institution for…spiritual growth? Hardly. Those stakes are not high enough to sufficiently support the institution; the individual must trust the institution for their very salvation.
Therefore, salvation cannot be a finished work. Salvation must be progressive. If the individual is saved and secure, they have need of little including some sort of institution. If NOTHING can separate us from the love of God (Romans 8:31-39), what do we need an institution for?
Consequently, the institution must be the temple and not the believers, and when believers assemble together, it is in a temple and not the gathering together of a body. The biblical distinctions between body and temple are very deliberate. Christians are to view saved individuals as functioning body parts. The apostle Paul stated clearly that there is no spiritual caste system in a body. Body parts are categorized as visible/nonvisible, but obviously, the nonvisible parts are just as important as the visible parts. In a home fellowship construct, the focus is body parts, in the institutional church the focus is the temple. The New Testament invests in this distinction considerably. Christ doesn’t want centralized worship—He wants a fluid mass of body parts worshiping in spirit and truth. Christianity doesn’t need temples; the individual Christians are temples that are home to the Holy Spirit, and the focus is that the Holy Spirit is at peace in His dwelling.
Why then do many pastors farm-out Christians who have no peace in their temples to “experts”? Because they are seen as a drag on the institutional machine. They are not seen as part of the body, they are seen as a mere recipient of institutional salvation. Likewise, sin is swept under the rug to preserve the institution because it is a conduit from beginning salvation to final salvation, and the gospel of church will serve that purpose and that purpose alone. Threats of any sort to the institution must be neutralized.
The institutional gospel must endorse the institutional church as a conduit to heaven. That necessarily requires that salvation is not finished. If salvation is finished, the institutional church is not needed; therefore, the church must have its own gospel. The institutional church cannot be supported by the low stakes of quality Christian living—the stakes must be higher to support what some call a “vast evangelical industrial complex.” That would be salvation itself—the consequences must be eternal.
The simplest way to differentiate the home fellowship gospel from the church gospel is “law.” In the Bible, “law” is a word that refers to the full counsel of God. It is also referred to as “Scripture,” “holy writ,” “the law and the prophets,” “the gospel,” “the word,” “the law of liberty,” or simply, “the law.” The Bible explains how people are saved, and guides believers according to the issues of life and life more abundantly. Unbelievers will be judged by the Bible if they refuse to be reconciled to God; in that sense the Bible condemns. But believers learn and apply the wisdom of the Bible to their lives leading to a life “built on a rock.”
Matthew 7:24 – “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Wise obedience to God’s law also leads to a blessed life:
James 1:25 – But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
Likewise, doing the word leads to peace:
Philippians 4: 8 – Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
To the unbeliever, the law is death, but to the believer the law is life. This has never changed from the time Moses exhorted the Israelites to choose between life and death until now. In regard to salvation, the unbeliever must have the law’s ability to condemn cancelled which leads to a new life in the Spirit guided by God’s law. When someone is saved, they pass from death to life; that is, from the law’s condemnation to life in the law. The law’s ability to condemn is cancelled. Now, the same law gives life—it’s the full counsel of God for life and godliness (2Peter 1:3).
This takes place when a candidate for salvation realizes that salvation is not a mere mental ascent to the facts of the gospel, it is a decision to follow Christ in death and resurrection. The person desires to die with Christ for the purpose of eradicating the old self that was under the condemnation of the law, and wishes to be resurrected with Christ as a new creature who loves His law. The new creature should not see obedience as a requirement for anything, but rather a privilege to love God and others. He/she has chosen life over death. Obedience is not a requirement of any sort, it is the way of wisdom and life.
If the Christian is permanently sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption, is able to understand the full counsel of God independently (and that counsel is the final word on truth), cannot be condemned by the law, and cannot be separated from the love of God by anyone or anything, then the institutional church is not efficacious for eternal life. Nothing is needed to finalize salvation; and in regard to living a life that glorifies God, an organization is not needed, only the body of Christ is needed. The key is mutual edification—not institutional authority.
As God’s supposed overseer of salvation, the church proffers a gospel that restricts the law to a single dimension of condemnation. In other words, the law can only condemn, and cannot liberate, bless, or sanctify. “Sanctification” is the setting apart of one’s life for holy purposes. “Justification” is the impartation of God’s righteousness to the believer through the quickening of the Holy Spirit. This is the new birth in which a person is born anew by the seed of God (1John 3:8-10). The new birth makes the believer righteous. This is because they are born of God, and their desires are turned towards fulfilling the law which once condemned them. Prior to salvation there is no love for God’s law, but now…
Psalm 119:97 – Oh how I love your law! It is my meditation all the day. 98 Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me. 99 I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation. 100 I understand more than the aged, for I keep your precepts. 101 I hold back my feet from every evil way, in order to keep your word. 102 I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me. 103 How sweet are your words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth! 104 Through your precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way. Nun 105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. 106 I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules.
Also prior to salvation, all the law could do was condemn—this is the apostle Paul’s “under law” versus “under grace” distinction between the saved and the unsaved.
In regard to the institutional church in our Western culture, this book primarily addresses the Reformation which was founded as an institutional model from its conception, and needed a gospel suited for such.
The Reformation gospel makes no distinction between the law’s role for the unsaved and saved; in both cases, the law can only condemn. The most basic problem arising out of this is the law becomes the standard for justification when in fact God makes believers righteous “apart from the law” (Romans 3:21). There is NO law in justification. Christ went to the cross to end the law for justification (Romans 10:4). Those under grace nevertheless now love God’s law. What the Reformers did in essence said…
“You love the law, fine and dandy, but a perfect keeping of the law must be maintained in order for you to be justified and remain justified, so any attempt to keep the law as a Christian is the same as trying to keep the law in order to justify yourself.”
This premise of the Reformation gospel, the crux of it, is well articulated by the late Reformed think tank, the Australian Forum:
After a man hears the conditions of acceptance with God and eternal life, and is made sensible of his inability to meet those conditions, the Word of God comes to him in the gospel. He hears that Christ stood in his place and kept the law of God for him. By dying on the cross, Christ satisfied all the law’s demands. The Holy Spirit gives the sinner faith to accept the righteousness of Jesus. Standing now before the law which says, “I demand a life of perfect conformity to the commandments,” the believing sinner cries in triumph, “Mine are Christ’s living, doing, and speaking, His suffering and dying; mine as much as if I had lived, done, spoken, and suffered, and died as He did . . . ” (Luther). The law is well pleased with Jesus’ doing and dying, which the sinner brings in the hand of faith. Justice is fully satisfied, and God can truly say: “This man has fulfilled the law. He is justified.”
We say again, only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified.
On the other hand, the law is dishonored by the man who presumes to bring to it his own life of obedience. The fact that he thinks the law will be satisfied with his “rotten stubble and straw” (Luther) shows what a low estimate he has of the holiness of God and what a high estimate he has of his own righteousness. Only in Jesus Christ is there an obedience with which the law is well pleased. Because faith brings only what Jesus has done, it is the highest honor that can be paid to the law (Rom. 3:31). [The Forum’s theological journal, Present Truth: “Law and Gospel,” Volume 7, Article 2, Part 2; also see the Calvin Institutes 3.14.9-11].
This is what makes the Reformation gospel patently false. The law is not Justification’s standard. If there is any standard at all, it is a love for the law, not a perfect keeping of it. Christ ended the law for justification, and the law is now the standard of love for sanctification. The Christian’s motives for obedience are pure because he/she knows the law has NO bearing on their justified state. The only motive for obedience is love, but the law is now the standard for what love is in sanctification.
The crux for the Reformed gospel now becomes how one obtains a perfect keeping of the law apart from any obedience of the “believer.” This is a system where perfect obedience must be continually imputed to the believer in order to satisfy the law. It boils down to a system where perfect obedience satisfies the law through faith alone in whatever that system is. In the Reformed construct, that necessarily requires that Jesus not only died for our sins, but also lived a life of perfect obedience to the law while He was ministering on earth. This is called “double imputation.” Our sins were imputed to Christ, and then He died to pay the penalty thereof, and His perfect obedience to the law is also imputed to us so that the law, being the standard of justification, is satisfied.
This is not a new approach; this whole idea of justification’s standard being a perfect keeping of the law. The apostle Paul argued against this universal anti-gospel in his letter to the Galatians in the following way:
Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. 20 Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.
What is Paul saying? He is speaking from the perspective of offspring and the offspring that gives eternal life according to “the promise.” Salvation is based on the covenant God made with Abraham based on promise alone. The promise involved ONE offspring, NOT more than one. If law is a standard for justification, it is in fact an additional offspring—that’s Paul’s point exactly.
This is where the concept of covenant comes in. To say that all sin was imputed to Christ is not exactly right. Actually, all sin is imputed to the Old Covenant law, and then Christ came to end the law and all of the sin imputed to it. Sin is defined by breaking the law (1John 3:4). All sin is imputed to the Old Covenant law until faith comes. That’s why Christ came to end the law for righteousness. In regard to justification, the law and all of our sins imputed to it are cast away as far as the east is from the west. That’s the function of the New Covenant in this age: it ends sin while the Old Covenant only covered sin. That’s why the New Covenant is a “better” covenant; it doesn’t just cover sin, it ends sin. The coming of the Old Covenant did not replace the Abrahamic covenant because it was ratified according to the promise of the one seed 430 years prior. The Old Covenant was a “guardian” or protector until Christ came to end the law.
Hence, to say that the law is the standard for righteousness is to also say that it was part of the promise and is an additional seed that can give life—no, only Christ can give life. Who keeps the law is irrelevant, it cannot give life in regard to justification—there is only ONE SEED. Christ didn’t come to keep the Old Testament law for us—He came to end the law for us. The New Covenant is not a covering of sin—it is an ending of sin.
On this wise, the Old Covenant still has a function presently; unbelievers are still under it. Every sin they commit is against that law and imputed to it. When they believe on Christ, that law, the “law of sin and death” is ended along with all sins they ever committed. One reason for this ending is because they die with Christ, and are no longer under that covenant:
Romans 7:1 – Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Indeed, the Old Covenant law was “served,” but now the law that kept our sins “captive” is ended by Christ, and we “serve” in the new way of the Spirit, BUT that does not mean that there is not a written law that we “UPHOLD” (Romans 3:31). This same law which includes both covenants is now the sword of the Spirit and our guide for loving God and others. We not only died with Christ to end our sins, but we were resurrected with Him in order to uphold the law for the sake of love. Our NEW desire is to love God and others through obedience to the law. It was the same, as we have seen in Psalms 119 for those under the Old covenant, but at that time their sins were only covered by the law and not ended. This makes the New covenant “better.”
We are saved (justified) by faith alone, but in sanctification, our faith WORKS through love:
Galatians 5:2 – Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love [“If you love me, keep my commandments”].
And what about future sin after salvation?
Romans 4:15 – For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 7:8…Apart from the law, sin lies dead.
However, the universal anti-gospel of the ages retains the law as a covering and the very standard of justification. It makes the law a co-heir with Christ. This necessary separation of law from the believer because he/she cannot keep it perfectly circumvents any ability to love God and others (“If you love me, keep my commandments”), separates law from sanctification, and is the very definition of antinomianism. In the Bible, antinomianism is stated as the antithesis of love (Psalm 119:70, Matthew 24:11, John 14:15).
Consequently, the vast majority of denominations that came out of the Protestant Reformation came up with their own systems that impute a satisfaction of the law to the “believer” who must appropriate this satisfaction by faith alone in whatever that system may be. However, most systems followed the basic principles of the most notable Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Also, it stands to reason that these systems are encompassed within the authority of an institution because of the complexity of such systems, but also the simplicity as well. Because a perfect keeping of the law must be satisfied in order to justify, and no one can keep the law perfectly, there must be a way for the “believer” to have a perfect keeping of the law credited to their account. When figuring that out from Scripture, it seems complex, but institutions endowed with God’s authority are supposedly vested with the responsibility to make the application simple for the great unwashed masses via orthodoxy. Said another way; ritual, or the “traditions of men.” Note once again Galatians 5:2ff., the Judaizes proffered the ritual of circumcision as a fulfillment of the law for justification. Paul said no; ritual cannot replace a fulfillment of the law for justification unless you keep the whole law perfectly. The law must be ended.
In the final analysis, most religions and denominations that comprise them, bridge a particular standard of righteousness with a ritual system based on a mediation authority between the common people and God. This is always a temple focused institution. God’s system has no standard for righteousness, but only a standard that defines love. When it gets right down to it, what standard could ever adequately define God’s righteousness? The apostle John stated that the world was not big enough to hold a book that would record the good works Christ did while He ministered on earth; so, we are to believe that Christ fulfilled all righteousness in our stead by obeying the Old Testament perfectly? In addition to this problematic question, the New Testament had not yet been written, and many prophecies in both the Old and New testaments are not yet fulfilled.
These substitute systems that errantly seek to satisfy a law by proxy offer the masses a simplistic ritual or tradition that shows their faith in whatever system that credits perfection to their account. This is always done via an institution. The institution is supposedly the God-ordained authority to usher the masses into an eternal utopia of some sort. People then pick the institution of their choice generally assuming that their good intentions and willingness to humbly submit to an authority will get them into heaven.
In the Protestant construct, that is defined as present and future sins removing us from grace which requires perpetual atonement. This is achieved by continually returning to the same gospel that saved us. “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day” is even a well-traveled mantra among the Neo-Calvinists of our day. This perpetual return to the same gospel that saved us is only sanctioned in the institutional church overseen by Reformed elders:
Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered (The Calvin Institutes: 3.14.11).
Nor by remission of sins does the Lord only once for all elect and admit us into the Church, but by the same means he preserves and defends us in it. For what would it avail us to receive a pardon of which we were afterwards to have no use? That the mercy of the Lord would be vain and delusive if only granted once, all the godly can bear witness; for there is none who is not conscious, during his whole life, of many infirmities which stand in need of divine mercy. And truly it is not without cause that the Lord promises this gift specially to his own household, nor in vain that he orders the same message of reconciliation to be daily delivered to them (The Calvin Institutes: 4.1.21).
To impart this blessing to us, the keys have been given to the Church (Mt. 16:19; 18:18). For when Christ gave the command to the apostles, and conferred the power of forgiving sins, he not merely intended that they should loose the sins of those who should be converted from impiety to the faith of Christ; but, moreover, that they should perpetually perform this office among believers (The Calvin Institutes: 4.1.22).
Secondly, This benefit is so peculiar to the Church, that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in the communion of the Church. Thirdly, It is dispensed to us by the ministers and pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the Gospel or the administration of the Sacraments, and herein is especially manifested the power of the keys, which the Lord has bestowed on the company of the faithful. Accordingly, let each of us consider it to be his duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it. Of the public reconciliation which relates to discipline, we shall speak at the proper place (Ibid).
…by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God… Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God” (John Calvin: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles; The Calvin Translation Society 1855. Editor: John Owen, p. 165 ¶4).
This is why Christ primarily limited His apologetic concerns to the traditions of men and antinomianism. Almost without exception, the traditions of men, bolstered by intimidating authoritative institutions, make the lives of “Christians” a segue from beginning salvation to final salvation. The institution is trusted to manage the Christian’s life in a way that they will be able to “stand in the final judgment.” Invariably, almost all religious institutions focus on preparing people for some kind of final judgment.
But Christ came to set people free from judgment, and into freedom to love. The Bible was written to individuals. The Bible always addresses particular individuals or an assembly/group. The Bible never addresses an hierarchy; NEVER. The Bible is written to Spirit-filled individuals called to fulfill their individual and unique callings. The emphasis is not making sure you get to heaven via a preordained institution. That concept circumvents love because the focus is making sure you can “stand in judgment” according to what the institution says will accomplish that.
Salvation doesn’t grow. Sanctification is not the “growing part” of salvation. Salvation is a conception of life that is a onetime event that creates a new creature. The creature grows, but not the conception. The conception is completed. The baby has been born. A baby cannot bring themselves into the world, but in due time they can take the gift of life and participate in it. Their birth is a finished work that makes growing in life possible, but in no way perpetually contributes to it. Likewise, salvation does not sanctify.
Keeping people under the law keeps them saved by keeping them from any attempt to love because that would be works salvation. Christians need to grow in an environment where the individual calling to love and good works is the emphasis, not salvation by faith in an institution. Even in cases where the latter is professed, the fruit of tradition that came from the roots of the Protestant tree is the actual function. Therefore, function mimics slavery to the law while proclaiming freedom. No, true freedom from the law is the only salvation that will yield abundant love in sanctification.
Salvation Does NOT Sanctify.
paul
leave a comment