3. THE NECESSITY OF GOOD WORKS. There can be no doubt about the necessity of good works properly understood. They cannot be regarded as necessary to merit salvation, nor as a means to retain a hold on salvation, nor even as the only way along which to proceed to eternal glory, for children enter salvation without having done any good works. The Bible does not teach that no one can be saved apart from good works. At the same time good works necessarily follow from the union of believers with Christ. “He that abideth in me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit,” John 15:5. They are also necessary as required by God, Rom. 7:4; 8:12,13; Gal. 6:2, as the fruits of faith, Jas. 2:14,17,20-22, as expressions of gratitude, I Cor. 6:20, unto the assurance of faith, II Peter 1:5-10, and to the glory of God, John 15:8; I Cor. 10:31. The necessity of good works must be maintained over against the Antinomians, who claim that, since Christ not only bore the penalty of sin, but also met the positive demands of the law, the believer is free from the obligation to observe it, an error that is still with us to-day in some of the forms of dispensationalism. This is a thoroughly false position, for it is only the law as a system of penalty and as a method of salvation that is abolished in the death of Christ. The law as the standard of our moral life is a transcript of the holiness of God and is therefore of permanent validity also for the believer, though his attitude to the law has undergone a radical change. He has received the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of obedience, so that, without any constraint, he willingly obeys the law. Strong sums it up well, when he says: Christ frees us
“(1) from the law a
s a system of curse and penalty; this He does by bearing the curse and penalty Himself . . . ; (2) from the law with its claims as a method of salvation; this He does by making His obedience and merits ours . . . ; (3) from the law as an outward and foreign compulsion; this He does by giving us the spirit of obedience and sonship, by which the law is progressively realized within.”Louis Berkhof | Systematic Theology, 543. (HT: Jack Miller)
Amen. Now let’s finish Berkof’s thought:
“… At the same time good works necessarily follow from the union of believers with Christ… They are also necessary as required by God… The necessity of good works must be maintained over against the Antinomians, who claim that, since Christ not only bore the penalty of sin, but also met the positive demands of the law, the believer is free from the obligation to observe it.”
Rick,
AMEN!
Who in this discussion is denying the abiding validity of the moral law for the believer
Dr. Clark,
It appears that Chris Rosebrough denies that good works are a consequent condition for salvation (per your HT link). Do you disagree with him on this point?
Thank you.
What makes you draw that conclusion?
No, if you’ll listen to this series:
Conditions (1)
Conditions (2)
I discuss it for more than an hour.
He quotes Mark Jones as follows:
“good works, prepared in advance by God (Eph. 2:10) and done in the power of the Spirit (Rom. 8:9–14), are consequent conditions for salvation…”
with bold font for the final clause, then writes that Jones’ statements are “false and improper”.
Vince,
Listen to the 2 episodes and get back to me.
The entire Berkhof quote:
I have read and heard TT affirm the above many times. Of course he does lead with and emphasize the grace of the gospel as the transforming power of God in salvation which enables and brings forth obedience in the believer. Is that a problem for his critics? Because if it is, they are having a problem with a lot more than just TT…
Brother, I was just asking that the Berkof piece be quoted to its conclusion. I think the part that I added is important to get the full sense of what he was saying. Hope you are well.
Rick,
Understood. It’s just that accusations and implications of “antinomianism” are flying around these days and so wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding. I heartily affirm everything Berkhof says.
I hope that everyone else in this discussion is comfortable with everything that Berkhof says about antinomianism.
ps. I’ve been told that the second half of Berkhof’s quote is also antinomian because it doesn’t make works a “means” to salvation.
These past few HB blog entries have been great – the Law/Gospel distinction, then the careful examination of the necessity of good works in conjunction with (or maybe as a consequence of) justification sola fide.
Thinking about all of these things in light of what I see taking place around me I’m often led to conclude that many evangelicals “invent” good works that they either feel like they want to do or are somehow connected with their own “spiritual gifts” (however those get defined). Whereas good works often amount to little more than the believer quickly responding to whatever and wherever a need arises, particularly within the local congregation in the form of what many time may just simply be diaconate functions.
But I suppose there is little opportunity for fame and fanfare in those “little” things. IIRC from reading some of Luther, he often railed at his congregants for doing exactly that – ignoring those day-to-day instances of Christian activity in favor of the more grand events.
You mean Luther insisted on sanctity in God’s people? Really? Sshh Don’t let that get out or it will ruin a lot of narratives and identities.
Rosebrough quoted the article extensively in his analysis.
http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2014/05/was-louis-berkhof-an-antinomian.html
The last line is the money line IMO…
Misspelling Berkhof’s name is just another example of why our good works cannot be the only way along in which we enter glory 😉
Levity Friday!
Oops. Sorry about that. I sincerely repent.
Rick,
I’m reading your Hebrews commentary – good stuff!
Rick Phillips writes, “Brother, I was just asking that the Berkof piece be quoted to its conclusion. I think the part that I added is important to get the full sense of what he was saying.”
After his heavy-handed condemnation of TT over at Ref21, one wonders whether “getting the full sense” of what Berkhof is saying is Rev. Phillips only motivation for commenting. Reading the addition of Berkhof’s quotation here in light of the the Ref21 article and the wider debate, one cannot help but see what Phillips’ seems to be implying, which is what Dr. Clark does in his response. Rev. Phillips subsequent “I was just” response does not seem to give readers a full sense of what Rev. Phillips is saying.
For the sake of Christian charity, let’s be careful not to ascribe motives to others.
The source of this quote seemed to use it in a manner contrary to its intent when he accused Jones of teaching contrary to Berkhof on the necessity of works as a consequent of salvation. Clearly, the fuller quote clarifies that what Jones said does not seem to differ from what Berkoh said. I am not saying that Jones in no way contradicts Berkhof. I am merely pointing out that the particular quote of Berkhof seems to have been shortened in a manner that makes Berkhof contradict Jones when he actually does not. Dr. Clark, you are a better scholar than me. So I defer to you to show me that the source of this quote didn’t use it incorrectly as an argument against Jones. Given the rest of Berkhof’s quote as provide by Mr. Phillips it certainly seems like the quote is overly selective as used in the article it is sourced from.
Chad,
I’m less confident that everyone in the discussion is satisfied with sanctity as fruit and evidence. I’ve been told repeatedly over the years and I quote: “Guilt, grace, and gratitude makes sanctification a second blessing.” That’s a direct quote. It’s been suggested in this very discussion that it’s not sufficient to say that sanctity is only fruit and evidence of justification.
By the way, I wish we could edit our comments. Commenting from my IPhone left me with several typos. I would love an edit function. 😉
Thanks for your clarity on these issues. I do realize Jones could be contradicting Berkhof, depending on what he means by “necessary for salvation.” It seems that contextually Jones meant it as a necessary consequent of salvation. Perhaps I am misreading him though.
Chad, do you see a difference between “for” and “of”?
Rich,
I do see a difference. I’m just wondering if it is clear that Jones meant “for” in the sense of a necessary condition. He seems to argue works are a necessary consequence. My question is whether Jones is using language that is unhelpful, or if he is actually disagreeing with Berkhof. I may have read Jones with too many assumptions about what he must have meant.
Antinomianism by Mark Jones:
Of course, the devil is in the details…
I remember wondering how to understand this section of his book. Good works being necessary for final salvation sounded similar to NT Wright’s view of final justification. I’m not familiar enough with either though to say they are parallel. I guess I need to read through that section in Jones again and attempt to understand more fully what he means. It was muddled to me the first time I read it, but I assumed I was the problem and he was clearly not making good works a necessary condition of salvation. Are you under the impression that he is making that case with his use of the word “for”?
More Jones:
I’m not comfortable with the way Jones frames these issues. It reminds me of what Dr. Clark wrote in the previous post about putting justification in a lock box, as in – you’re justified – right to life (Paul writes saved, Eph 2:8-9) – by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone – but after that in order take possession of that life your good works are necessary addition to what Christ did in order to finish the deal or ensure the completion of one’s salvation unto eternal life?
Chad, it was muddled to me as well. It could be us or it could be else.
Ash,
It is a fair question that you raise as to why I wanted the whole Berkhof quote cited. (By the way, now that Scott has put in the whole paragraph, my first comment no longer makes sense — when I wrote that the quote ended after the early comment regarding children. Thanks, Scott Clark for acting on my concern.) In all honesty, I did not know that the Antinomianism comment was in Berkhof’s paragraph until I looked it up. I just didn’t want Berkhof to be quoted in a way that might seem that he opposed a proper sense of the necessity of good works. That was why I commented. When I saw his comment on Antinomianism, I certainly noted it. While my purpose was merely to conclude Berkhof’s thought, I did think the Antinomianism comment was germaine and in fact helpful to the discussion we are having. I agree with Berkhof’s concern regarding Anitnomianism. Moreover, I believe that Berkhof’s language of those who claim that “since Christ not only bore the penalty of sin, but also met the positive demands of the law, the believer is free from the obligation to observe it” is not far from some of the rhetoric that has appeared in this debate. To say that 1 John 5:2-3 does not call Christians to obey God’s law because Christ has already borne that burden is at least very close to what Berkhof characterizes as Antinomianism.
So, while I did not dredge up the rest of the quote because of Berkhof’s comment regarding Antinomianism, having provided the rest of his thought I did think that his comments ought to be left standing. Hope that is helpful as to my first comment here.
Rick,
Are you willing to say who it is that is approaching the sort of teaching condemned by Berkhof (and by Clark many times here on the HB, on podcasts, in the pulpit, and in print)?
I don’t agree with Tullian’s (or Luther’s) reading of 1John 5 but I don’t agree with Calvin in some places and I increasingly think most commentaries (except Calvin’s) are shall we say, not as useful as they can be either because they miss the point or dodge the tough passages) that doesn’t mean that said errant exegesis makes a fellow antinomian. It’s not as if he offered an Arian reading of John 1.
What do you make of Tullian’s repeated assertion that he not only believes in the third use of the law but he practices it in his ministry? Does this affect your assessment of his teaching and ministry?
Dear Chad,
First of all, if that is really your last name, then that is a rock star last name. Love it. Second of all, you are right about ascribing motives. Mea culpa (sp?). What I still stand by however, and I think I can say this and be charitable, is that given what Rev. Phillips has already written on this matter and about TT, and given the broader context of the debate, it is not unreasonable to draw certain implications from what Rev. Phillips posted here and I think those who post comments within the context of a debate should be aware that comments will be read in light of that debate. Dr. Clark’s initial response to Rev. Phillip’s addition to the quotation clearly shows that Dr. Clark made an inference about what Rev. Phillips might have been implying and, given the context, it was a reasonable inference. Rev. Phillips did not seem to think so in his subsequent response. Even if it was a mistaken inference, it was a reasonable one, especially since little or no explanation accompanied Rev. Phillips’ addition to the quotation. I then found Rev. Phillips’ explanation of what he meant by the addition rather general and vague, even for a blog comment.
Yes, that is my real name. I didn’t change it to that later. It has been a fun name to have. Anyway, I appreciate your reply. I think it is fair. I don’t know all the players here. I just saw some general statements tied to the sourced blog and wondered why someone would assume Rick Phillips had a bigger agenda. Given his reply to you, I retract my concern. Thanks.
Dr. Clark,
For my education, can you help me understand whether there is a connection between this disagreement between you and what I hear coming from the guys over at Ref21 regarding Tullian, and the argument that happened between Lane Tipton and Michael Horton regarding justification being the ground of union with Christ? The debate seems connected to me, but I am not familiar enough with all the nuances to be certain there is a connection, or what that connection might be.
I think its connected…
There may be a connection. A combox is not the place to try to trace it out but if you work through the many HB posts on union the picture may be clearer.
http://heidelblog.net/category/union-with-christ/page/1/
Fair enough.
Scott,
Thank you for your reply. Of course I am encouraged to learn that Tullian has made statements affirming the third use of the law, both in principle and in his ministry. I am genuinely happy to give him credit for it. It is for this reason that I have not written “Tullian is an Antinomian.” However, I do continue to have serious concerns about the tenor of many things that he has written, not least of which is his blog post on 1 John 5:2-3, which was made all the more significant by the context in which it was made, i.e., in the aftermath of clear concerns being raised about his teaching of sanctification. My concern, frankly, is not Tullian at all. May the Lord bless him. My concern is people who read these posts and may be led into a practical Antinomiamism because of them. As for Tullian, all that has been needed is a simply clarification, to wit, “Yes, regenerate Christians can and should obey God’s law in an increasing ways, by grace and through faith in Christ. And, Yes, it is good biblical practice to urge Christians to exert effort in their salvation, responding to God’s grace as Paul says in Philippians 2:12-13, and bearing fruits appropriate to our salvation as John teaches in his first epistle.” What a happy bunch of campers we all would be, given such an emphasis from him. The problem is that these simple clarifications have not been given but rather Tullian has dug in with rhetoric which might be easily taken by readers to suggest Antinomianism (the 1 John 5:2-3 post, for instance). This is why we are expressing concern about the soundness of what he has been writing.
By the way, someone on facebook posted an old ModRef or WHI piece by Mike Horton on Phil. 2:12-13. It was balanced in an excellent way. He said, “Let’s not deny the vital role of grace in sanctification and let’s not fail to realize that we are to exert effort in practical ways for our spiritual growth.” Contrast that with Tullian’s post on Phil. 2:12-13 and you will see why we are expressing concern.
Rick,
Is this the primary section in Tullian’s post on Phil. 2:12-13 that concerns you:
“In other words, remembering, revisiting, and rediscovering the reality of our justification every day is the hard work we’re called to do if we’re going to grow.
Similarly, in Colossians 1:9-14 Paul says: You will grow in your understanding of God’s will, be filled with spiritual wisdom and understanding, increase in your knowledge of God, be strengthened with God’s power which will produce joy filled patience and endurance (v.9-12a) as you come to a greater realization that you’ve already been qualified, delivered, transferred, redeemed, and forgiven (v.12b-14).
Sanctification is a grueling process. But it’s NOT the process of moving beyond the reality of our justification but rather moving deeper into the reality of our justification. If sanctification could be likened to our responsibility to swim, justification is the pool we swim in. Sanctification is the hard work of going back to the certainty of our already secured pardon in Christ and hitting the refresh button over and over. Justification and sanctification go together. To put it simply, justification feeds sanctification and sanctification must continually return to justification.”
If so, how would you define sanctification differently? I am not throwing this in to get in the middle of the debate, but to seek clarity. I find Tullian’s comment that remembering my justification IS the work of sanctification to be nearly as unhelpful as the Jones’ quote about works being necessary FOR salvation. I’m not convinced either author is pushing the error that they are being accused of. It seems like both are speaking with a lack of clarity. I am also not trying to say this is all about semantics. I realize there is a real debate, I’m just trying to get at what it actually is. Tullian’s charge that his critics are essentially saying, “the law provides the power to keep it,” was a strange charge. However, Jones’ calling Tullian an Antinomian also seemed a bit of an overreach. What is the heart of the theological and pastoral differences you see here? I ask as unknown pastor who is trying to learn. Thanks!
Rick,
I’m quite concerned about practical antinomianism too. I’ve gotten a fair bit of grief from my Reformed fellows for pressing the Reformed world on what Calvin, Ames, and Gillespie (among others) would have regarded as our practical antinomianism when it comes to worship. After all, most all of us in NAPARC do things every Sabbath in our services that the specifically rejected and denounced as Romish corruptions of worship. So, I’m a little puzzled by the relatively intense level of concern over Tullian when there are plenty of beams in our own eyes.
When you wrote, “At this point, we have to wonder how long The Gospel Coalition will permit this frankly false doctrine to continue on its web pages…” that would seem to indicate a significant level of concern with Tullian’s doctrine. That’s what “false doctrine” means, right? Now that Tullian has been removed from the TGC, do think that will ameliorate what you regard as the ill effects of his teaching?
Again, as I keep saying, this controversy seems like a difference of opinion over audience analysis and rhetorical strategy. I’ve had a number of conversations by email and no one is coming up with a smoking gun to show that Tullian is an antinomian. You seem reluctant to say flat out that Tullian’s an antinomian. Instead you write of “practical consequences” and things that cause you to “express concern.” What is the relation between “false doctrine” and causes for concern? Are they the same thing?
I’m still struggling to understand how a bad piece of exegesis has brought this level of fury (I can think of 4-5 blog posts that occurred in quick succession more or less condemning him).
It’s puzzling.
Regarding the question of whether good works are simply fruit and evidence, or whether there is more to it than that, Jones has pointed to the wording of Larger Catechism Q&A 32:
“Q. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.”
Doesn’t this indicate that last phrase, “as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation” indicate that holy obedience is indeed more than simply fruit and evidence?
David,
It all depends upon how one defines “way.”
Norman Shepherd defined it to mean “faithfulness.”
The Federal Vision defines it to mean “in by grace, stay in by cooperation with grace.”
How do you define it?
Here’s one take on that part of Q & A 32:
Scott,
Well this is the problem with commenting on blogs — it is hard to get off once you get on. But have entered a conversation it is only polite to finish it off. For what it is worth, I am frantically finishing work today before going to the beach with my family. So when I go home tonight, I will have to sign off or else I am going really going to have to face the law.
What I have called false teaching is the statement that 1 John 5:2-3 describes not what we must do but what Christ has done. I also believe it is false to teach that Christians are effectively unable to obey God by the power of His grace. I further think it is false doctrine to teach that it is legalism to deliver biblical exhortations and commands as if they are to be done by us. All of these things are the very things that have so many of us upset over Tullian’s writings. And, in my view, these are false teachings. Now, you may disagree with that assessment, but there it is. I would be delighted for Tullian to further clarify that he does not mean these things. But so far, after considerable critique from a wide range of people over the last two years or so, he has failed to do so but has dug in his heels. So we are unhappy about this and think what he is writing is dangerous to readers. While part of this is a matter of pastoral emphasis, Tullians’ writings in my view go beyond emphasis to describing the biblical and confessional doctrine of sanctification as legalism. I wrote a pretty long piece last night working through this, so I will just direct readers to Ref21 to read that.
The troubling nature of what Tullian has written has been made worse by the almost complete lack of constructive interaction with his critics. As Mike Kruger has pointed out, Tullian makes the same accusations and formulaic statements no matter what the critics are actually saying. I thought yesterday’s interviews were classics in this regard. Tullian said the issue is that we teach that the law conveys the power to keep its commands. Now that is a serious charge. Yet no one in this debate teaches this. So he is not listening — does he even read the actual critiques? It seems not, frankly — and he is not interacting in meaningful ways. In the last day or so, he has primarily disparaged the character of his critics (many of whom I would guess he does not actually know) and deflected the subject to the (admittedly horrible) SGM scandal. This is not constructive interaction and it has done nothing to alleviate the concerns regarding teachings of his that, yes, I believe are false. This does not mean that I hate him or think that he should be pilloried. I just think that it is false to teach that Christians cannot change so as to obey God and that it is a graceless legalism to exhort them to do so.
As for Tullian’s defenders, please do not be upset that on the one hand I express serious concerns over his writings but on the other hand stop short of making declarations about him personally. Isn’t this a distinction that should be observed? It is hard enough to criticize someone and to be criticized without it seeming personal. So please do not be frustrated that I cannot be goaded in making personal statements about Tullian, even though I have written strong things about my strong concerns over his teaching.
So that is it. I actually wish the media would leave Tullian alone for a while. This is really not personal but it seems to have become that way for him. I don’t really see what else I have to say about him specifically and I would prefer to do as little of that as possible, lest it seem that there is a desire to tear him down. I am only doing so here because questions have been asked. As much as possible, let’s keep this about the Scriptures and the doctrines in question and let’s be praying for Tullian — this is clearly a tough time for him.
I am sorry but I now have to go to the beautiful South Carolina coast and decompress with my family for two weeks. I have some related content that is going to be posted on Ref21, but none of it to my knowledge deals specifically with Tullian. I certainly hope not, anyway. Blessings, brothers.
Rick
Dr. Clark,
I don’t have a definition at hand, but I would certainly disagree with Shepherd and the FV, as their definitions (as you give them) are clearly inconsistent with the nature of the covenant of grace. But it seems clear to me, and this is what I hear Jones saying, that the Catechism here speaks of a necessity that is more than simply fruit and evidence. Are you comfortable referring to good works as “the way that God has appointed the elect to salvation?” If so, then I don’t know that you and Jones really disagree on this question of the necessity of good works.
David,
The $64,000 question is how do those works function: as ground, means (instrument), or evidence?
Which function, beyond evidence, would you or Jones have them perform?
Chad,
Needing to be brief, yes, I would define sanctification differently, in the way that WCF 13:1 puts it. And I would disagree with the statement that “Sanctifications is… moving deeper into the reality of our justification.” As David Murray pointed out some time ago in reviewing one of Tullian’s books, this is subsuming sanctification into justification. This is not a sound way of handling this issue. Justification and Sanctification are inseparable but always distinct. They are different but joined sides to salvation, the duplex gratia that comes through union with Christ. Just as we should not subsume justification into sanctification, so that our performance becomes the ground of our acceptance with God (more or less the FV horror — thank you Scott for your fervent opposition to that!), we also should not make sanctification merely reveling in our justification. That just is not what progressive sanctification is. Now there are many things that Tullian says that are excellent, although many of my problems in that post are in portions that you have not cited. But let me note that while it is true in an important sense that we already possess in Christ the entirety of our salvation, it is also true that we have not fully appropriated all this. I have the peace of Christ. But I certainly do not experience it fully, and I am therefore to pray, among other things, so that the peace of God would guard my heart and mind. That is not legalism. Moreover, I am holy in Christ. But Paul tells me that I still need to put on Christ and his holiness. So the definition being given to sanctification is one that not only neglects but actually polemicizes the practical transformation of the Christian’s life, whereas this is what should be emphasized when it comes to sanctification. Hope that helps to clarify my concern.
Rick,
When you have time…
I appreciate this clarification but I am unsure where exactly Tullian departs from any of these convictions.
Surely you don’t really disagree that sanctification begins with a deeper appreciation of our justification?
Does Tullian really “subsume” sanctification in justification?
Do you really believe that Tullian thinks that sanctification ends there?
I have read and heard Tullian to say the exact opposite to each of these things. This is why I am concerned that there is a lack of communication here. Perhaps that is due to miscommunication, suspicion, doubt, mistrust on both sides? I don’t know I don’t usually take refuge in claim that “they are talking past each other” but it sure seems like it in this case.
I understand that there was a conference a few years ago in Atlanta to discuss Tullian and some of these issues. It was by invitation only. Was Tullian invited?
Dr. Clark,
The $64,000 question is how do those works function: as ground, means (instrument), or evidence?
Which function, beyond evidence, would you or Jones have them perform?
Are those really the only options? If so, then it would seem that that extra clause in the answer to WLC 32 is meaningless. Works clearly don’t function as ground or instrument, but how about as means (to an end) or labor (for a reward)?
David,
Can you distinguish what you’re saying from what Norm Shepherd teaches?
Rick and Scott,
Thank you both for taking time to reply to my questions. I am deeply indebted to both of you for your writings and their impact on my thinking and ministry. Even in this discussion, your back and forth is helping to sharpen my understanding of law and gospel. Thanks!
I’m out of the house and thus without books, but I’ve just found the following Turretin quote online twice (quoted by Peter Wallace and Mark Beach). He speaks of the various functions of good works with respect to justification, sanctification and glorification:
[Good works] are related to justification not antecedently, efficiently and meritoriously, but consequently and declaratively. They are related to sanctification constitutively because they constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently and ordinatively because they are related to it as the means to the end; yea, as the beginning to the complement because grace is glory begun, as glory is grace consummated.
Robert Shaw, in his Westminster Confession commentary, lists eight functions of good works, the last of which is as follows,
8. Good works are essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven. Though they do not merit everlasting life, yet they are indispensably necessary in all who are “heirs of the grace of life.” Believers, “being made free from sin, have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”–Rom. vi. 22.
David R,
But again does a “prerequisite” mean a necessary condition for admission to heaven or as a necessary mark of true faith by which admission to heaven is granted? … as the 39 Articles state:
Scott,
I snuck away during packing. Let me answer your helpful questions:
1. Surely you don’t really disagree that sanctification begins with a deeper appreciation of our justification?
Actually, I do disagree with this, as I would have thought you would know given that I am a WTS union-with-Christ guy. Sanctification does not begin with justification or an appreciation of it. Sanctification begins in the effectual call of Christ and its effect of regeneration within me. Justification and sanctification are the dual graces that result from union with Christ through faith and both “begin” in him. This is why the new covenant promise in Jer. 31:31-34 and Heb. 8:10-12 can list sanctification first and justification second, as does Calvin in Book III of the Institutes. So no I would never agree that sanctification begins in justification or my appreciation of it. It is inseparably joined to justification, of course, through my union with Christ in faith, so that sanctification is never abstracted from justification (or vice versa). Having said that, I will certainly agree that my gratitude for the whole of Christ’s work and his benefits (justification is a vital one) is an essential motive for my sanctification.
2. Does Tullian really “subsume” sanctification in justification?
Yes, this is precisely what Tullian does (along with others) when he defines sanctification as “living out your justification.” I quoted him above as saying, “Sanctifications is… moving deeper into the reality of our justification.” This puts justification in the place of Christ! Justification is the forensic benefit of union with Christ and sanctification is the spiritual/transformative benefit. The relationship between justification and sanctification is that between twin brothers, not a master and his servant. So just as it would be wrong to say that justification is the status gained from your sanctification, it is also wrong to say that sanctification is living out your justification. As Tullian likes to say, we have here a category confusion. Now, if you said that sanctification is living out your union with Christ, that would be another matter. But Tullian absolutely subsumes sanctification as a subset and mere application of justification.
3. Do you really believe that Tullian thinks that sanctification ends there?
I do not know what Tullian thinks. I do know what he writes. And his writing does indicate that he considers the idea of living in obedience to God’s Word to be legalism.
Let me ask you a question about Tullian’s writing, in all sincerity. One of the posts that stunned me some years ago was when Tullian put up Steve Brown’s piece titled You Can’t Teach a Frog to Fly so Stop Trying (http://www.pastortullian.com/2011/07/25/you-cant-teach-a-frog-to-fly-so-stop-trying/). Tullian gave this as a great example of his teaching. In it Steve Brown gave this relationship: frogs can’t fly and Christians can’t stop sinning. “Preachers are supposed to keep people from sinning,” Brown wrote. To this, he said, “A number of years ago, I realized that I was, as it were, trying to teach frogs to fly.” Notice that the reason a frog cannot fly is that it lacks the ability to do so. And this is the description of the Christian? In what sense, then, is the Christian different from the non-Christian? What difference has regeneration made, if we still lack the ability not to sin in an absolute sense, just as frogs lack the ability to fly. According to Brown, unless I really misunderstand him, the non-believer is (in Augustine’s terms) non posse non peccare. And the believer is non posse non peccare. They are both “not able not to sin.” So how is the nature of the believer different from the unbeliever? So here is my question: Would you endorse this teaching? If not, do you see why we conclude from Tullian’s writings that he does not believe that Christians are able to do good works and obey God’s law (by grace and through faith in Christ)? I never thought I would read a Reformed minister write such a thing and I am still waiting for a retraction of this false teaching. Yes, it is false teaching to say that the Christian remains not able not to sin.
4. You ask about a conference in Atlanta that was about Tullian. It was not “about Tullian.” I don’t know if his name came up our not in any of the talks (it might have). Certainly, things that he says were mentioned. But the meeting was on the “contemporary grace movement” in general, including Sonship theology. In fact, I would say that more participants were concerned about Sonship theology than had heard about Tullian.
That group continues today as the Gospel Reformation Network. Check out our website: http://www.gospelreformation.net/. Here are a couple of videos with Ligon and me that may help explain our concerns on both sides of the equation. One is on the importance of being on the right side of the Marrow Controversy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0toqyCQbxNQ&list=PLzoy1HKod766DtEetkJBT2FpXEjtmyL_D&index=6.
The other is a general discussion of these issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5R1EFpf1m4&list=PLzoy1HKod766DtEetkJBT2FpXEjtmyL_D&index=4.
Thanks,
Rick
Rick,
I appreciate this.
When you have time:
I think I understand Dick Gaffin’s view(s)—they have developed over the years— of union but you can’t hold Tullian accountable for holding what is quite arguably a revisionist view of union. I’m utterly committed to what I regard as the historic Reformed view of union with Christ about which I’ve written in print and here on the HB and discussed in broadcasts and lectures. I’ve written a book and a few articles on the double benefit of Christ.
I’m sorry that I was not as clear as I should have been. When I said “begin” I was thinking existentially not theologically. I understand that our sanctity begins with union with Christ but as a believer thinks of the struggle with sin, must he not first reckon himself a helpless sinner redeemed by grace, united to Christ by the Spirit, through faith, and in light of those realities pursue the new life of putting to death the old man and the making alive of the new? Isn’t that how the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession (articles 23-24) speak about the relationship of justification to sanctification?
The Belgic clearly has a logical order between justification and progressive sanctification. John Fesko has defended this thesis at some length in print and I suppose you’re aware of that work. According the HC and BC, it is the justified who are being progressively sanctified. Yes, they are twin benefits, but as I’ve been demonstrating for years, the classic Reformed writers don’t speak of the duplex beneficium/duplex gratia (or as Luther called it duplex iustitia) as you’ve done (following Gaffin). When the Belgic says that good trees produce good fruit, it means to say that it is the justified who are being sanctified.
This is an extension of the earlier discussion. Don’t you want to be careful to avoid condemning the Heidelberg Catechism, which teaches that our progressive sanctification flows from our justification and mystical union with Christ? I believe the same logical order is present in the Westminster Standards too. In WCF 11.2, it is the justified in whom are wrought “other saving graces….”
There’s a logical order to the benefits.It is clearly taught in WSC 30:
The application of redemption begins with regeneration but notice how the Shorter Catechism speaks: “by working faith in us and thereby uniting us to Christ. According to the WSC we are not united to Christ by virtue of regeneration but through the sole instrument of Spirit-wrought faith. This is what is taught in WLC 66 & 67:
It is the regenerate who are drawn to Christ, how, as they are given new life they are given the grace of faith by which they apprehend Christ. This is what Berkhof says.
It is the justified who are being sanctified and the justified, in order to make progress in vivification and mortification must begin with the forensic reality of the declaration of righteousness. The gracious work of God in our lives is grounded in the gracious act of God in declaring us righteous in Christ.
How on earth does this way of speaking “puts justification in the place of Christ” as you say? Isn’t that hyperbole? I can’t see how that helps the discussion.
I think we may have a genuine disagreement here but I’m confident that Calvin, (and here) Olevianus, Ursinus, Perkins, Ames, Wollebius, Polanus, Witsius, Kuyper et al and more recently Venema, Muller, Billings, and Horton are well within the Reformed tradition. Have you read Muller’s critique of the Gaffinite view? I don’t think existential/mystical union is as difficult as it’s being made out to be.
Brother, were this true then you should not hesitate to call him an antinomian (and I’ll join you!) and further, you should do much more than call for his removal from TGC—which has no ecclesiastical standing of course— and prosecute him in the courts of the church. The PCA doesn’t seem to be able to do much with actual, live individual federal visionists but perhaps it can convict an antinomian?
I’ve discussed this with Tullian and I’ve read him to teach precisely what you’re claiming he denies. Both interpretations cannot be right.
Well, this is a bit of hyperbole but you’ve demonstrated that you’re not opposed to hyperbole so that’s a non-starter. So, we’re back to rhetorical differences.
What do you make of Heidelberg Catechism 60 when it says of the believer
and in Qs. 114–115:
A while back I wrote a three-part series on what I perceive to be a sort of creeping perfectionism in Reformed circles. Here’s the first part.
As I understand Augustine, Calvin (I agree with him on Romans 7!) even the regenerate will struggle with sin all their lives. That’s why they need to keep hearing the message of grace. Struggling with sin, failing, confessing sin, failing again, struggling&msash;it’s all discouraging and we sinners need the encouragement that the gospel gives. We are being renewed but, as the catechism says, even the godliest in this life have only a small beginning and I’ll be thankful for that grace. I get the sense, however, that some folks aren’t satisfied with that small beginning. I worry that I hear the footsteps of Wesley in some quarters.
The Christian is different from the unbeliever because, unlike the unbeliever, the wrath of God does not abide on him! That’s indescribably huge! God is at work but, as Marshall describes it, sanctification is a “gospel mystery.” God uses the gospel to work new life in us (HC 65) even when it is not easily perceptible. I trust the promises of God and believe his Word and, by his grace, in union and communion with the risen Christ, seek to bring my life into conformity with him and his holy law.
I’m confident that Tullian agrees with this. Has he been as consistently clear about progressive sanctification as he should have been? No. I’ve criticized him for that repeatedly on this blog, over the last few days.
Perhaps you’re not satisfied with my formulations either but I genuinely believe that what I’ve tried to articulate here and elsewhere is the Reformed understanding of justification and sanctification.
I will endeavor to get to know the GRN.
Jack, I would say clearly the former. I honestly can’t imagine how he can possibly mean the latter.
How many “good” works for admission to heaven? How “sincere” must the works be? How consistent? Are we measured according to the perfection of the Law or on a curve? David, this gets to be a bit of a sticky wicket…
Rick continues to nail the issues. I pray that TT will see the errors of his teaching on sanctification.
Rick,
I’ve appreciated that you have engaged this issue with Scott. We need more of this kind of back and forth. And you touch on what I think is at the center of this discussion/disagreement –
Rick: “I am a WTS union-with-Christ guy. Sanctification does not begin with justification or an appreciation of it. Sanctification begins in the effectual call of Christ and its effect of regeneration within me. Justification and sanctification are the dual graces that result from union with Christ through faith and both “begin” in him.”
As opposed to:
Berkhof: “The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.”
—Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 452.
Berkhof:
Isn’t the gospel/salvation essentially more a message about us objectively chosen to be redeemed in Christ, our eternal federal head/Surety/Mediator, than about what has temporally and subjectively happened within us, i.e. Christ in us enabling godly change? Not to pit one against the other, but priority…
Dr. Clark,
David,
Can you distinguish what you’re saying from what Norm Shepherd teaches?
It’s been a while since I read anything by Shepherd. As in recall, he makes good works necessary for justification, and I am certainly not saying that! And surely Turretin and Shaw, whom I cited above, are distinguishable from Shepherd, aren’t they?
Jack,
How many “good” works for admission to heaven? How “sincere” must the works be? How consistent? Are we measured according to the perfection of the Law or on a curve? David, this gets to be a bit of a sticky wicket…
Since good works are not the ground of admission to heaven I think you’re asking the wrong questions. But isn’t sanctification “essentially prerequisite” and “indispensably necessary” (Shaw’s words) for admission to heaven?
Shepherd teaches (I’m working from memory) that the passive obedience of Christ is the sole, but non-meritorious, ground of our entrance into the state of justification, but that our good works are somehow necessary for us to remain in that state and then eventually be vindicated (finally justified) in the final judgement. I hope that’s at least rough ballpark. Obviously, this is contrary to Reformed theology, which views the work of Christ (active as well as passive obedience) as the sole meritorious ground of our justification, with our works being necessary merely as the fruit and evidence of our faith. But Reformed theology doesn’t just speak of our works as they relate to our justification; it also discusses them as they relate to our sanctification and our glorification, because they are also necessary, in different ways (see the Turretin quote above) with respect to these benefits of salvation. At least that’s my take….
David,
Our good works are either the ground, instrument (means), or the evidence (fruit) of salvation. The Reformed doctrine is the latter. Shepherd made good works more than the evidence or the “is” as I keep saying (have you listened to the two episodes I did on conditions in the covenant of grace?).
I’m quite familiar with Turretin’s discussion of this. All he’s saying is that it IS the case that believes will produce fruit and sanctity (represented by good works) because they are believers united to Christ.
In his notorious 34 Theses Shepherd wrote:
I agree with this. Shepherd contradicted this but even in this discussion I have seen folks who would call this “antinomian.” Notice that Shepherd did not say “justify” he said “save” which is the broader category, which we all agree (I think) includes sanctification and obedience. Yet even Shepherd said that there is “nothing any man can do….” If Tullian had said this people would be calling him antinomian.
The corruption in Shepherd’s formulation begins to emerge more clearly in thesis 6 when he omits the word “alone” in is account of faith. It becomes even clearer in thesis 11:
Shepherd adopted a Romanist definition of faith formed by love. He turned “working” into “makes faith what it is” or “makes faith justifying.” This is why the Protestants were so adamant in saying that good works are never the ground (with which Shepherd agreed in the 34 Theses) or THE INSTRUMENT of salvation. Shepherd rejected the Protestant doctrine on this point. That rejection led him to teach:
Notice that he omits instrument. This is because he has already folded works into faith as the instrument not only of justification but also of salvation. Sanctification and works are our “covenantal response” and “the way” by which we “come into possession of eternal life.” There are critics of Tullian, who in this discussion, have adopted the very language that all the orthodox Reformed condemned. This doctrine was condemned by the synod of the United Reformed Churches in 2003, 2007, and 2010. Three times we adopted statements rejecting this doctrine.
Shepherd continued:
Contra Calvin and the Reformed, there are Reformed people today who adopt this view of Romans 2:13 and that should be quite concerning. The Reformed view is that, in Romans 2:13, Paul is prosecuting the Jews for thinking that they could, finally, present themselves to God on the basis of their works. Paul says: Go ahead. See how well you do.
In response, as I’ve seen in this discussion, some turn to the doctrine of congruent merit, that God imputes perfection to our best efforts so that they are able to contribute toward our final acceptance with God. This is a version of the Franciscan covenant theology that the entire Reformation rejected. Again, it was against this background that the Belgic spoke of goods works “fruit” and evidence of our acceptance with God and not any part of the instrument.
We can see Shepherd folding works into faith as part of the instrument of justification and salvation here:
Notice that he says “ground” but omits “instrument.” Notice too that he says that obedience is necessary for continuing in s state of justification. As Cornel Venema noted in his review of Shepherd’s Call of Grace (part of which I posted yesterday; did you read it?) Shepherd dispensed with merit altogether. This, of course, led him not only to deny the imputation of Christ’s merits but also our merits. Yet, in this discussion, it seems that some of Tullian’s critics think that they are safe in talking about our good works somehow contributing to our final salvation so long as they deny that they are meritorious. Well, the Franciscans and Shepherd denied their merit. Shepherd made them instrumental and it seems as if some of Tullian’s critics also want to make our good works instrumental to our final salvation.
Speaking of “final salvation” do we really want to fall into the trap of two stages of justification or two stages of salvation? There are not two stages of justification. There is only one. “Having therefore been justified…” God’s Word does not say, “justification therefore having been initiated.” I hope this isn’t controversial. If it is then we’re farther down the rabbit hole of moralism than I thought.
Salvation is a broader term than justification as it includes the outworking of justification in our lives in sanctification. There are not two stages of salvation. It’s not as if we are initially delivered from the wrath to come by grace alone, through faith alone and then later delivered through faith and works or through faithfulness. No, our deliverance from the wrath to come is by grace alone, through faith alone, in union with Christ. On this Calvin is quite clear in Institutes 3.2.
When, contra the Gaffinite view of existential/mystical union with Christ I assert that there is a logical order of justification and sanctification and between faith and its effects, I’m following Calvin (Institutes 3.3.1):
Repentance, the turning away from sin, the learning to hate sin more and more, is born of faith, it follows faith. Was Calvin an antinomian? Did Calvin deny union with Christ? Was Calvin weak on sanctification?
Back to Shepherd. Look what Shepherd does with our obedience. Having assumed a two-stage justification he teaches:
Again, he denies that our obedience is any part of the ground of justification but he teaches that it part of the instrument of our justification on the last two. He’s not only made two stages of justification but he’s included our good works into faith in that justification, which he has now conflated with salvation.
Do you see what happens when good works become more than fruit, evidence or the way it is? When they become part of the ground (which even Shepherd denies—not to say that he was entirely consistent with his denial) or the instrument (which he affirms) the gospel is lost.
When Shepherd says “continuing in a state of justification” he not only implied that we can lose our justification, a denial of the biblical and Reformed doctrine of perseverance but he also teaches that the “good works…done from true faith” i.e., “the new obedience” are necessary to retain what has been given. They are “necessary for salvation” which he rightly defined as deliverance from eternal condemnation. This was the doctrine of George Major in the 1550s, that good works are necessary for “retaining salvation.”
Shepherd juxtaposed “works of the law” with “good works:”
He thinks that by juxtaposing the two and by making good works Spirit-wrought sanctity, that he can fold them into the instrument of justification and salvation without harm. He even says “done from true faith,” which some critics of Tullian seem reluctant to say.
Shepherd explains:
Shepherd’s language of “the way of faith,” is how he teaches the Roman doctrine of faith formed by love. Shepherd quotes Calvin, as if Calvin taught Shepherd’s doctrine of justification and salvation through faith and works. He did not:
That’s from Calvin’s 1548 Commentary on Galatians 5:6. The reason that Calvin wrote those words is the Roman doctrine of justification and salvation through faithfulness or through faith formed by love. Was Calvin an antinomian?
The remarkable thing is that in two theses Shepherd actually mentions the very error that he teaches:
I don’t disagree with what you just written, although Shaw isn’t discussing sanctification, but rather good works as “essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven,” although the Rom. verse mentions holiness. Are you equating the two?
I think the Article on Good Works that I cited is consistent with Shaw, especially in light of the supporting verse he quotes –
Believers, “being made free from sin, have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”–Rom. vi. 22.
– i.e. even as trees necessarily have fruit (good works) as evidence of being trees born of the seed of a true and lively faith. So good works are necessarily present in believers unto their holiness or sanctification (I think Eph. 2:10 would be a companion verse) and the result is eternal life. And then Paul, in verse 23, further explains that,
For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
So, we have nothing pertaining to salvation and eternal life (Eph. 2:8-9 would corroborate) except that which is graciously given to us by God in Christ Jesus through faith, even our good works and holiness…
By the way, hope all is well with you…
David R, this last comment was for you in response to your last one to me. I thought I had hit the reply button…
Jack, I’m not equating good works and sanctification, but I think Shaw implies sanctification by quoting the Romans verse (6:22), which is clearly about that. I agree with everything you say here, with the caveat, again, that works (fruit) are functioning here not as evidence (of faith) but as means (to an end, glorification). I agree unreservedly with, and give a hearty amen to, your last paragraph.
We’re doing well, thanks! A little displaced, since the landlord just had our place reroofed, painted and termited so we had to evacuate for a couple of days. Hope you guys, and El Camino, are doing well. Regards to your better half….
Michael Horton:
– See more at: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/?s=works+means+evidence#sthash.ACRzLjPg.dpuf
Scott,
I’m taking a break in loading the Suburban, so I thought I would check in.
Well this is a substantive discussion and I am grateful for it. One thing happening here is that there is a such a wealth of riches in the Reformed doctrine of salvation and in the Bible’s teaching that there are multiple aspects worthy of emphasis. To a certain extent that is happening. You would put the center of salvation in justification where as I, yes, with the blessed Gaffin* and Ferguson my teachers, will put it in union with Christ. (This is what I meant at the point where you took me as being hyperbolic, which I was not. I hope this clarifies my point.) Essentially, I endorse the union with Christ teaching in Gaffin’s book “By Faith Not by Sight.” Union with Christ through faith produces the forensic benefit of justification and the spiritual benefit of sanctification. This is all pretty well-traveled ground, so I will not seek to debate these issues with you while my family is loading up for the beach.
What amazes me is your response to the Steve Brown quote. I do not understand how you describe my summation of his argument as hyperbole. What does that mean? Is this or is it not a fair assessment of what he wrote and of what Tullian heralded as typical of his own view? Moreover, I am somewhat dismayed as to your response. In responding to this teaching that Christians are the same as non-Christians when it comes to our nature and spiritual ability, all you could say is that we are different because we are not under wrath. This is the kind of thing that so troubles me and others. When the question is sanctification, you answer with justification. So you endorse Steve Brown’s teaching that Christians are not able not to sin? You cite the Confession at a point of its modesty when its says we have only the small beginnings. But the Confession clearly has a very robust doctrine of the godly potential of the regenerate Christian. Here is where I think that you, like Tullian, are denegrating the grace of God. Paul wants us to know the power that is available to us in Christ, which is the very power that raised him from the grave. As I read you, Pentecost was but a barely significant footnote to the cross rather than its intended telos in Christ’s first coming, that the promised Holy Spirit might come upon the people of God. Does the presence of the outpoured Spirit render us “barely able?” Does the present reign of Christ have only forensic implications? Praise God for the grace of Christ in justification, that sinners like us are delivered from the just wrath of God against our sins. But praise God as well for the outpoured and indwelling Spirit, for the reality of the new birth, and for the power at work within us so that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith and that we might be dead to sin and alive to God in Christ.
As I read Tullian, and your response, you would have us stand among the Corinthians with only the book of Galatians in our hands. I would prefer to preach Galatians in Galatia and Corinthians in Corinth — indeed, to preach both books to both cities, as it were. Both emphases are desperately needed today: the unadultered doctrine of justification through faith alone and an unashamed doctrine of sanctification for those who have been brought into union with Christ through faith.
Now, brother, please do not take any of that as rebuke. It is an impassioned plea not to denigrate the power of the Holy Spirit and the vital reality of the new birth for the sake of defending justification through faith alone. Justification does not need that defense and is not helped by the crippling of sanctification. Let me say in advance that there has been no hyperbole in anything I just wrote. I am sorry that I probably can’t continue this discussion now, but I hope you will charitably consider what I am saying (you have been quite godly in your responses, and I appreciate this.) Might there be merit in my concern? Are you reflecting the whole teaching of the New Testament in granting only a small amount of spiritual ability to the regenerate? Should you answer every question with the doctrine of justification? I mean all this sincerely and am glad that we are able to focus on theological concerns and biblical data. The Lord bless you.
Rick
*As you and I have discussed before, there has been no change in Gaffin’s salvation teaching. He just didn’t publish much of it before. Yes, I deeply regret his support of Shepherd, which horrified me and many of his supporters and which he himself realized was a mistake. We can’t all know everyone equally. Those of us who know Gaffin particularly well after hundreds of hours under his lecturing know well that his current teaching is not a revision. We wish that those of you who have not had the great privilege of knowing him well — no fault of your own — would drop this inaccurate meme.
Rick,
1. I think I’ve already responded to much of your latest in my reply to David.
2. I affirm and teach the transforming power of the Spirit in sanctification as a necessary consequence of justification and as part of the process (though no part of the ground or instrument of) salvation. We just recorded and broadcast 19 episodes of Office Hours explaining this very doctrine.
3. Dick Gaffin defended Norm Shepherd’s doctrine of justification through faithfulness from 1974-c.2002. He signed the OPC Justification Report that condemned the very thing he defended for decades. By definition brother, that’s a change. One cannot affirm A and then deny A and not change.
Scott,
Thanks for this. Would you be so kind as to answer directly my question about Steve Brown’s teaching. It may just be my inability — communicate takes work, as you know — but I am not clear that you agree that it is a major error to say that Christians are not able not to sin. I just want to be clear on that issue. Will you agree that he is dead wrong, because I think that you are saying that he is mainly right.
As for Gaffin, I am distinguishing between his public stances towards a person who was a colleague and friend on the one hand and his classroom teaching on the other. Since you are not aware of his classroom teaching, so far as I know, would you simply allow those of us who sat under him to give you the good news that he has always taught what he is teaching now.
But please do not let the Gaffin question keep you from giving me a reply with regard to Steve Brown’s teaching in the article that Tullian posted.
Dear Brother,
I have answered your question about Steve Brown. I quoted HC 60 and HC 114. Perhaps, in the flurry of interchanges you missed it or perhaps you don’t like my answer but there it is. I take him as using hyperbole. You take him as denying the possibility of sanctity. That doesn’t seem like a very charitable reading. We just disagree. I can live with that. Frankly, I don’t much care what Brown was saying but I do care about what you’re saying!
I think it’s odd that orthodoxy is now being determined not by one’s extensive public (and private) teaching on justification, salvation, faith, works etc but one the basis of how one evaluates others. So, if I take a different view of Crisp than Mark Jones, does that make me an antinomic? My my, the list of the marks of antinomianism is growing by the moment!
Perhaps you haven’t read all the primary documents in the Shepherd controversy? I have. Dick did not merely defend a colleague. He didn’t merely defend Shepherd’s right to his idiosyncratic formulations&mash;that was Ed Clowney’s position. Rather, he defended the substance and form of Shepherd’s doctrine of justification through faith and works until he repented of his errors. That’s a substantive change.
If a correct evaluation of Tullian and Steve Brown—honestly I don’t really know much about him beyond his name; I’ve just not had reason to pay attention over the years—is a mark of orthodoxy, then why isn’t a proper mark of Dick Gaffin a mark of orthodoxy?
Of course that’s not a useful way to proceed at all! What matters is what a fellow actually teaches, right?
I’m sure we agree that we must be careful not to allow this discussion to descend into parties and personalities.
Dear brother,
I do not know what has caused you to believe that I am assailing your orthodoxy or am calling you an antinomian. I have carefully avoided anything like that because that is not at all my intention. I think that we are actually farther apart than I had thought. For all the hyperbole, I was deeply grieved by the Steve Brown article, which also went on to mock preachers who exhort to godliness as covering up their own hypocrisy and sin. I cannot understand how this kind of writing can be applauded by any Reformed minister. But I do not mean it as a test of orthodoxy, just a discussion point to helpfully clarify what our concerns are. Thanks for answering, though. I think in all honesty I was trying to be charitable in avoiding the implication of your tacit endorsement of that article.
It seems that this is a good ending point to this discussion. We are now starting to repeat arguments without much interaction and I fear that you are taking this personally. Thank you for your hospitality in bearing with me here. Thank you for your ceaseless proclamation of justification through faith alone. I am wholly with you there and we are brothers in arms against the neo-nomianism of the FV. (Pray for us in the PCA as we continue to fight this.) I will let you have the last word and express my fervent desire that the things we have said have been a help to some readers and to us. I will think about everything you have said, taking it all in the best light possible, and I do trust that you will do the same for me. Seeking to understand, we may better be understood. Thank you and God bless you.
Yours in Christ,
Rick Phillips
Rick,
Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not taking this personally. I am, however, in conversation with dozens of people simultaneously (via Twitter, correspondence, and the blog). When I say that people are making the assessment of this one or that one a mark of orthodoxy I’m not referring to you.
It may be as you say, I can’t tell yet. I do think that the Shepherdite-Gaffinite reading of Romans 2:13 (how are they distinct? I really can’t tell) is right at the heart of this discussion.
You refer to me as a defender of justification, thank you but I’m ALSO just as fervently a defender of sanctification! I’ve spent as much time in the last several years trying to refute antinomians and to teach the Reformed doctrine of the logical, moral necessity of sanctification and the Reformed application of the moral law as I’ve spent on justification. I’m passionate about the 2nd commandment and the 4th commandment in particular, but about ALL of God’s holy law.
I’ve suffered a fair bit, as we say back home, not so much for defending the historic Reformed view of justification but for defending the historic Reformed view of the 2nd commandment!
Apparently you’re offended by Brown’s insinuations. I’ve not read the article and I’m not likely to do. I’m not tacitly endorsing something I’ve not read. I tried to react to the summary you provided. I’ve been at the computer since 6AM pacific and I’ve got a lot to do today. Please rest assured that I repudiate any teaching that belittles sanctity, that belittles exhortation to sanctity and obedience.
In fairness, I’ve asked you a few questions (have you read Muller’s critique of Gaffin, Fesko, Billings?) that you’ve ignored. I understand. You’re a busy man. I trust that you’ll extend the same grace to me.
May I ask another question: Do you affirm, with the Heidelberg Catechism (an ecclesiastical, Reformed, confessional standard and not the private (in the sense of lacking ecclesiastical status) opinion of an individual, that we are “still prone always to all evil”?
Another question occurs to me. In your defense of Dick, have you forgotten the Kinnaird case? (Phila Presbytery) OPC. In that case he defended an OP elder who taught explicitly a two-stage doctrine of justification and final acceptance with God partly on the basis of Christ’s righteousness imputed and partly on the basis of Spirit-wrought sanctity.
We are bothers in arms against BOTH the neo-nomians AND the antinomians.
Mark Jones makes it clear that our works continuing our salvation are consequent to justification.
Are acceptable works of obedience not consequent to our salvation? I’m thinking of Eph. 2:8-10. Here, Paul uses the word ‘saved.’ Or, are works necessary in order to continue (maintain) our salvation? If the latter, then how many works? How sincere? How consistent? If the obedience is not up to par then salvation may cease to continue? Must not the works meet the perfection of the law both externally and inwardly (the law recognizes no other kind of obedience)?
Good works or obedience, no matter how weak, do necessarily follow upon a true faith in Christ. But are not these acceptable works those which are a consequent effect of salvation which is by grace through faith in Christ alone rather than our works which continue our salvation? In other words the justified person is also the saved person and his works are acceptable because of that glorious fact.
“Though good works, then, are not necessary in order to procure or obtain a right to eternal salvation; yet they are the necessary duties of all who are justified and entitled to that salvation. They are the consequences of salvation already procured; and they are the antecedents which prepare believers for the salvation to be still attained.”
From John Colquhoun, Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, p. 294. I found his discussion of this issue helpful.
Amen!
David,
… double Amen… Obedience and good works are not optional for the justified sinner.
Pastors Clark & Phillips,
Thank you for engaging in this dialogue! Reading your exchanges has been very helpful for understanding what the issues are and understanding that this isn’t just about egos.
Another Colquhoun quote on how repentance does not become the right to the pardon we already have:
“How then can his repentance atone for his iniquities, or entitle him to the favour of God and to the happiness of heaven? How can that evangelical repentance, which he is incapable of exercising till after his sins be all forgiven on the ground of an infinite atonement imputed to him, make atonement for them? How can that true repentance, which he cannot exercise until in justification he be already entitled to eternal life, entitle him to eternal life? Does not the consummate righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed for justification, entitle the believer fully to it? What need is there, then, that his repentance should entitle him? How can that exercise of repentance which is the consequence of pardon, afford a previous title to pardon? or that which is a part of eternal life be a ground of right to eternal life?”
—John Colquhoun “Evangelical Repentance” (pp. 103-104). Monergism Books. Kindle Edition.
This book has been one of the best I’ve read on the subject of faith and repentance. It’s brought true healing to my heart. John Murray wrote a short biographical sketch at the beginning, too. Good stuff. Good minister.
This whole interchange was quite informative.
I wonder if Rick Phillips has considered the possibility of potentially belittling the priority of the doctrine of justification over that of sanctification? Shouting ‘Union with Christ!’ (a doctrine held by both sides of the debate) doesn’t resolve the existential confusion introduced by making sanctification a twin partner (who could potentially be stronger – in emphasis and practice) than justification. To talk about ‘benefits’ without order and priority is to do the very abstraction Rick Phillips accuses people of doing.
Sorry for my idiotic rambling. I am just a mere layman, who didn’t go to “WTS”, study with Dick Gaffin, et cetera, et cetera. I just know and love the Heidelberg Catechism which explains the Bible quite clearly to me: Guilt, Grace and Gratitude.
Another layman here, who agrees with your ‘idiotic rambling…’
Looks like Rick Phillips is no longer commenting here, but I was wondering how he would answer this: Has any Christian ever actually stopped sinning?
Yeah, those that have died and have gone to be with the Lord… So if the goal is to get sinners/saints to stop sinning as opposed to trusting more in Christ their savior… well? [I know, someone will object, “Jack, are you saying it’s OK for Christians to sin?”] No, but this side of glory sin is a reality in sinners, even those saved by grace. It’s a brick wall that can be chipped away at to some degree, but isn’t going away in this life. Thus the comfort of the gospel as we sojourn in this desert…
Thanks, Jack.
Still holding out hope that Phillips will respond here. May have to put another bug in the Ref21 ear.
In Louis Berkhof’s section on Sanctification and Good Works, I cannot find a relationship between spelled out about being MOTIVATED by REWARDS in our pursuit of sanctification. Am I missing something?
Berkhof: “Whatever their proximate aim may be, their final aim is not the welfare of man, but the glory of God, which is the highest conceivable aim of man’s life…” This is of interest because it does not speak to our motivation of rewards but rather to the end of God’s glory.
Berkhof: “Justification is the judicial basis for sanctification. God has the right
to demand of us holiness of life, but because we cannot work out this holiness for ourselves, He freely works it within us through the Holy Spirit on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to us in justification. The very fact that it is based on justification, in which the free grace of God stands out with the greatest prominence, excludes the idea that we can ever merit anything in sanctification.” Priority of justification (and the actual judicial basis) to sanctification. Also of interest that union is not the basis for our sanctification but something of a legal or judicial nature.
In today’s sanctification wars, this particularly caught my interest: “They spring from the principle of love to God and from the desire to do His will, Deut. 6:2; I Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:12; 29:13; Matt.
15:9. (3) Whatever their proximate aim may be, their final aim is not the welfare of man, but the glory of God, which is the highest conceivable aim of man’s life, I Cor. 10:31; Rom. 12:1; Col. 3:17,23.” None of this is centered on ourselves, our rewards, and putting those notches someplace where we are tracking our rewards.
Here is Berkhof in fuller context relating sanctification and good works.
I. SANCTIFICATION AND GOOD WORKS.
Sanctification and good works are most intimately related. Just as the old life expresses itself in works of evil, so the new life, that originates in regeneration and is promoted and strengthened in sanctification, naturally manifests itself in good works. These may be called the fruits of sanctification, and as such come into consideration here.
1. THE NATURE OF GOOD WORKS.
a. Good works in the specifically theological sense. When we speak of good works in connection with sanctification, we do not refer to works that are perfect, that answer perfectly to the requirements of the divine moral law, and that are of such inherent worth as to entitle one to the reward of eternal life under the conditions of the covenant of works. We do mean, however, works that are essentially different in moral quality from the actions of the unregenerate, and that are the expressions of a new and holy nature, as the principle from which they spring. These are works which God not only approves, but in a certain sense also rewards. The following are the characteristics of works that are spiritually good: (1) They are the fruits of a regenerate heart, since without this no one can have the disposition (to obey God) and the motive (to glorify God) that is required, Matt. 12:33; 7:17,18. (2) They are not only in external conformity with the law of God, but are also done in conscious obedience to the revealed will of God, that is, because they are required by God. They spring from the principle of love to God and from the desire to do His will, Deut. 6:2; I Sam. 15:22; Isa. 1:12; 29:13; Matt.
15:9. (3) Whatever their proximate aim may be, their final aim is not the welfare of man, but the glory of God, which is the highest conceivable aim of man’s life, I Cor. 10:31; Rom. 12:1; Col. 3:17,23.
Rick points to the order of the topics discussed in the Institutes as proof that justification is just one of two salvific blessings with no priority? But ignores Calvin’s explicit words?? Paleeese…
Calvin describes justification as “the main hinge on which religion turns.”
And note the final phrase of this quote: it’s centrality as the foundation upon which peity (can we say ‘sanctification’?) towards God is reared…
“The doctrine of Justification is now to be fully discussed, and discussed under the conviction, that as it is the principal ground on which religion must be supported, so it requires greater care and attention. For unless you understand first of all what your position is before God, and what the judgment which he passes upon you, you have no foundation on which your salvation can be laid, or on which piety towards God can be reared” (Institutes, III.11.1).