Three Literary Schemas New Calvinists Don’t Like to Talk About
“This is why New Calvinism must be stopped. It redefines faith, short-circuits sanctification, and deprives the saints of experiencing true blessings by replacing true literary schemas with the Ind/Imp.”
I have written many articles about the whole the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event thing. Chapter 12 of the new book addresses this fallacy in detail. Supposedly, the Bible was written with a schema that always precedes commands with a description of Christ’s redemptive work—indicating that all of our works flow naturally from a deeper understanding of redemption. This also, supposedly, purifies our motives because we are then motivated by gratitude and not any kind of effort to please God in “our own efforts.”
Problem is, that order is often reversed throughout Scripture and indicates are often contingent upon the completion of the imperative. Also, many imperatives are based on things God hasn’t done yet, and not necessarily the “finished works of Christ.” Pathetically, New Calvinists then argue that the preceding indicative, no matter how far back, is always linked to the imperative. So, some indicative two books back and regarding a totally different subject is what we should be linking said imperative with. Whatever.
Other literary schemas are conveniently never spoken of. I wrote an article a couple of days ago that was a little testy because this whole Ind/Imp thing is really getting on my nerves (http://wp.me/pmd7S-XO). The schema written about in that article speaks of faith and obedience being the same thing in Scripture. A friend of the ministry called for an adjustment regarding the following statement I made in the article: “Obedience doesn’t come from faith or flow from faith, it is faith.” His comments in regard to this statement are worth restating:
Ok, Faith is obedience in some sense, but obedience also comes from Faith too. Faith is being sure, understanding the value of what’s being said – it’s the motive. Motives produce action, they go together. Christ had compassion, therefore He healed. By Faith we move:
Rom 1:5 “to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.”
Phil 2:17 “the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you.”
1 Thess 1:3 “We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Anon said: “Faith that doesn’t work isn’t faith.”
True, but two ways of Faith:
Faith does not work in regard to the forgiveness of sins because God doesn’t ask it. Rom 3:25 says “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.” Therefore Paul says “the man who does not work” according to David: “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.” So, by faith alone we are forgiven and “we have gained access into this grace in which we now stand.”
However, Faith does work (active) when commanded and is blessed:
Gen 22:15 “The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
So Christians do like Father Abraham, “the man of Faith.” We are the predestinated children of Abraham. Who did Christ come to help? Heb 2:16 “For surely it is not angels he (Christ) helps, but Abraham’s descendants.”
Arkansas Bill
Bill makes a valid argument, but I think he would also agree that obedience is more than a mere product of faith. After all, James said Abraham’s faith was “completed” by his obedience (2:22). In fact, James 2:14-26 bolsters the argument. James even says that works apart from faith is like a body that has no spirit (v26). Sounds like oneness to me. I made the following statement in the same article: “….faith is not faith until it does something” I stand by that statement, and the Scriptures are saturated with the literary schema that makes the two same. For instance, unbelievers are called on to do what? Believe, right? Consider these verses which I think call on unbelievers to do the same thing, but in a different way:
Acts 3:19
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Acts 8:22
Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.
Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.
Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
1 Peter 4:17
For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
1 Peter 1:2
Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Of course, Christians have to know this first, and therefore understand the powerful lesson that this schema teaches: obedience whether we feel like it or not leads to the blessings of experiencing the blessings of our salvation to the degree that God wants us to. In 1Peter chapter 1, Peter instructs us to “add” to our faith. This is utterly profound. We are not to wait around for faith to “fuel” obedience as the New Calvinist crowd says to do, we are to “add” to the faith that we believe is in us because the word of God says it’s there, but we have to appropriate it.
Be sure of this: Christians who lack assurance of salvation need to add obedience to their faith—that’s Peter’s whole point in that chapter. Nothing fuels boldness like assurance; if we are 100% assured of our standing with God, we are likely to do anything for Him. This is an UPWARD spiral, unlike the false teaching of New Calvinist’s like Jerry Bridges who teaches that the cure for doubt is to preach grace to ourselves till the doubt goes away. That’s nothing more than searing our consciences with a hot iron. Bridges and other New Calvinists even say that to be motivated by guilt is wrong. No, guilt is a spiritual motivator—telling us that we are not adding enough obedience to our faith and thereby “completing” it. Paul told Timothy to keep a clear conscience before God and men (1Timothy 1:5,19 and 3:9).
Also consider these verses:
2 Corinthians 1:12
Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on God’s grace.
2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
2 Corinthians 5:11
Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.
Titus 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
Hebrews 13:18
Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way.
1 Peter 3:16
keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
This is the first schema New Calvinists don’t want you to know about—the schema that doesn’t wait for a process between faith and obedience to legitimize it. It contradicts the supposed error of “leaping from command to obedience.” This is why New Calvinism is so dangerous and will ruin people’s lives.
The second schema New Calvinists either avoid or distort is the put off/put on schema. Where to even start on this one. Christ uses this schema throughout the Sermon on the Mount. The problem, why you do it, stop doing that, and start doing this. A good example is Ephesians 5: 3,4;
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
Put off foul conversation, put on thankfulness. This also tells us that this behavior is driven by unthankfulness (ie., course joking around the water cooler at work). Other examples are Ephesians 4:25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 5:4,11,18, 6:4, Psalm 1, Galatians 5:19-23, 3John 11, Hebrews 10:25, 1Peter 2:1-2, 3:9, Matthew 16:24, 1Thessalonians 1:9, 5:6,15, 1Peter 1:14-15, 2:11-12, 4:2, 5:2,3-6, Romans 12:16,21, 13:12, 14:17, 15:1-2, Galatians 6:3-4,8 Philipians 2:3, 21, 3:3, 4:6, Colossians 3:2, 5-10, 1Timothy 4:7, 6:11, 6:17, 2Timothy 1:7, Titus 2:11-12, James 1:22, 1John 3:18, 4:18, Acts 18:9.
To downplay this schema as New Calvinists do strikes at the very heart of sanctification which is Ephesians 4:22-24; it calls us to put off the old person and put on the new creature created in Christ. We have the fullness of Christ already, we need to put it on as we discover the attributes in Scripture.
The third schema is obedience leads to blessings/peace. This contradicts the New Calvinist teachings that right feelings always precede right doing. Like all other New Calvinist teachings, the exact opposite is true. The most obvious is James 1:25. It plainly states that the blessings are IN the doing. Philippians 4:2-9 concludes with the God of peace being with us as a result of right thinking, right doing, and right praying.
This is why New Calvinism must be stopped. It redefines faith, short-circuits sanctification, and deprives the saints of experiencing true blessings by replacing true literary schemas with the Ind/Imp. Though that schema has some application for being encouraged and motivated by what God has done—to make it the only and primary motivator will lead Christians into treacherous waters.
paul
Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 2
Q: There is a lot here, but let me start with the perspicuity of Scripture. Would you give the new believer any instruction as to how to approach the Scriptures?
Yes. I’d refer them to R.C. Sproul’s, Knowing Scripture, as a healthy hermeneutical guide. That’s a great introductory resource, in my opinion. From there, either Louis Berkhoff or Bernard Ramm would be a next hermeneutical reference.
Q: Aside from that, what would be your position on the new believer reading the Sermon on the Mount without any hermeneutical perspective whatsoever? Matthew 5:3 says that those who heard the sermon firsthand, the peasantry of that day, were “taught” by Christ. The new believer is therefore in no diiferent position than those who sat and listened to Christ that day. Everything needed to be “taught” is in that sermon. What do you think the hermeneutic is for that sermon? Was one presented in the sermon? If not, how should the believer listen to that sermon?
Hermeneutics guide our understanding of hearing/reading all things, all contexts. Whether a book or a sermon, there are, “rules” for how we understand what is being communicated. That’s what separates the sane from the insane J.
Again, in my understanding of not only the perspicuity of Scripture, but most forms of communication, I’d rely on that simplicity to guide the listener/reader’s heart and mind as he learns from Christ and the sermon on the mount. Everything that is written/spoken has a context to it, even the sermon on the mount. A hyper-literal understanding by a listener would miss what Christ was saying. Likewise, a hyper-spiritual understanding would also miss the boat. However, of those whose hearts are being drawn by the Holy Spirit, Christ’s sheep, it is they who will press for clarification, to truly seek to understand what God’s voice, their Shepherd, is saying… to them.
Q: Where do you stand on Michael Horton’s view that the Holy Spirit only illumines when the Scriptures are viewed in a redemptive context? He is clear on this, stating on page 62 of “Christless Christianity” that NOTHING brings life to the believer but the Spirit working “through the Gospel” when it is “revisited afresh.”
To be honest, I’m not much of a Horton fan, but there is some validity, I believe, in what his gospel centeredness is trying to communicate.
Jesus once rebuked the Pharisees by saying, “You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life…” His point was, you do not have nor will you attain eternal life because your approach to scripture is not theocentric (i.e., gospel driven…). That is, the heart, of what I believe Horton is trying to communicate. It’s not a matter of, does the sermon on the mount teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit within the heart/mind of a listener/reader, they will never hear Christ’s voice, and listen.
The sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is an ongoing and synergistic work of God, one whereby as his grace empowers and illuminates, our hearts are changed and our minds conform more and more to the image of Christ. But again, the question then becomes, does the HS empower and illuminate only through the lenses of the gospel (i.e., the doctrine of sola fide), or does the term “gospel” carry with it a bit more of a broader meaning or understanding. I would propose the answer, according to Scripture, is both.
Q: What’s your take on 2Timothy 3:16,17?; ” All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This seems to be a strange place for the apostle to not mention anything about the centrality of the gospel in Scripture.
In fact, let me expand on that a little. In 2Peter ch1, Peter says the time of his departure was near and he was emphasizing the one message that was most important to him, and that he wanted to continually remind them of. His emphasis was to remind them to be continually adding eight things to their faith. Again, this seems to be a strange place to leave out any mention of the centrality of the gospel. Not only that, he emphasizes adding to the foundation of their faith, rather than going back to it. In Christ’s mandate to the church in Matthew 28, an emphasis on all that he had commanded verses the centrality of the gospel seems to be yet another place where the emphasis on the gospel is missing at a very opportune time. What would be your reply to this concern?
For starters, I agree with and believe 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. Secondly, whether or not Paul explicitly interjects the centrality of the gospel into every doctrinal treatise, per se’, does not suggest the centrality of the gospel does not foundationally underlie his teaching.
In Galatians, Paul addresses a church whose life and practice is totally messed up because they have abandoned the gospel. Hence, their poor sanctification is subject to their wrong understanding and continued application of their justification. To the NC, the centrality of the gospel of glory and grace is foundational for living out 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
Scripture is God-breathed, but it is not ‘inhaled” by you or me unless the Holy Spirit has revived the heart to embrace the God centered value of what was divinely spoken.
Q: So, you wouldn’t object to our hypothetical new believer putting just as much stock in read, learn, and obey (as would obviously be taken from the 1Timothy text) ; as he would gospel appreciation, gratitude, doxology, obedience. Your saying both are important (?).
Yes, for in his reading, learning etc., he would learn of obedience, gospel appreciation, grace/gratitude, doxology etc. He would learn how to, increasingly, please God.
Q: So here, you would differ from other NC like Michael Horton and Chad Bresson, ie., ” We cannot make the leap from description to commandment without violating the gist of the text.” You can add to this if I have interpreted incorrectly.
I have not read the entirety of this quote to adequately respond, but as I previously stated, I am a bit of NC hybrid, so that might be a reasonable assumption.
Q: In regard to your comments on Galatians, it would seem you’re toeing the NC line that Galatians is about sanctification and not justification (?).
I would say, yes, Galatians is dealing with the consequent doctrine(s) of sanctification and how an incorrect understanding of justification negatively affects one’s spiritual walk. However, at the same time, I do believe Paul is being very direct to his “christian” audience, whereby he warns the antinomians that they are sadly mistaken if they believe their faith is genuine if they continue to, habitually, live the life of gross immorality that they continue to live. To these “christians” I believe Paul is warning them, they are about to be, if not already, cut off from Christ (that is to say, the visible body of Christ, the Church).
It is herein I believe most Calvinists don’t quite know what the heck to do with passages that speak of the consequences of habitual disobedience, for those who would say they have taken the name and yolk of Christ. Most reformed guys simply say, “We’re eternally secure in Christ, so there can’t ever be any reference to somebody [secure in Christ] losing their salvation. For myself, I believe Scripture teaches the body of Christ is both visible and invisible. All who are a part of the invisible body of Christ (united through faith alone), are also a part of the visible body. However, not all that are a part of the visible body of Christ (i.e., tares and wolves in sheep’s clothing etc.) are truly united to Christ and the invisible church. Of the latter individuals, who I believe live and breathe and walk in our midst as they did during Jesus’ day, I believe Scripture speaks directly to, warning such individuals, that their “faith” does not reflect one who has, authentically, repented and made Jesus lord of their life.
Q: But most NC teach that the Galatian error had to do with them thinking they could participate in sanctification, which is supposedly cutting in on the fruits of justification. In other words, instead of sanctification being 100% fruits of justification, the Galatians were adding to the fruits of justification by their own efforts; ie., the gospel plus works. You say their distorted view of justification effected their sanctification. Could you clarify that a little more?
TO BE CONTINUED
The Separation of Faith and Obedience is Anti-Gospel
“….faith is not faith until it does something”
While on sabbatical to write TTANC, Susan and I have been visiting Calvary Baptist Church in Xenia, Ohio pastored by David Conrad. By the way, our home used to be the building they worshiped in. Pastor David is preaching through the book of Romans, and 10:13-21 was on the plate for last Sunday. The focus of this post is verses 16 and 17:
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
What does it mean to obey the gospel? This is so simple that it is easy to miss: verse 16 could rightfully be restated as, But they have not believed the gospel. The apostle Paul first frames acceptance of the gospel via obedience, then he quotes Isaiah who frames acceptance of the gospel via belief: “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” Then Paul restates what Isaiah said in the context of faith: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” Faith, belief, obedience—all the same. Obedience doesn’t come from faith or flow from faith, it is faith.
Let’s visit another passage that illustrates this. Christ said in John 3:36;
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Again, in this verse with two independent clauses linked by the same subject of eternal life, obedience and belief could be switched between the two clauses, or either one used for both.
Is this really that hard to understand? You can’t separate obedience and faith (the hindrance of sin will not be addressed in this post). Why? Because faith isn’t faith until it does something. What a pity that theologians have made the book of James so controversial in regard to the whole supposed works/faith issue. All James was saying is that faith isn’t faith until it does something:
Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (James 2:20).
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works (James 2:22).
And what is the standard for the works of faith? What works? Again, James does not leave us without an answer:
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 (James 1:25).
What about boasting? There isn’t any because faith is a gift from God. If God doesn’t grant it to us, we do not have it. But be sure of this: like all gifts, once one receives it—they own it. It is our faith, and we also own the obedience that is faith—it’s our obedience as well. And as James wrote, the blessings are in completing our faith with obedience to the truth (2:22). In the parable of the talents Christ warned against separating faith and works, calling those who do so “wicked, lazy servant[s].”
Christians can get in the middle of the Arminian/Calvinism fray if they want to, but both are guilty of distorting saving faith; both separate what is one, obedience and faith. Both brainwash our children with the faith alone mantra. Yes indeed, faith alone, but also obedience alone. You can obey the gospel or believe the gospel—pick one, they are both good. Say it anyway you want to; it’s all the same. Arminians separate the two by teaching faith alone without works. That’s simply not true. Once the gift is given, obedience comes with it. We are justified by the gift, but after that, faith works, or you don’t have it, or you are not working out what has been worked in.
The Reformed are a little more craftier in their damning lies. They concur with the proposition of this post, but in their endeavor to be the gatekeepers of God’s self-esteem, they devise complicated theological systems that make our faith and obedience Christ’s faith and obedience. No gift has really been granted, we are merely the prepositions of salvation. This comes from not only separating faith and obedience, or law/gospel, but then synthesizing justification and sanctification. Obviously, if there is no difference between the two, we must be sanctified the same way we are justified which is passive. Receiving a gift is passive, putting the gift to work is not. But if the same gospel that saved us sanctifies us, it’s all about receiving and no giving.
Even as an unbeliever I knew this truth intuitively—I think by the common grace of God. I was begged by an Arminian to just “say the prayer.” Bless his heart, when I wouldn’t, he wept. Better than a Reformed person who would have responded this way: “Oh well, just means you’re not chosen.” Of course, I wouldn’t have bought into that either. I wouldn’t profess because I knew I wasn’t willing to leave the old Paul behind. I still liked the old Paul. Even then, I wouldn’t have known how to word it, but I knew that there is no difference between faith and obedience.
Christ, the apostles, and the prophets used the two words interchangeably throughout the Scriptures. I wish we could pose a question to James: “James, can one be saved if he/she doesn’t understand that obedience and faith are the same thing?” Is love for God a requirement for saving faith? Ok, well, Christ said the following in John 14:
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Then immediately following that statement He said:
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper
Sure, we can’t do it without two “helpers,” Christ and the Holy Spirit, but I’m thinking with those two helping the job should get done! What kind of gospel displays a life that is no better than many others with both Christ and the Holy Spirit helping? But Michael Horton says that exerting our own effort in the process is trying to “be the gospel” rather than merely preaching the gospel. That’s a lie.
However, I have some truthful news for both Arminians and the Reformed alike. To the Arminian: No love for God—no salvation. To the Reformed: In your favorite Bible, the ESV, Christ called the Holy Spirit our “helper.” A helper doesn’t do it for us, they help. I thought you guys are educated? Even a child knows a helper helps and doesn’t do it all. And the fact that we do something in the process of sanctification is not “bad news.” Stop lying and start telling the truth for a change.
What faith is in regard to the gospel is obviously a critical question, and separating faith and obedience is a false gospel. The idea that obedience is optional or done by “Christ for us” is not the good news of salvation. True faith is a gift that we cannot earn, but once we have it, it is never without works, or it is not true faith—being alone. The devils merely believe only, and do tremble.
paul
Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 1
“RL” is a New Calvinist and author. I am pleased to have this clarifying dialogue with him. I was going to write a review of a book he wrote on marriage which would have included some sensitive information. While obtaining his side of the story, which I believe to be the true side, an ability to work together in distinguishing doctrinal views was exhibited. Not only that, I have grown to like him personally. Why? Because he tells it like he sees it. Of course, it’s no secret that I disdain New Calvinist doctrine, but what I disdain more is nuanced doublespeak concerning doctrine. For crying out loud, if that’s what you believe—state it and let the chips fall where they may. No doubt, if I believe someone is trying to trick others into believing what they believe, it does become personal—I can’t respect that.
Here is what RL agreed to:
“Thanks. Actually I would like to just have an open discussion on marriage so that you can present the New Calvinist side. Q and A format. It would be posted on my blog–and I am primarily interested in a clear presentation of the New Calvinist side. You would then be welcome to address any comments that come in.”
Well, while we are at it, let’s just take this opportunity to learn more about New Calvinism. I look forward to several productive parts:
Q: Do you consider yourself to be a “New Calvinist”?
New Calvinism(ist) (hereafter NC) could be a very broad term. It’s sort of like saying,
“Are you reformed?” To some, that can speak of paedo-baptist practices; to some it is
soteriological, to some it is non-dispensational, etc. Can we get a working definition
of the NC concept and then go from there?
Q: Yes, one that would associate themselves with T4G, TGC, SGM and their general
tenants such as “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you”–ie., gospel-
driven this and gospel-centered that. Then we can cover some other specific tenets
from there.
Yes. I do believe the gospel that saves, also sanctifies. However, to suggest that the
term gospel is strictly limited to the doctrine of justification alone would be a
misnomer. Contextually, sometimes the term “gospel” refers to a God centered
perspective on the Christian life.
The gospel is a God centered declaration of both His glory and grace. Hence, because
of the “amazing grace” there is a sense of gratitude that compels/motivates our
sanctification. Simultaneously, because of the concurrent experience of glorifying
God, there is an inexpressible joy that also compels/motivates our sanctification.
“NC’s” are motivated by both glory and grace.
Q: So how is this experienced? Say I believe the NC package. Let’s say you are discipling
me day one. Where do I go from here?
Depending on the age, of course, of the individual, there is obviously a
contextualization discernment made as to where to begin. But, for argument’s sake,
we’ll say our new convert is 25 years old.
Initially, we’d direct them to begin reading Scripture (allowing the HS to renew their
mind before we begin to “reform” them) to begin familiarizing themselves with God.
Much along the lines of how Calvin puts things, “We must first know and understand
who and what God is before we can truly begin to know anything about ourselves…”
That being said, much of the confidence of the NC would derive from the perspicuity of
Scripture, as our new convert begins to read the story of redemption and allow the HS
to begin to teach him. Law and Gospel, we would say, underlies the believer’s new
life.
For some new believers, the realization of the necessity of regeneration is something
that is seen/learned, sooner than others. Such is why all Calvinists stress the theological
and sanctifying importance of how the Holy Spirit has overcome our depravity and, as
Jonathan Edwards penned so eloquently, “liberated the will” to once again please God.
Hence, there is an immense measure of grace that fuels the believer’s obedience once
they understand how enslaved they once were to their sin.
From there, we proceed to train/instruct the new believer as to how to go about living the
Christian life. We would explain to them that the Christian life is not about learning an
endless list of “do’s and don’ts” in order to gain “justifying” favor with God. Our
foundational emphasis for empowering the believer stems from the finished work of
Christ that has been applied to his life, that there is no longer any further “good works”
that are required in order to be justified. His sanctification, we would say, is being
empowered by the Gospel of glory and grace; of what God has done on his behalf and
the joy found in pleasing God.
The question then becomes, what must a Christian do in order to please God? Answer:
Find joy in Holiness. How is holiness defined? God’s word, as it becomes a reflection
of who and what God is. It is for holiness’ sake that we have been set free from our sin,
why we were justified, why we are sanctified and why, ultimately, God will glorify his
people. God has an undeniable prefixation with our being conformed into the image of
Christ, who is perfectly holy, something we have been destined to reflect for the rest of
eternity, beginning as soon as we have been justified sola fide.
That last answer covers some serious territory. Will resume with some questions tomorrow.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments