Law: Calvinism’s Achilles Heel
Request free DVD of this message here: Free Offers Link
The Potter’s House 6/2/2013: Law’s Relationship to Justification and Sanctification
I think if there has ever been a Dark Age in Christianity we are in it. If you think about it, Christ wasn’t concerned with a bunch of ism’s, He continually warned about the traditions of men. I only now understand how powerful that is. I have been a Christian since 1983, and since then I have been functioning as a Christian on rudimentary information. And often in my life, it has shown. And the following is frightening: I was often considered to be an annoying zealot who dared to proclaim that he knew something.
Contemporary Christianity functions on the traditions of men. When people write me to make a theological case, it is made with a long list of quotations from men. “Orthodoxy” is a word that has become synonymous with truth itself. How can this be when orthodoxy is the creeds, confessions, and catechisms written by men? One advertisement for a Seminary boasts that they are “confessional.” We refer to it as “subordinate truth” to the Bible while we wait with bated breath for its next contemporary addition to be available at the Christian book store. While there, we will often pick up a little plaque or bumper sticker to add to our orthodoxy. “What! What do mean when you say that ‘Footsteps in the Sand’ is not in the Bible? That’s blaspheme!”
Truthfully, even though I have learned more in the past six months than my whole Christian life, I now see that I am really just beginning to learn, this is all new to me and I am rethinking everything. But this I do know: Christians in our culture really struggle with a biblical understanding of law. And here we are, Romans 10:4;
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
This is what is really difficult for us to understand. I had to learn it on my own with the help of the Holy Spirit. I went to Bible college—they didn’t teach it to me. I went to Seminary—never learned it there either. I have been to countless Bible conferences—ditto. No wonder that John said that we have no need for anyone to teach us; that is a good thing, because apparently, they aren’t going to do that anyway. But here it is:
For the believer, law and righteousness are mutually exclusive. Shock and dismay now equals traditions of men. This verse states that the law had to end in order for us to be declared righteous. The law “ended” “for” righteousness. This is to everyone who believes in Christ—that’s why Paul states that He is the end of the law.
As Christians, we don’t obey the law perfectly. That’s unfortunate, but in regard to our just position and present righteousness—it doesn’t matter. The law can no longer condemn us or judge us. Our salvation is lawless. The law doesn’t exist, so there is no sin (ROM 5:13), and it has nothing that it can say to us (ROM 3:19).
Because the apostle Paul knew that law being a standard for our justification would completely sap our salvation power in sanctification, he drives the point home in many different ways. Let’s start with Christ. Turn to Romans chapter seven and we will begin reading in verse one:
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.
Who is the spouse that died in this case so that we are no longer under the law? Christ, and we died with Him. We are also the other spouse who was resurrected with Christ and is now free to remarry another so that we can serve in the new way of the Spirit. Christ bore our sin on the cross (imputation) so that we could die with Him and be resurrected with Him in the new way of the Spirit—not the old marriage covenant. The old us died with Christ, and our sin died with Him. The new us is no longer under that covenant—the covenant of the law. If we remarry, that law cannot condemn us. The dead are never prosecuted and brought to court. If a cold case is solved and the suspect is dead, he is not indicted by a grand jury. The dead are not exhumed and brought to court. Do you believe that a perfect keeping of the law is required in your Christian life for your just standing? Then the old you is still alive and you are an adulteress.
Paul explains this another way. The law was a will.
Hebrews 9:15 – Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
The law was a will, and like any other will it promised an inheritance. Like any other will, those named in the will are partakers in that promissory note. And before Christ went to the cross all who believed in Him were heirs of the promise. It was a covenant inaugurated with blood because all of the sins of those who believed on Christ were imputed to that covenant. This is yet another thing that I have never been taught before in regard to the subject of imputation. There is the imputation of the Father’s righteousness to us, the imputation of our sin to Christ, and the imputation of the believer’s sins prior to the cross. Our sins were imputed to that covenant/will with the promise of the inheritance upon the death of the testator, forgiveness of sins and eternal life. I am convinced that Old Testament believers were completely aware of this and understood it. Undoubtedly, this fact also opens up an additional wealth of understanding while reading the Old Testament with this in mind.
Let’s look at this a little deeper. Please go with me to Galatians chapter three and let’s start at verse 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.
Notice that Paul said that sin was imprisoned in the Scriptures. As we have discussed before, the law is the same thing as the Bible. Again, we see that here in verse 22. Many teach in our day that this passage means that the law continually shows us our need for Christ and a perpetual forgiveness. The law is a “schoolmaster” that continually leads us to Christ. That’s not what this passage means at all. Ironically, the ESV has this right: the old covenant was a “guardian” that kept us safe from the eternal consequences of sin until the death of the testator. The full inheritance was received when Christ died. Now the law serves a different purpose which we will look at later.
But herein lays the Achilles heel of the Reformed gospel. Herein lays the reason that Calvin’s gospel is a doctrine of demons. It teaches that Christ fulfilled the law for us so that we could be declared righteous. It teaches that Christ is the end of the law in regard to us keeping it. Hence, there is really no END to the law. But worse yet, let’s compare this reasoning with a few texts in the same vicinity of where we are presently:
Galatians 3:10 – For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
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.
To believe that Christ fulfilled the law for us is to also contradict what our beloved brother has said here in the following ways:
1. It relies on the works of the law; who does the perfect work is not the point. If Christ fulfilled the will perfectly, and we could have received the promised inheritance by His fulfilling of the law, why did He have to die? That’s the Hebrew writer’s point: IT’S A WILL—somebody had to die.
2. The law cannot justify because it is not of faith. It doesn’t matter who keeps it. “The law is not of faith.” If Christ fulfilled the law, that fulfillment makes us righteous and we are then indeed justified by the law. Christ’s perfect obedience is transferred to us and then we are in fact justified by its perfect keeping. By the way, this is exactly what Luther himself propagated. He stated that Christ’s obedience becomes our obedience and that obedience is transferred to us by faith alone. It’s backdoor law-keeping. Said Luther,
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’s Works (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955), Vol. xxxi, pp.297,298).
This makes an imputation of law-keeping the standard for righteousness. The law is therefore not ENDED. For all practical purposes, we are credited with keeping it for our justification albeit by faith in Christ.
3. Furthermore, if the fulfilling of the law by Christ brings righteousness, that means that the law has life. Note verse 21:
For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.
This brings us yet to another way that our brother Paul wants us to get this; OFFSPRING. If the law could give life, there is more than one offspring:
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.
This is also why the promise could not come through Ishmael; it had to come through Isaac because the promise concerned Sarah and not Hagar. Hagar represents the Mt. Sinai law, and Sarah represented the promise:
Galatians 4:21 – Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
“Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
Pray tell, why would Christ come to fulfill a covenant with Hagar so that we could be righteous? Christ is the end of that covenant. He came to ABOLISH it—not to fulfill it:
Ephesians 2:11 – Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
“But Paul, what then was Christ talking about in the Sermon on the Mount when He said He didn’t come to abolish the law?” Well, he wasn’t talking about that law, He was talking about the law of love. Same words, different law. Hence:
Galatians 5:1 – For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 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.
Now, look at what he says in the very next verse:
Galatians 5:7 – You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
So, what are we to conclude? We are to conclude that faith working through love….
1. Works (“working”).
2. Runs.
3. Obeys.
4. Is guided by an objective truth.
5. Defines love as truth (2Thessilonoians 2:10).
6. Can be hindered from obeying the truth.
This gives new meaning to Christ’s words, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” In Matthew 5:18 Christ isn’t talking about the Mosaic Law, He’s talking about the law of love. He didn’t say that our righteousness needed to surpass that of Pharisees as a challenge for us to let Him fulfill the Mosaic Law for us because the Pharisees were really, really good at obeying the Mosaic Law, why would He do that? That’s of Hagar and not Sarah; it’s a law that has no life. He fulfilled that law perfectly by virtue of who He is, but not for the purpose of justifying us because after its inherent fulfillment there is still nothing but the dead letters of that law. His problem with the Pharisees is that they sought righteousness in the law rather than in Him. This is why Paul wrote the following just prior to our text at hand:
Romans 10:1-3 – Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.
Christ’s indictment against the Pharisees was that they sought the Mosaic Law rather than faith working through love. They put faith in the Mosaic Law instead of Christ (JN 5:39). Said another way: they sought the Mosaic Law rather than the law of love. And since love fulfills the law (GAL 5:14, ROM 13:10, EPH 3:14-21, DUE 6:5, LEV 19:18), that is the righteousness that surpasses the righteousness of the Pharisees. It is a righteousness APART from the law (ROM 3:21).
So in what way did Christ come to fulfill the law of love? Not by fulfilling the Mosaic Law—that is certain. It has no life! He came to fulfill the law of love. I would say His death on the cross would be a description of that. But the idea here is a constant fulfilling of the law. As Susan brilliantly pointed out two Sundays ago, the law is not completely fulfilled because of all of the things in the law that haven’t happened yet. Not only that, all of the references in the Bible that pertain to the fulfilling of the law by single acts of truthful love are in the present tense. If Christ fulfilled the law completely, how is that possible? (GAL 5:14, ROM 13:10, EPH 3:14-21, DUE 6:5, LEV 19:18).
Romans 8:3,4 makes it absolutely clear how Christ is fulfilling the law; He is fulfilling it through us as we walk in love. To say otherwise deprives us of our ability to love Christ and others and creates cold-heartedness in the vacuum. Wherever anti-law of love reins, cold-heartedness makes its abode (PS 119:70, MATT 24:12).
Anyone who uses the imperfect law-keeping of the Christian to prove that the law is still the standard for our justification also proves that they believe in a vicarious law keeping of a law that has no life for our salvation. It teaches salvation on Mt. Sinai rather than salvation at Galgotha. Christ was the end of that law because he put it to death along with the sin that held us captive to it (GAL 3:23). He did not end it by fulfilling it. He abolished it on the cross and raised us to a new life that is sanctified by obedience to the perfect law of liberty. Be careful to note James 1:25 on that. The blessings are in the “doing,” not meditation on Christ’s obedience to the dead letter of the law. The standard for that law is a perfect keeping of every letter (GAL 5:3, ROM 10:5) while the Christian fulfills the whole law perfectly with every act of obedience. We are blameless before Him in love (EPH 1:4).
Our Lord’s yoke is a light one for the impossible demands of Mt. Sinai do not terrorize us. We are free to love God aggressively. We bemoan our sin, but the old us who would be judged by that failure according to justification died with Christ (ROM 7:20), and the new us is under grace and not under law (ROM 6:14). There are relational consequences, but not eternal ones.
This is my prayer for the Potter’s House: as we strive to walk in loving obedience to Christ more and more, that our brother Paul’s prayer would be answered:
Ephesians 1:16 – I do not cease giving thanks for you, while making mention of you in my prayers; 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him. 18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Now, how does this all relate to the perseverance of the saints? Is our perseverance necessary to confirm or salvation? Does salvation require God’s call and our perseverance? I am going to address this next week because there is much confusion in regard to this subject, and I will tie it in with the issue of assurance—that’s next week.
The Potter’s House: Calvinism’s View of the Law Driven by Platonist Metaphysics
We Are Declared Righteous, and We Are Righteous
I had planned to continue in Romans 10 and 11 tonight as we are looking at those two chapters as one unit beginning in 10:1 and ending at 11:26 with a doxology following. But a combination of events has prompted me to share something very important tonight. Lord willing, we will finish our study on justification from the book of Romans within the next two weeks and begin studying more in the area of sanctification, or Christian living.
Last week, I wrote an article announcing that the Potter’s House is now an organized church. I have also been very busy because of the upcoming conference—so busy that I almost didn’t recognize the craziness that was going on. Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog is not a blog that usually evokes a lot of comments, but out of nowhere, it seemed that Calvinist crackpots where converging on the blog from every direction. I finally stopped to take a look at what was going on. That post in particular drew more than 60 comments (with an additional 30 related comments posted on other articles) in a couple of days with no end in sight—I finally closed the comments down.
But with the research Susan has been doing for the conference in the back of my mind, a particular comment on the blog hit me right between the eyes—truly a light bulb moment. It just made it all come together for me and supplied a clear vision moving forward for the Potter’s House. First, let me display the Reformed illustration that will be the thesis of all three of my sessions at the conference:
This is a Reformed illustration of the official Reformation gospel, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Here is what Susan’s research has made clear to me: this is nothing more or less than a Platonist construct; period. This is predicated on the idea that matter is inherently evil and only spirit is the true, good, and the beautiful which is Plato’s trinity. That’s what this is. Man, being part of the material world, cannot have grace or goodness within him. And I quote:
When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel.
~ John Piper
In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago [see left man in illustration]. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high.
~ John H. Armstrong
And here is an excerpt from the exact article Armstrong spoke of:
Whether the Medieval church believed the new birth aided us in finishing our justification is not the point. The point is that sanctification does not finish justification and the two or totally separate, but more on that later. I now want to address the aforementioned comment on Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog:
Perhaps you could give me an example of a Calvinist teaching that matter is evil in and of itself. What you say about law is true regarding Calvinists and Paul’s teaching except that Calvinists do believe that Jesus satisfied the Law’s righteous requirements so that the believer stands justified before the Law.
And this was my answer to the comment:
You just stated it yourself. Calvinists believe Jesus had to fulfill the law for us and not in us because we are of matter and not Spirit. Paul taught that the new birth enabled the righteous requirements of the law to be fulfilled in us in sanctification–and the law is abolished in regard to justification.
Of course, this is a direct reference to Matthew 5:17;
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
THIS IS IT RIGHT HERE. The Calvinist interpretation of this passage equals the same as the two-man illustration. This has to be interpreted as Christ fulfilling the law for us while not abolishing it for justification. Abolishment pertains to justification; i.e., Christ didn’t come to abolish the law in regard to justification, and fulfillment is completely of Christ for that purpose. Because of the fundamental idea that the true, the good, and the beautiful cannot be united with evil and create good, this MUST be their view of law. It is of necessity within that construct.
But this is where interpreting the Bible in context of justification and sanctification is absolutely critical. Is Matthew 5:17 regarding justification or sanctification? Unless this distinction is made, the Bible contradicts itself. How so? Because in fact, the apostle Paul stated that Christ came to “end” the law:
Romans 10:4 – For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
When one believes, they are no longer “under the law” ….for justification. In regard to justification, the law is abolished—it is no longer a standard for our justification:
Romans 3:19 – Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
Romans 5:13 – for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
So what was Christ saying when He said He didn’t come to abolish the law, but rather to fulfill it? He was talking about sanctification which by the way is the subject of the Sermon on the Mount. Justification by faith alone is nowhere to found in that sermon. The sermon is about how the Christian builds their life on a rock. So, in what way did Christ say He was going to fulfill the law? Let’s see:
Romans 8:3 – For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Christ came and died on the cross to release us from the law so that the law could be fulfilled in us….for sanctification. Another way of looking at this is that he came and died on the cross to destroy the works of the devil in us:
1John 3:8 – Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Living a life of sin denies the very reason Christ went the cross. Ephesians gives us a good example of how this is applied:
Ephesians 4:19 – They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
By practicing righteousness (put on) we please God, love Christ, and fulfill the righteousness of the law in His service. By putting off the old us we serve Christ by destroying the works of the devil. But if obeying the law perfectly to maintain our just standing is the case, we are obviously out of the loop. Moreover, it combines the good with mortality which is anathema in the Platonist construct. Hence, in Calvinism, the law must remain as a standard to maintain a just standing. That makes righteousness within mortality impossible. This is the crux of the issue. True righteousness operating in imperfection is a metaphysical impossibility to the Platonist. But God has accomplished it by putting to death the mortal body we dwell in, abolishing the law for our justification, imputing our sin to Christ, and imputing His righteousness to us apart from the law. The old us died with Christ and cannot be judged, and the righteous seed of God dwells within us.
Let’s examine some of the answers to this that I received by Calvinists on the blog:
No, I was asking for an example of a Calvinist teaching that matter is evil in and of itself. Where does any Calvinist teach that Jesus had to fulfill the law for us because we are matter and not spirit? Now I even have questions about your statement that Paul taught that law is abolished in regard to justification. Where does he ever say the law is abolished in regard to justification?
In regard to the latter, we have answered that question. Paul stated plainly that we are justified APART from the law in many places. In regard to the former, it is like a wife-beater demanding to be shown in the Bible where it states specifically that he cannot beat his wife. It’s ludicrous. The principle can be seen in Calvinism’s “T” in T.U.L.I.P: total depravity. Look, I could once again cite the Calvin Institutes to make this point, but I think the following tweet from Tullian Tchividjian should suffice:
This mentality mimics Calvin precisely. Hence, my answer:
Calvin rejected the idea that any saint has ever done one righteous deed that pleased God (CI 3.14.9-11). Was he speaking of flesh or spirit? And if both are depraved, why would it make a difference?
I got this in reply:
Even those who believe in total depravity (whether in a regenerate or unregenerate state—most Calvinists would not subscribe to the idea that believers continue to be totally depraved in the same sense as are the unregenerate) do not believe the body is evil in and of itself.
And my reply:
In regard to you: we are all totally depraved, but not in the same way, and it doesn’t mean our bodies are inherently evil. Right. Typical Calvinist double speaking nonsense–you will not be wasting any more of my time. Post if you will, and get your jollies doing it–but they will not see the light of day here.
No matter what verbiage Calvinists use and what they seem to say, they must be brought back to the two-man illustration to give an account. In our day, the New Calvinist problem is a return of the exact same Gnosticism (which came from Platonism) that wreaked havoc on the first century church. This can be seen throughout the New Testament. New Calvinists like Paul David Tripp and CJ Mahaney call Christians, “enemies of God,” “God ignoring,” “we hate God,” etc., while the apostles stated the exact opposite:
Romans 15:14 – I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another.
The book of 1John is peppered with rebuttals that reflect a contention against the exact same things that the New Calvinists teach in our day. That is because John was contending against Gnosticism and that’s what the New Calvinists are. This will be clearly demonstrated at this year’s conference historically, doctrinally, and practically.
Therefore, the clear vision for the Potter’s House moving forward is a strong assertion that we are not only declared righteous, we are righteous. Our primary goals are aggressive sanctification in all areas of life, emphasis on doctrinal and theological training, and making disciples by teaching them all that the Lord commanded.
Because only truth sanctifies.
How Most Pastors Today Use The Bible
“….if the higher law of love abrogates the law of Scripture, it sure as hell abrogated your by-laws. I find the incredulous demeanor of people who come to me with these reports both adorable and naive. It’s time for Christians to wake up and start drinking more coffee.”
I’m wondering; can we begin calling our present day, “The Age of the Australian Forum”? If you really want to understand what’s going on in the church theologically, read the Forum’s journal: Present Truth Magazine. It can be obtained online for free through a Progressive Adventist church that archived most of the issues.
The Forum’s hermeneutic was based on their thesis, the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us (COGOUS) which is supposedly the lost doctrine of the Reformation. It’s monergism on steroids. We are so wicked and totally depraved, that objective truth can only be outside of us. When truth starts being processed inside of us, the only result can be subjectivism.
What to do then? Answer: focus on central truth that is the “power of the gospel.” Basically, gospel, gospel, and more gospel transforms us into Christ likeness. We need to saturate ourselves with information about the works of Christ, not anything we would do. Hence, pithy truisms like, “Not, ‘What would Jesus do?’ But, ‘What has Jesus done.’”
Supposedly, saturating ourselves with what Jesus has done, not anything that we would do fills our hearts with gratitude and makes us willing and joyful participants in obedience. However, the key is to focus on gospel and then allow works to flow from that. Obedience when we don’t feel like it, or out of duty, is not “done in love” And, the point isn’t how well we do that—because we are not “under law, but under grace.” The point is not to “obey in our own efforts.” Results are not the goal, we can’t affect any results anyway; the goal is to avoid “making our sanctification the basis of our justification.” In other words, all works must flow from justification truth and the “power of the gospel.” Just focus on gospel, and let the “active obedience of Christ” take care of the rest.
This is because Christ was not only obedient to the cross (known as His “passive” obedience), but also lived a perfect life so that His obedience for sanctification could be imputed to us as well (Christ’s “active” obedience). Hence, and don’t miss this, if we try to obey in sanctification, we are trying to accomplish works that have already been finished by Christ as part of the atonement, and thus making our sanctification the grounds of our justification because the two are fused together and part of the atonement with Christ living a perfect life here on Earth for one, and dying for the other. Got that? This makes sanctification very tricky business. At any time, we could be unwittingly “making our sanctification the grounds of our justification.”
Come now, admit it, we hear this lingo all the time reverberating throughout churchianity.
Where does the use of the Bible fit into all of this? Answer: it is a tool for the gospel contemplationism needed to transform us into the likeness of Christ. All of the commands in the Bible are to remind us of the fact that Christ obeyed all of them for us (this is the basis of the New Calvinist motto, “Christ for us”). Biblical imperatives are supposed to remind us of the futility of trying to keep them ourselves while invoking thankfulness for what Jesus has done “for us,” not anything we do. However, polity framework is considered to be a separate issue. They concede that the Bible contains guidelines for structuring the church, but that is for practical function and is separate from “spiritual formation.” Moreover, this view contends that the Holy Spirit only illumines when the Bible is used to see the gospel in a deeper and deeper way. And also, aside from practical use for structuring, seeing the Bible through the prism of gospel (ie., Christ the person and His works) interprets the Bible itself for all uses in “spiritual formation.”
Now, since Christ already fulfilled the law and imputed it to us, our goal isn’t to follow specific imperatives in the Bible, but rather to fulfill the “higher law of love” that Christ has instituted to replace the “fulfilled” law which is now abrogated by the “higher law of Christ.” What does that look like?! Answer: it looks like whatever the gospel produces! Because, when it’s the result of the gospel, it can’t be wrong! If the elders of your church are “saturated with the gospel”—they can’t be wrong, and it may, or may not look like “the dead letter of the law,” ie., biblical imperatives not seen in their “gospel context.” As Francis Chan states it: “When you are loving, you can’t sin.”
Look folks, this ministry sees this approach to the Bible fleshing itself out in real-life church situations daily: “But, but, how can they do this?! It is clearly against Scripture!” No, in their minds, it is against a law that has been abrogated by the higher law of Christ. “But, but, what’s that?” Answer: whatever results in the elders being saturated with the gospel, that’s what. And then there is the whole issue of New Calvinist elders poo—pooing church constitutions and by-laws. Trust me, if the higher law of love abrogates the law of Scripture, it sure as hell abrogated your by-laws. I find the incredulous demeanor of people who come to me with these reports both adorable and naive. It’s time for Christians to wake up and start drinking more coffee.
Let me tell you what the perfect cover is and why so many pastors get away with using the Bible this way. In fact, I will begin to explain with a question: how many great sermons can be preached about the awesomeness of Christ and all that He has done for us? Answer: how many books has John Piper written? And people rave about all of them! But what is missing? Answer: aside from a truckload, Matthew 7:24-27. One of the best friendships I have was brought about when she objected to an article I wrote along these lines, and mentioned a book by John Piper that was supposedly “full of biblical instruction.” I then responded and encouraged her to reread the book and list every biblical life application she could find. She did just that and contacted me by email: “Your right. This is a real eye opener.”
What prompted this post? I read this article here: article link. Read it for yourself and let me know if it rings any bells.
paul
The Gospel-Driven Synthesis of Justification and Sanctification Equals “Without the Law”
The following is my reply to a discussion with a blogger and regards the title of this post. The subject of the other post (not mine) was “repenting of good works.” I do not care to mention his name at this time (update: it was Tim Keller), but thought my reply in the comment section of the blog site was complete enough to turn into a post:
….So let me be respectful, but blunt: I believe you, Paul Tripp, John Piper, and Michael Horton are on an endeavor to synthesize justification and sanctification into a plenary monergism. This is indicative of your statement above where you talk of justification and sanctification as if they are the same in regard to application of grace and our role accordingly. I will get to the “so what” conclusion of this later.
Paul Tripp clearly holds to this complete synthesis as illustrated on pages 64 and 65 of “How People Change,” where he describes our condition as believers in the same way as pre-salvation. Per the mode of operation that is becoming more and more prevalent in this endeavor to synthesize justification and sanctification, he uses Colossians 1:21 as Scripture that is a present reality for believers, when it clearly refers to our unregenerate state before salvation. Likewise, John Piper does the same thing in one of his ebooks entitled “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial”:
“Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17)”.
Note that he cites Romans 6:17 in regard to why we struggle as Christians presently; Romans 6:17 is clearly a verse that concerns the unregenerate, and he even states that we are still “enslaved” as believers. I disagree.
Michael Horton’s contribution to this endeavor is stated by him in “Christless Christianity” on page 62:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
1. We only find continued life as believers when we partake in the same gospel that gives life to the unregenerate. This is what he is clearly saying.
2. If we move on to anything else, we loose both; in other words, synergistic sanctification is a false gospel because it separates practical aspects of justification and sanctification, which are both supposedly defined by the gospel that saves us. This is what he is clearly saying. Hence, the new reformation that is supposedly on a mission from God to save the evangelical church.
I often get flack from those who say Michael Horton is a sound advocate of biblical obedience to the Law by believers. But in fact, this is not true. Horton believes that the Law serves the same purpose for believers and unbelievers alike. In Modern Reformation, “Creeds And Deeds: How Doctrine leads to Doxological Living,” he says the following:
“Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commands in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament”
Sounds good, doesn’t it? But then he goes on to say the following:
“The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only savior….”
In other words, the purpose of the Law is to drive Christians to despair when they try to keep it, and thereby causing them to embrace the Savior who is really the one upholding the law for us (indicatives). If you read the whole paragraph in context, he is saying that the purpose of the Law in the life of believers is to create a perpetual state of guilt in order to keep us dependent on the cross and the righteousness of Christ only. Again, and for all practical purposes, he is saying that the Law has the exact same relationship, and purpose, to unbelievers and believers alike. Additionally, this viewpoint concerning the Law would be efficacious to the synthesizing of justification and sanctification as well.
So, it therefore stands to reason, that your primary focus in sanctification would be the same primary focus of unbelievers (justification) as well for purposes of salvation; repentance. Because your doctrine, by definition, is narrow and limited to repentance, this aspect must be greatly embellished and expanded; hence, all kinds of introspective theories concerning idols of the heart and the need to repent of repenting (or repenting of good works).
Well then, other than the fact that none of this stands the test of Scripture; so what? Here is the “so what?”: the complete synthesizing of justification and sanctification together leads to “without the Law” (most often in the Bible: “lawlessness“) in sanctification. We also refer to this as Antinomianism. Why would Christians even attempt to uphold the Law when we are no more able to do so than unbelievers (supposedly)? Again, Horton’s position on this is absolutely clear (I again point to page 62 of Christless Christianity). So then, are we to relish in our inability to uphold the Law of God? To the contrary, the Bible is saturated with verses that promise happiness and joy through our obedience.
Just this morning, a friend shared an article with me, and several others, from Christianity Today. It was a recent Jennifer Knapp (a contemporary Christian music artist) interview in which she defends her homosexual life style. She stated that she is not obligated to keep the Law because she, or anyone else, is unable to anyway. She (according to her) is only obligated to keep the greatest commandment of loving thy neighbor. Here is what she said:
“But I’ve always struggled as a Christian with various forms of external evidence that we are obligated to show that we are Christians. I’ve found no law that commands me in any way other than to love my neighbor as myself, and that love is the greatest commandment. At a certain point I find myself so handcuffed in my own faith by trying to get it right—to try and look like a Christian, to try to do the things that Christians should do, to be all of these things externally—to fake it until I get myself all handcuffed and tied up in knots as to what I was supposed to be doing there in the first place. If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I’m sorry. I’m going to be a miserable failure.”
She further poo-poos the Law with this statement:
“…what most people refer to as the ‘clobber verses’ to refer to this loving relationship as an abomination, while they’re eating shellfish and wearing clothes of five different fabrics,”
I find her statement eerily parallel to that of many “gospel-driven” proponents in regard to their perspective on the Law. Though I know you and others would never condone her behavior, I still find the parallels disquieting. If you care to respond, please don’t cite Reformers or Creeds, I am really looking for a solid biblical argument that I have this all wrong. And really, I hope I do.
Blessings,
Paul Dohse
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
25 comments