New Calvinist Terms/Phraseology
Glossary of Gospel Sanctification Terms
_______________________
“Finally, I must deprecate, and I do it in love, the use of uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement in favor of holiness cannot be advanced by new-coined phraseology, or by disproportioned and one-sided statements–or by overstraining and isolating particular texts–or by exalting one truth at the expense of another– or by allegorizing and accommodating texts, and squeezing out of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never put in them”
~ JC Ryle
Apostle’s hermeneutic: A supposed pattern of interpretation used by the apostles that replicates redemptive-historical hermeneutics. However, despite numerous challenges from various writers, NCT proponents have never been able to articulate it.
Christian hedonism: Invented by John Piper in 1980. He believes people are completely driven by their desires. Therefore, change the desires and you change the person. Piper believes we can only change our desires by meditating on the gospel as seen in the Bible, with a goal of making Christ our deepest desire. Therefore, a Christian hedonist is one who seeks pleasure in God. He also believes that biblical imperatives only serve to make us dependent on Christ and cherish Him more (because they show us what Christ has done for us, rather than anything we are supposed to do) – we are powerless to keep the Law. He cites Romans 6:17 to make this point, and believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sin (pages 31, 32, essay, pages 89-98).
Deep repentance: Repenting of idols in the heart which are discovered by identifying the desires that they (the idols) produce. The idols can be discovered by asking ourselves “X-Ray questions.” Repenting of the idols (after we discover them) “empties the heart” which leads to us being filled with Christ. This is followed by automatic, joyful obedience because Christ is obeying for us (pages 30, 201).
Good repentance: Repenting of good works, or anything we try to do in “our own efforts” as opposed to yielding to Christ and allowing Him to obey for us. Paul Tripp says this will result in “new and surprising fruit.” Tim Keller teaches that repenting of good works is also necessary for an authentic conversion.
Heart theology: The study and theories of how we discover idols in our heart (essay, pages 145-148).
In-lawed in Christ: The Law is completely fulfilled in Christ because He obeyed it perfectly. Therefore, we have no need to obey it, nor does it have any role in sanctification.
Imperative command is grounded in the indicative event: All biblical imperatives illustrate the work of Christ, not anything God expects us to do. As Paul Tripp states it: All biblical commands must be seen in their “gospel context”(essay, pages 82-86).
Imputed active obedience of Christ: Christ’s perfect life imputed His obedience to us so we wouldn’t have to obey to be justified in sanctification (since there is no difference between the two according to GS proponents). This is also called monergistic substitutionary sanctification
(see new obedience ).
Intelligent Repentance: Another term for deep repentance.
New Calvinism: The expression of New Covenant Theology (NCT) and all of its tenets; heart Theology, gospel sanctification, Christian hedonism, and the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
New Covenant Theology: Conceived in, or about 1980. The belief that the New Covenant abrogated all aspects of the Old, including, and especially, the Law. The New Covenant replaced the Law with a single “higher law of love”(page 56).
New Legalism: Synergistic sanctification. Any attempt to apply the word of God “in our own efforts.”
New obedience: The result of deep repentance – Christ obeys for us. We know that it is not us obeying in “our own efforts” because when it is Christ obeying through us, the obedience will always be experienced with a willing, joyful spirit, or Christian hedonism (pages 31,194).
Progressive sanctification: Ongoing justification, which isn’t a one time act, but is continually applied to us as needed. Some advocates of NCT acknowledge a daily “re-saving.” Paul Tripp says that Christians need a “daily rescue,” and cites Romans 7: 24 (essay, pages 124-129).
Redemptive church discipline: A redemptive process (rather than a process for resolving conflict between Christians) to eradicate sin in general. It is often used to convert individuals to monergistic sanctification. In many churches, this process has been assimilated into their counseling programs (essays; pages 159-172).
Redemptive-historical hermeneutics: Invented by the liberal theologian Johann Philipp in the 17th century and further developed by Geerhardus Vos. It makes NCT possible by supplying a prism that will always yield redemptive concepts from the text (essay, pages 177-183).
Reorientation of the heart: Replacing idols with right desires. This happens when we repent of idols discovered through interpreting desires, and replacing them with lofty visions of the gospel and Christ, which produces godly desire instead of idols which produce evil desires (page
146).
Rich typology: It’s so rich, that it doesn’t read like typology, but rather seems to be literal, being so rich. Example; “Israel” doesn’t really mean “Israel,” but is always a reference to Christ. God’s word really doesn’t mean “word,” or “Law,” but is also 100% synonymous with “the person of Christ who personifies the Law.”
What does that look like? If your leaders start using this phraseology, again, it’s a red flag. It’s an attempt to eradicate the implication that Christians are supposed to participate in the verb world. Instead of: “what should we do?” It’s: “what does that look like when Jesus is doing it for us?”
What did you want? The most utilized interpretive question among the X-ray questions used to find idols in the heart.
Word pictures: If your pastor starts using this phraseology, it’s a red flag. The insinuation is that the Bible writers were writing a gospel narrative / novel / story rather than a document containing specific ideas / instruction to be drawn from the text by evaluating grammatical construction and historical context.
X-ray Questions: Interpretive questions used to identify idols of the heart.
Controversy Among the Dead; What the Resignation of Jean F. Larroux, III Tells Us About the Institutional Church
It has been brought to my attention that Jean F. Larroux, III has resigned as “pastor” from Southwood Presbyterian Church. Back when I thought the institutional church, that is, Protestantism and all of its various stripes was a victim of New Calvinism, I wrote something like thirty articles about the hostile takeover of Southwood by the New Calvinist machine.
Yes, if only those good Presbyterians understood what Larroux really believed, the Session would run him out of there and save God’s people from a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Well, I have done a lot of growing up since then.
I invested in the fight at the behest of Southwood members and other Presbyterian pastors because I was in the process of publishing The Truth About New Calvinism. I was sort of the go-to guy at that time for the “Old Calvinists.” I don’t know why Larroux is resigning, but a perusal of Southwood’s website clearly indicates that everything is business as usual. The church is presently “led” by fifteen, count them, fifteen “ruling elders.” It is unclear as to whether or not they are paid staff.
I have paid my dues in documenting Larroux’s outrageous doctrine and behavior, so no more time will be invested here. Suffice to say that Larroux was the topic of a whole chapter in the book “Sin Boldly” (a Luther truism) written by Cathleen Falsani. When Larroux was the overseer of a ministry in Bay St. Louis, Miss., he was known as “The Screaming Frenchman” and such is the title of chapter 8. I received an interesting email from someone who did ministry with him there in a leadership capacity, but refused to divulge the information. Why? Because by that time I realized it was not going to accomplish anything—it simply didn’t matter.
Furthermore, Larroux was recently invited by friend Tullian Tchividjian to speak at a Coral Ridge Presbyterian men’s conference where he furthered Calvin’s dark roast version of justification by faith which is really sanctification by justification through faith alone and faithfulness to the institutional church.
Listen, the institutional magic salvation bus supposedly going to heaven will continue to roll with the Jean Larrouxs’ onboard because…despite all of the fuss, what Larroux believes is at the heart of the Reformation gospel. It’s just that simple. There will always be quarreling and confusion on the way because many do not understand that reasoning from a grammatical interpretation of the Scriptures was contrary to Luther and Calvin’s interpretive approach.
We find a hint of that from this exchange:
Tullian Tchividjian was preaching on Friday night of the conference and his message centered around the need of grace and the preaching of the Gospel as vital in the lives of Christians. The message was moving, helpful and delivered with great passion. When he was done we sat in the pew following worship soaking in the reality of the Gospel. Brock turned to me and said, “We’re not crazy are we?” I said, “Well, we might be crazy, but we are not wrong…”
I had two emotions when Brock said that to me. The first was offense. I was offended. What did he mean, ‘we’re not wrong, are we?’ How dare he insinuate that what I had been preaching was wrong. “WHAT A JERK!” said my heart. But then I thought about his statement, our history at Southwood, the incessant chatter that said over and over again that we had taken grace ‘too far.’ Brock wasn’t making a statement of criticism. He was making a sigh of relief. It was easy to begin to believe the blogs and sidebar comments, but hearing the same exact message from a different voice in a different venue was not only affirming, but very reassuring.
And there you have it my friends; the institutional church, regardless of the stripe, is made up of Progressive Justification Light and Progressive Justification Dark, and sometimes there is disagreement in regard to the essence. If you are old enough like me, you remember the old Miller Light commercials, “Less filling! ‘No, great taste!’” And so it goes, “Not enough justification! ‘No, too much justification!”
This false gospel has circumvented a vast doctrinal body under the auspices of Christian living in sanctification. We must take back that doctrine, but it will only be accomplished by the laity fellowshipping in home fellowships apart from the institutional church.
Let the dead bury their own dead.
paul
A Review of Dr. Jay Adams’ Message to the Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary Student Body
On February 24, Dr. Jay Adams was the presenter for the student chapel service at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. The message was about 25 minutes long and can be observed here: https://vimeo.com/120670699. The get to the point, make the point, and get out of town approach has become sort of a calling card for Adams in recent years, perhaps due to his age (86). On the other hand, he has written articles on the importance of only using the amount of words necessary to make a point.
The practice of reviewing books and sermons is something I gave up about a year ago because this ministry is past evaluating symptoms, and is focused on resolving the problem. For all practical purposes, it can be assumed that all Protestant sermons are going to be driven by progressive justification, Luther and Calvin’s false gospel. The Reformed deny this; apparently, in 3.14 of his Institutes, Calvin didn’t really mean to say that justification is progressive when he said it is progressive.
If we would only read every literary drone Calvin ever wrote we would understand that “progressive” really doesn’t mean “progressive” in the progressive sense. Justification and progressive sanctification are “never separate, but distinct.” Distinct? How? Well, sanctification is “justification in motion,” or as the brilliant Dr. Lou Priolo states it, “justification is always running in the background” like your Windows program is always running in the background. Thanks Lou. As one Reformed pastor told me, “Any idiot should know that the basis of something isn’t necessarily a progression.” And like Voddie Baucham told me personally, “That road out there is done, but we still use it.” In the exchange, something became very apparent to me: Voddie is a very large man, and not well acclimated to being challenged, so I left it there.
In other words, thou ignorant lay person, thou grasper of material shadows, something “running” isn’t really progressing when you see it in Luther’s “gospel context.” It takes a real metaphysical idiot to think a cat that is running is progressing. Just shut up and put your money in the plate, thou artisan.
So, why write a review on Dr. J’s message at Mid-America? Because he is one of the few pastors, if not the only one left in the institutional church, that is different. Apparently, Mid-America is friendly to Dr. J’s counseling construct and respects him enough to invite him to speak to those who are charged with indoctrinating. This means I must see Mid-America as different from all other seminaries: they are at least road kill that is still moving.
Furthermore, I believe Adams fathered the only real revival that the institutional church has ever seen since the Reformation. And excuse me, but a civil war isn’t a revival, and people executed for treason are not martyrs even if executed by a church state. A heretic executed by a heretic doesn’t make a martyr. What about the “Great Awakening”? That was spawned by the ideology of the American Revolution, not European political refugees. Sorry.
Even though Adams’ groundbreaking biblical counseling construct didn’t go far enough, it was predicated on the idea that Christians can actually do something along the lines of learn and do. Even flirting with the idea that Christians are empowered by obedience unleashed life and light in this Protestant Dark Age. In one of the most profound historical ironies of all time, the movement that returned the institutional church to authentic Protestantism began in the same year that Adams’ groundbreaking book Competent to Counsel was published. As both movements grew at breakneck speed, a contention between the two camps was inevitable.
The contention led to the unmerciful disparaging of Adams who has unfortunately given his entire life to the institutional church. All of his accomplishments are prefaced with the “but…second generation counseling’” from narcissistic, Platonist, psychopathic liars dressed up in Bible verses. And that’s not enough words, or the best words to describe them, but are the most tempered ones. Remember, his crime was to suggest that Christians can do something beyond gospel contemplationism.
I witnessed firsthand the results of the rise and fall of “first generation biblical counseling.” I saw the before and after at a NANC counseling center where I was an elder. The difference between first generation biblical counseling and second generation biblical counseling is the difference between a counselee handing the counselor a razor blade that was going to be used for suicide and a counselor drawing a map of the counselee’s life and then saying, “Here is where you are located in the gospel narrative” lest imperatives be used in counseling. I hope the Mid-America kiddies knew what they had sitting in front of them on Tuesday, but I doubt it. I am sure they would think that my description of second generation biblical counseling is the overuse of exaggerated words. That’s unfortunate. If people think there is something they can do about their situation, and even better yet, that God will help them, we call that “hope.”
And that brings me to the actual content of the message. Adams expounded on Ezra 7:6 and 10: “this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses…For Ezra had set his heart to study the Law of the Lord, and to do it and to teach his statutes and rules in Israel.” The message was pretty straightforward; as elders, they are to be diligent to learn God’s word through independent study, live the word out in their own lives, and teach others the same. This is no different on any wise in comparison to what Jesus said in His introduction to the Sermon on the Mount.
The fact that an 86-year-old man of God is still actively preaching is in and of itself very powerful, and the need for complete follow-through with the word of God powerful as well, but in our day and age, the message, especially in that venue, lacked additional words.
HOW should one in our day study the word of God? Is every verse about justification? And if sanctification is not the “running” part of justification, how then should our Bibles be read and studied? Sure, seminary students should study the word of God for the right motive, viz, life application, but what do we mean by “life application”? According to the leading evangelicals in our day, we are to only expound on the word of God, and…don’t miss this, “the Holy Spirit applies it” which implies that we don’t actually do the word, it’s done for us. “It’s NOT about what you do, it’s about what Jesus has done.” Do we apply the word ourselves with the help of the Spirit, or are we sanctified by contemplative justification?
In addition, these are clarifications that determine how we will teach others to apply the first two.
My conclusion. Anytime Adams is allowed to come out and play in the institutional church, road kill is closer to not being completely dead, and there is a chance that they will learn to look both ways before they cross the road, but more words are needed.
paul
What Your Sanctification Says About Your Justification: Is Your Gospel True or False?
“The law is the standard for love, not justification. In all of the aforementioned systems of sanctified justification by works, faith doesn’t work because it can’t lest salvation be lost. In the Christian life faith works because it can for the sake of love without condemnation.”
“Knowing that justification is a settled issue that has nothing to do with the law anyway, the true Christian only sees law-keeping as an opportunity to love. Christians not only have the anthropologic law of conscience written on the heart, the new birth writes the Bible there as well. In other words, we love the law.”
“Obviously, those who must focus on faith alone works in order to remain justified cannot focus on aggressive obedience to the law that defines love.”
What do you believe about salvation? Your Christian life will tell you. Therefore, the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30 should not confuse us. The “wicked” servant was not cast into outer darkness because he didn’t put his talents to work, but rather what he thought it meant to be a servant. In other words, in order to be saved, you need to know what a Christian is. That should be fairly evident.
Do you live your Christian life by “faith alone”? That is a statement in regard to what you believe about salvation, or what happened to justify you; viz, justification.
This is not complicated. Don’t complain that I am making your touchy-feely “simple” gospel a theological treatise. I am sure you concur that some Bible words have to be understood in order to be saved. The Bible splits humanity into two categories: saved and unsaved; i.e., “under law” or “under grace” (Romans 6:14).
“Under law” is the biblical nomenclature for the unregenerate lost. Under law means that sin rules you. Not in a plenary sense, because man’s conscience and fear of punishment from civilian law restrains people. Yet, they are under the condemnation of God’s law and every violation is documented. Unless they are saved, they will be judged according to their works in the final judgment. Though some who followed their conscience more than others will receive a lesser condemnation, it is still eternal separation from God. They are under law, and enslaved to sin. The last judgment DOES NOT determine justification; it ONLY determines the degree of eternal condemnation. It doesn’t determine justification; it only determines the wages of sin.
Moreover, sin uses the condemnation of the law to provoke people to sin. Primarily, sin uses desires to tempt people, but sin’s incentive is the law because it condemns. Sin lives for the purpose of condemning people, and uses desire to get people to sin against God’s law. This leads to present and eternal death. Sin’s desire is to bring death. When the Bible speaks of “the desires of the flesh” it is referring to instances when the flesh is serving the desires of sin.
The flesh can also be used to serve the desires of the Spirit (Romans 12:1). The flesh has NO desires; it is used by the dweller for good or evil purposes. We will either use our bodies to serve the desires of sin or the desires of the Spirit. Of course, people have their own desires, but unfortunately, the unregenerate are guided by the desires of sin. They assume sinful desires are their own desire which is true. In contrast, sinful desires are not part and parcel with the regenerate soul.
Said another way: among the lost, the desires of sin are very much the same desires possessed by the individual who are indifferent to the law of God. A desire for God’s law is absent while their life is continually building a death and condemnation dividend. Some of that dividend is paid in this life until the full wages of death are paid at the final judgment.
Under grace is not void of law. The law (same as “Scripture” or same as “Bible”) has a different relationship to the saved, or those under grace. A literal baptism of the Holy Spirit takes place, as symbolized in water baptism, which puts to death the old person under law and resurrects the new person under grace. The saved person is now a new creature created by the Spirit of God. The person under grace is literally born of God—he/she is God’s literal offspring.
Therefore, the old person is no longer under the condemnation of the law in the same way a dead person cannot be brought under indictment for a crime. Consequently, the motivation for sin is gone. The power of sin is the law’s condemnation that leads to death (1Corintians 15:56, 57). In addition, the person under grace has been given a new heart that loves God’s law and its way of life. The book that could only bring death is now a book that brings life. Either way, it is the Spirit’s law; He uses it to condemn those that are under it, or uses it to sanctify those who are under grace (John 17:17).
THEREFORE, how you see the law determines what you believe about salvation. If you believe that you can somehow obey the law in a way that unwittingly seeks to be justified by law-keeping, you are still under law. If you believe justification is defined by perfect law-keeping, you are still under law. Those who believe this also believe they need a salvation system that filters all their works into a category of faith alone. The Christian life is categorized or departmentalized into works that attempt to be counted for justification and faith alone works that qualify as “living by faith alone.” Do not miss the point that this also includes abstaining from certain things that aren’t necessarily sin as defined by the Bible.
Yes, hypothetically, a person would need to keep the law perfectly to be justified by the law, but that doesn’t make perfect law-keeping the standard for righteousness. If that were the case, the law is a co-life-giver with the Holy Spirit, and a death would not be necessary. We are justified APART from the law—law has NO part in justification. The Bible defines justification, but it’s not a standard of justification (Rom 3:21, Gal 2:19, 4:21). Law-keeping by anyone does not justify.
If one is trusting in a system that fulfills the law for justification, particularly if it calls for not doing something in order that the law is fulfilled in our place, that is works salvation through some kind of intentionality whether passive or active. These kinds of systems are always indicative of being under law rather than under grace. One such system that has several variances calls for doing certain things or not doing certain things on the Sabbath which can be Saturday or Sunday depending on the stripe of system. If you follow the system on the Sabbath, all works done by you during the week are considered to be by faith alone.
In Reformed theology, particularly authentic Calvinism, contemplation on your sin leading to a return to the same gospel that saved you imputes the perfect law-keeping of Christ to your life. Notice that a fulfillment of the law is required to keep you saved, but we do faith alone works in order that Christ’s perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. The problem here is that a fulfillment of the so-called “righteous demands of the law” is the standard for justification. Hence, clearly, this keeps so-called “Christians” UNDER LAW. In addition, a so-called faith alone work is still a work.
Not so with under grace. We are now free to follow our new desire to obey the law out of love without fear of condemnation. The law is the standard for love, not justification. In all of the aforementioned systems of sanctified justification by works, faith doesn’t work (or love) because it can’t lest salvation be lost. In the Christian life (sanctification) faith works because it can for the sake of love without condemnation (Galatians 5:6).
Knowing that justification is a settled issue that has nothing to do with the law anyway, the true Christian only sees law-keeping as an opportunity to love. Christians not only have the anthropologic law of conscience written on the heart, the new birth writes the Bible there as well. In other words, they love the law. Obviously, those who must focus on faith alone works in order to remain justified cannot focus on aggressive obedience to the law that defines love.
This is exactly what the books of James and 1John are about. Faith is not afraid to work because there is no condemnation. Faith without works is dead, “being alone” (James 2:17 KJV).
Are you in a religious system that propagates faith “alone” in the Christian life? Your faith is not only dead, it speaks to what you believe about justification. You believe justification has a progressive aspect and is not completely finished. Secondly, you believe the law has a stake in justification. Thirdly, your system categorizes works as faith alone works (an oxymoron of sorts) or works that are unfiltered in some way and therefore are efforts to “self-justify.”
If you believe the right gospel, you know that it is impossible to unwittingly partake in an endeavor to justify yourself. It’s a metaphysical impossibility—it’s not in the realm of reality. No false religion teaches that you earn your justification by perfect law-keeping—there is always a system that prescribes sanctified do’s and don’ts that in turn fulfill the law for you, otherwise known as “the traditions of men.”
It’s the fallacy of faith alone works for justification. But any work for justification is justification by works whether doing nothing (abstinence is still doing something), something passive (contemplationism or prayer is also a work) or anything active.
Law and justification are mutually exclusive, and true faith is “faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). Faith works because there is no fear in love (1John 4:18). Don’t be like the servant who was afraid and hid his talents in the ground. Christ said it best:
“If you love me, keep my commandments.”
paul
What is the Race of Faith? Justification or Sanctification? Or Both? A Biblical Evaluation, Part 1: First Letter of John 1:7-10
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1John 1:7-9 are the go-to verses for most Protestant denominations, particularly verse 9. The rendering promotes the idea that we must continue to confess known sin after salvation in order to keep our salvation. This isn’t considered to be works salvation because repentance is a faith-alone work that originally saved us. So, since we are going back to the same gospel that saved us, and that salvation is by faith alone, and repentance is by faith alone, doing this act in order to keep ourselves saved is by faith alone and not works.
Hence, the Christian life is a “race of faith” in which the prize, or reward is salvation. As long as we live our Christian life by “faith alone” we are not disqualified from the race. In verses like 1Corinthians 9:24, the prize for winning the race is taken to mean salvation.
The key to how this works is the confession of sin that is brought to our attention by conscience or the Holy Spirit. If we confess that, we are then cleansed of all unknown sin and sin beneath the sin. As long as we are returning to the same faith-alone gospel that originally saved us, it doesn’t count as works. As plainly stated by many Protestants, Christians still need ongoing salvation from sin. And verse 7 is the icing on the cake; if we “fellowship” with each other, viz, if we are a member of the church in good standing, this in and of itself also continues to cleanse us. John Calvin et al taught that ongoing repentance for re-cleansing (re-salvation) was only valid if one is a member of the institutional church. For several citations on this, read the booklet “It’s Not About Election.”
This is the prime example of traditions of men (orthodoxy) fulfilling the law of God on behalf of the “believer.” The so-called believer partakes in some kind of activity in order for a substitution of some sort to be perpetually imputed to the subject for the maintaining of salvation. Of course, the fundamental error is law being a standard for justification. Law either condemns or sanctifies, but it has no part in justification. Second to that, when justification is not a finished work, ambiguous classifications for what is a work and what isn’t a work is needed to keep justification moving forward by “faith alone.” See the problem? A faith-alone work is an oxymoron.
Even more icing is heaped on the cake when you approach these verses with the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic. This interprets every verse in the Bible as a salvation verse, or justification verse in a supposed context of progression.
So what’s really going on with these verses and others like them? It’s simple when you approach the same with the Grammatical Historical hermeneutic. Historically, John was addressing the rampant Gnosticism of the day that saturated the 1st century church and culture. There were and are many, many veins of Gnostic thought, but John was addressing the one that believed man was spirit and therefore pure; only the material realm is evil. Therefore, no person sins because they are spirit—it’s the material world that’s evil. Moreover, it doesn’t matter what one does in the body because it is of the sinful material realm.
While many recognize this historical fact, they proceed to see these verses as sanctification verses. While rightly dividing the difference between sin unto condemnation and sin against God’s family relationship, they errantly concede a continued need for “cleansing.” It goes something like this: because we also fail to recognize family sin that we commit, it is necessarily for that sin to be cleansed as well when we confess sin against family. While this is far closer to the truth than the former, and perhaps harmless, it is best to see 1John 7-10 as verses pertaining to justification as a onetime finished work.
An idea that man is sinless because he is spirit denies the need for the gospel altogether; it makes God a liar. In that context, 1John 7-10 makes perfect sense. But the question becomes that of Greek tenses, moods, and voices. Is this forgiveness an ongoing need, or did it just happen once? And if it only happened once, is the effect still ongoing? When this is considered grammatically, the arguments can fly in every direction. The English translation seems to imply an ongoing need for forgiveness.
First of all, the New Testament does not emphasize repentance in sanctification to the degree that repentance for justification is emphasized. The emphasis is a onetime turning away from who you presently are to save yourself from a perverse generation (Acts 2:40). Don’t get me wrong, repentance is a part of sanctification, but the emphasis is a positive one regarding what we are free to do, not what we have been set free from. The past bondage to sin is not emphasized in the Bible, the freedom we have to love is what is emphasized.
1Peter 4:8 – Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.
God is love (1Jn 4:16), love matters more than sacraments (Gal 5:6), casts out fear (1Jn 4:18), covers a multitude of sins (1Pet 4:8), is the only gift that will not pass away (1Cor 13:8), and is greater than faith and hope (1Cor 13:13). The idea that Christianity is a “lifestyle of repentance” is egregiously misguided; Christianity is a lifestyle of love. The past bondage is not emphasized in the Bible; the freedom we have to love is what is emphasized.
No wonder then that 1John 1:7-10 is interpreted through the prism of a continued focus on condemnation and sin. In contrast, it is pitting repentance from sin unto salvation against the idea that man is already sinless and has no need to be forgiven through belief in Jesus Christ. This idea is also calling God a liar in regard to man’s true status. Therefore, we see that 1John 7-10 regards justification as set against the historical teachings of Gnosticism that was infiltrating the Christian assemblies at that time. 1John is also peppered with a pushback against the same vein of Gnosticism that posited the idea that Christ didn’t really come in the flesh (I John 1:1).
1 John 1:7-10, though having a grammatical semblance of present continuous, is speaking of the onetime finished work of justification that all people need as opposed to the Gnostic idea that the invisible is good, and the material is evil, and that all sin belongs to the material realm and not relevant to the spiritual. We have looked at the historical, now let’s examine the grammatical.
Verse 7… “the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” The book of Hebrews makes it absolutely clear that this only happened once.
Hebrews 10:11 – And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
Is the blood of Jesus reapplied to our sins each time we repent? This is the only contextual conclusion that can be drawn from the aforementioned orthodox use of 1John 1:7-10. It is a perpetual application of the blood for each known sin that we commit, plus an additional cleansing for unknown sin.
To the contrary, there is one sacrifice for ALL sins and for ALL time resulting in God not remembering any sin committed by believers. Said interpretation of 1John 1:7-10 states that God will in fact remember our sin if we do not reapply the one sacrifice of Christ. Again, 1John 1:7-10 is a justification verse; that justification is a finished work that only occurs once.
Surrounding verses in context also support this view. “I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name’s sake” (1John 2:12). Also, those who walk in the light are representative of those who have been cleansed from “all” sin (v.7), and the washing is always indicative of justification as a onetime finished work (note John 13:9-11).
Repentance for family sin resulting in prevention of Fatherly chastisement is another issue altogether and has nothing to do with 1John 1:7-10.
James 5:13 – Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praise. 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
A “lifestyle of repentance” keeps our focus on “keeping ourselves in the love of God” or stated more plainly, keeping ourselves saved for a best shot at “standing in the judgment.” There is no condemnation for those who believe Christ and we will not stand in any judgment that determines justification (John 5:28,29, Luke 14:12-14). However, Christians who live out their calling to righteous living will have confidence when we are swept up in the general judgments that come upon the world, or His appearing at the end of the tribulation period (1John 2:28, 4:17). Peter spoke of a “rich entry” into the kingdom (2Peter 1:11).
Focusing on assumed sin that we are supposedly powerless to overcome will keep us from a successful Christian walk that gives us confidence (I Jn 3:18,19, 2Pet 1:9,10, Heb 10;22), a walk that pursues peace and love as a focus and not an endeavor to discover how sinful we are.
This will only lead to fear, and a shrinking back from the thought of seeing God. In contrast, mature love casts out fear.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment