My doctrine of sanctification is the doctrine of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude and the doctrine of the Belgic Confession Art. 24.
We believe that this true faith, produced in man by the hearing of God’s Word and by the work of the Holy Spirit, regenerates him and makes him a “new man,” causing him to live the “new life” and freeing him from the slavery of sin.
Therefore, far from making people cold toward living in a pious and holy way, this justifying faith, quite to the contrary, so works within them that apart from it they will never do a thing out of love for God but only out of love for themselves and fear of being condemned. So then, it is impossible for this holy faith to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through love,” which leads a man to do by himself the works that God has commanded in his Word.
These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by his grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification—for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works. Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good in the first place.
So then, we do good works, but nor for merit—for what would we merit? Rather, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he who “works in us both to will and do according to his good pleasure”60—thus keeping in mind what is written: “When you have done all that is commanded you, then you shall say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have done what it was our duty to do.’ ”
Yet we do not wish to deny that God rewards good works—but it is by his grace that he crowns his gifts. Moreover, although we do good works we do not base our salvation on them; for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.
So we would always be in doubt, tossed back and forth without any certainty, and our poor consciences would be tormented constantly if they did not rest on the merit of the suffering and death of our Savior.
Nevertheless, I get the clear sense that there are Reformed and Presbyterian folk out there who aren’t satisfied with this doctrine.
As we continue to discuss the doctrine of sanctification, which I’ve done at length in historical research and in Recovering the Reformed Confession and on the HB, we need to get back to Scripture as confessed by our churches, we need to get back to our confessional roots. Regardless of what you might read elsewhere on the web, that’s what I’m trying to do, to promote the confessional Reformed understanding of the doctrine and practice of sanctification.
Friends and Readers,
I’m now shutting down comments. Since this is the HB, God’s Word as summarized by the Reformed Churches get the last word.
I’ve tolerated enough attacks on the Holy Word of God as expressed in God’s holy law. It comes to an end here.
Anyone who denies the abiding validity of God’s moral law first expressed in creation and then again at Sinai (temporarily) and then again by our Lord Jesus on the Mount and in the Epistles has contradicted God’s Word.
I’ll leave these comments as a memorial to the existence of genuine antinomianism.
I admit that, in battling the neo-nomianism lo these many years I had come to doubt whether there really were any real antinomians. I am rebuked and chastened. It exists. I think it’s small group and not, perhaps, the same threat to the faith as the moralists but they do share one thing in common: They are both rationalists.
The antinomians in this discussion know a priori what can be and what must be. They clearly do not submit to the word of Christ:
I am not a Judaizer. The Reformed confession is not Judaizing. We do not confess justification or sanctification through law-keeping but we do confess, in obedience to the teaching of our Lord the abiding validity of God’s Law. Eschatology does not wipe out creation. Progress in redemptive history does not obliterate history or redemption. Grace does not do away with law.
Dear Richard,
For Luther, justification is not static concept but actually a movement which DEFIES all human conception of progress. Papists want to combine ARISTOTLE with grace … so justification is a temporal, sequential movement from point A to point B – linear and progressive …
But for Luther, justification means DISCONTINUOUS movement … a transition between the OLD and NEW Adam that is COMPLETE by itself *and* also SIMULTANEOUS movement of the death of the Old and resurrection of the New Adam ….
IOW, the Christian is ALWAYS Old and New Adam one and the same time and space (to employ a philosophical phrase, “actus purus” — that is “pure act” re the *person* that is as he/ she coram Deo and coram mundo …
So, the New presupposes the Old (not in a philosophical way) and the Old implies the New (in a theological way) …
Dear Richard,
I also missed the following:
“I agree with you on the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law you identify. And going further, the paedogogue is both guardian and also teacher. Even as Christians we need to know how to express our ‘New’ life – eg we should contend for the truth but we should forgive our enemies not kill them. We need to know more clearly where it is that the power of the spirit is directing us. But, forgive me, I am concerned at your phrases ‘under the Law’, ‘we need its use’ (unless you mean its teaching role), and ‘toil’.”
We need the Law in so far as we are the Old Adam. The “already/ not yet” presupposes and implies two Adams, not one as Brother John insists. We are two inseparable but distinct persons – two “I”s … the closest analogy would be the Incarnation.
“I am in no way advocating anti-nomianism, but your phrases strike me (and perhaps John) as a form of backing off from our New life (of the Spirit – the playground) towards the safety of the Law life. In many ways we prefer the life of the servant, not of a son; appropriating the status of sonship is simply too bold for us.”
Again in so far as we the New Adam, we get to see “glimpses” or “previews” or “tumbnails” of the New Life here and now but always in conjunction with, in, under and through the Old Adam (“flesh and blood”). As it is, our spontaneous good works are done in the flesh (and forgotten afterwards).
The New Adam is the “inner man;” the Old Adam is the “outer man” — that we can see, touch, hear … hence FAITH … we are the New Adam only by faith ALONE. Intriguingly, we can only experience ourselves as the New Adam in all the senses OUTSIDE of ourselves (extra nos) that is via the Word in its oral and sacramental forms – the bodily word.
As the Old Adam we need the Law just as non-Christians do … no difference. The Law also expresses our humanity and solidarity with the rest of humanity.
“Surely it is not so much yes or not to the ‘Law’ but how we now view it. At this point, the words ‘handbook’ or guideline’ become darkly ambiguous. If some, like King David, can and want to say that the Law is their delight, then that is trule marvellous – I hope I will too. But when we start to smuggle in ideas like we ought to obey the law, or we ought to want to obey it, or surely we are grateful, or we ought to be grateful, then I hear hints of potetntial condemnation – but there is no condemnation…”
I am sure you are aware that for Luther, the Law is never a guide for sanctification. It is a guide for serving the neighbour. You’re right, our holiness is not derived from obedience to the Law but it is an alien righteousness which is completely divine. The notion of active obedience and acquired (earned) righteousness, i.e. human righteousness is foreign to Luther. But this is only a matter of intra-Reformational disagreement which has no bearing on justification by faith alone.
“Did not Luther say that we should preach the Law to Christians NOT because, as Christians, they can now go out and fulfil/obey it; but because, in their old man, they still need to see their sin and be driven back to Christ – because they CANNOT fulfil/obey it.”
Yes, Brother.
“PS – When Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount, He taught it, surely, as the last and greatest prophet within the Old Covenant. He showed the Law of God in all its awful (internal) significance. He certainly did not abolish the (old) Law but extended it. But He then fulfilled it all, and gave us a New Covenant at the Last Supper bought with His blood the following day. (Whether this is a re-establishment of the Creation Order, or the introduction of a New Order which transcends the all the old – I don’t know. I was unaware of the strength of Scott’s arguments on behalf of creation) ordinances.”
Luther says that the Law will be empty (lex vacuo) on the other side of the eschaton which is as good as saying no law at all. Luther did not subscribe to the notion of Law as an eternal order or will of God.
Dear Richard,
I missed your questions:
“1. How was Adam to know that bigamy etc were deviations from the creation order? (Many of the patriarchs were clearly unaware of or disobedient to these ‘laws’)”
Please refer to Matthew 19. Adam knew by the act of God joining him and Eve together. The patriarchs live in a POST-Fall world (again Matthew 19 – Moses and the hardness of heart) and with the entrance of the Law, the distinction between the 1st and 2nd uses.
“2. Secondly, surely the Mosaic code goes way, way beyond the creation/natural law?”
Yes, of course because of the two uses of the Law.
“3. And if God was content to withdraw, at least until the end of time, the vegetarian element of the creation order, then just how significant was the creation order?”
The significance lies in the fact that Law for ordering this creation … political use and physical laws (such the change in human diet and also the post-diluvian world) change, that is not eternal or immutable.
Scott
I can agree with almost all the Confessional statement. The part I find difficulty with is
‘for we cannot do any work that is not defiled by our flesh and also worthy of punishment. And even if we could point to one, memory of a single sin is enough for God to reject that work.’
I do not agree that any Spirit enabled activity is defiled by the flesh. It is good in itself and completely so.
It is not true that God rejects the good a believer does because of sin. The problem here is that this view of the believer considers him to be in Adam . It assumes a law-like relationship to God which is precisely what the believer does not have. The believer is in Christ. His ‘good’ is the product of a new nature and the indwelling Spirit. My relationship to God has nothing to do with complete obedience on my part. The whole idea of one sin cancelling out any good is predicated on a man being under law and obliged to keep the whole law, however, this is not the state of the believer. He is in Christ and righteous. He is not under law in any shape or form. though of course, he may learn from it as he views it in a redemptive-historical context.
“In other words: We lose not only “sola fide”, but also we step back from our confession of “sola scriptura” – these are manmade traditions then that we follow, human or “theological” rationalizations that serve only one purpose: To hold fast to an ordinance that is not what Christ has instituted, but sustains the system of a state church instead of a fellwoship of believers.”
Rationalisation is when one cannot accept that God saves infants; that infants can have faith imputed to them; that something so earthly and yet so alien such as baptism does save, that our faith is not in some mental or ideal flight into the heavenlies but a DOWN-to-earth humble event in this old creation which is really and truly a divine phenomenon – the very will of God the Father Himself from eternity …
IOW, God the Son hides His will or better His Person in the form of the very ordinary — just as the Lord of Glory was CRUCIFIED on the Cross as a criminal, imposter, etc.
This is the meaning of faith — faith in, under, with, and through the “form of opposites” (sub species contrario) or else it is not FAITH, but SIGHT …
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; …” (1 Corinthians 1:18-24)
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Dear Richard,
If an infant dies before baptism, then we ought as the BCP’s order of baptism puts it entrust everything to the mercy of the triune God. Luther would likewise counsel the same.
For a young person who died before baptism but obviously having professed faith, then he/ she is still saved by the preaching of the Gospel.
“Luther had his own struggle trying to proove that the infants had faith of their own in order to be rightfully baptised. He then fled to the theories of fides aliena resp fides infusa …”
Dear Brother, I’m sorry to disabuse you of your misconception. *Infused* grace and *infused* faith is foreign to Luther. He was thoroughly familiar with infusion alright … which is why he rejected it in favour of IMPUTATION (based on his readings of Romans).
“The idea that a sacrament can somehow replace hearing and believing is totally alien to the New Testament and a human or theological rationalization.”
Yes, one does not see (physically) the Sacraments; one HEARS the Sacrament by FAITH …
In baptism, one hears the baptismal formula …
In the Lord’s Supper, one hears the Words of Institution … “This is my Body broken for YOU …”
The words are not mere words … these are alien words which have no parallel or analogy on earth … exactly like the Incarnation = BODILY WORD.
Alexander,
You quoted:
“1Pe 3:21 which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; …”
Indeed, baptism NOW SAVE YOU. Baptism IS the answer of a good conscience toward God. Without baptism, our conscience remained captive or bound to sin, to the Law-way of thinking. In baptism, Jesus not our ego take the place of our conscience.
No, WE answer to the Gospel in baptism.
Dear Alexander,
Let me enlighten you. The HC belongs to the Reformed tradition. I’m a Lutheran. Let Dr Clark and the Reformed answer you on HC.
I am fully aware of this. I grew up Lutheran.
“Theology informs us of the “misalignment” between God’s will and God’s word aka predestination (Romans 9).”
I mean theology informs us of the distinction between God’s will and God’s word in Romans 9 where the “misalignment” occurs in the case of the non-elect.
Verse 4-5 talks about God’s word (Old Testament “proclamation”); the rest of Romans 9 talk about God’s will (“theology”).
Well, you said a lot about theology and orthodoxy, but did not solve the problem presented by the inherent inconsitencies of the HC. The HC comes close to “baptismal regeneration” (which was also the understanding of the Pre Nicene Church), and quotes verses like Mark 16:16 that tie baptism to faith in a quite logical order (first faith, then baptism – there is no exception to this in the whole NT!) – and then, in an attempt to save infant baptism from the consequences of all that has been said so far, they apply the OT-understanding of circumcision and the OT understanding of Israel (a people by blood and descendancy!) to baptism, thus in fact nullifying all that has been said about this sacrament.
I atually wasn’t referring to Luther, but strictly and plainly to the HC. Luther had his own struggle trying to proove that the infants had faith of their own in order to be rightfully baptised. He then fled to the theories of fides aliena resp fides infusa, saying the faith of the church ministering baptism gets (somehow) “unfused” into the babe, so it has faith of its own and can be baptised and thus born again. I sure hope you see that this kind of theology all but sound …
We must ask the following questions:
A baptized infants born again? – According to the HC defionitions of baptism: Yes
Are baptized infants forgiven of their sins? – According to the HC defionitions of baptism: Yes
Do baptized infants have faith and the Holy Spirit? – According to the HC defionitions of baptism: Yes
But we all know that this is absurd: Infants have neither sinned nor can they answer the Gospel in faith and repentance. the Question 65-73 in the HC can only be applied to believers baptism in order to make sense. And since they are all based ion scriptural defintions of baptism, the conclusion is evident: The biblical definitions of baptism do not apply to infants.
There is only one solution: None of these definitions (Qu 65-73) really apply to infants, BUT THEN: We have two different kinds of baptism, with different promises and different results. And this is clearly against Eph 4:4-6 where we confess but ONE baptism. This other kind of baptism is also nowhere described in the NT, a baptism that simply has the meaning of a blessing, a dedication, an offer of grace (Confessio Augustana IX).
In other words: We lose not only “sola fide”, but also we step back from our confession of “sola scriptura” – these are manmade traditions then that we follow, human or “theological” rationalizations that serve only one purpose: To hold fast to an ordinance that is not what Christ has instituted, but sustains the system of a state church instead of a fellwoship of believers.
“Another puzzle: How does infant baptism fit into the doctrinbe of predestination? Shouldn’t we wait until God calls and convicts aperson to saving faith”
Yes, it’s quite problematic when we see baptism (as in Lutheran Orthodoxy) and not just infant baptism as part of the ordo salutis. But as an eschatological event, the tension becomes not an intellectual/ philosophical/ abstract dilemma, but an existential paradox that describes real situations.
The purpose of baptism and indeed proclamation as a whole is to make concrete, particular, specific in the form of a promise “for you” here and now in the living present the Cross of Jesus Christ. As a historical event, the Cross is now theology (propositions). It has to be APPLIED to the elect because the Holy Spirit does not work without the “means.”
This means that the secret counsel of God is made known in proclamation (preaching, baptism, Lord’s Supper). But the overlap between eschatology (from another age or if you will, Judgment Day) and the present means one thing in proclamation and another in theology – the distinction between theology and proclamation.
From the perspective of proclamation, all who are baptised are elected, etc. This does not mean that the will of God can be resisted in the case of apostasy. The will of God remains in which case the word of God in its oral and sacramental forms becomes *judgment* (i.e. the distinction between God’s will and God’s word). Theology informs us of the “misalignment” between God’s will and God’s word aka predestination (Romans 9).
Dear Alexander,
You said:
“So, when it comes to baptism, sola fide is overruled.” Brother, I presume your statement here is aimed at the Lutheran conception of baptism, i.e. “baptismal regeneration.” I can only speak for myself as a Lutheran who does not adhere to Lutheran Orthodoxy.
Lutheran Orthodoxy – like Reformed Orthodoxy – hold to an ordo salutis/ order or steps of salvation. Baptism in Lutheran Orthodoxy is part of or at least implied in the ordo salutis. Here regeneration is distinct from justification, and separable from sanctification and glorification.
For Luther, we are elected, regenerated, justified, converted, sanctified and glorified all at once. Baptism as an eschatological event encompasses the whole of the Christian life’s earthly existence as well as “foretaste” of the heavenly life. Thus, baptism is/ is synonymous with salvation or to use the language of Paul in Romans 6, the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ.
To have faith in baptism therefore is simply to have faith in Christ crucified. As an eschatological event, the Cross and baptism are inseparable though notionally distinct. Baptism makes the Cross or the Person = Work of Jesus present in here and now, in time and space for YOU.
For Luther, faith is never faith in an intangible, ethereal, non-material, ideal things because for him it meant that our faith is just faith in ourselves. Extra nos means that our faith is ever outside of us – in the proclamation of the Word in its oral and sacramental form.
So, when it comes to baptism, sola fide is overruled. But what is then sealed by this sacrament? Let’s – please! – be consistant! There is ia a grave incoinstancy in the Heidelberg Catechism. Let me quote the relevant passages, to make it more obvious:
The first set of questions:
We are partakers of all benefits of faith, by faith only. The role of the sacraments therefore is to seal the faith the Holy Spirit worked in us by the preaching of the Gospel. There is a logical order in this: Hearing, believeing, sealing. This applies – Qu 68 – to both sacraments.
Now to the meaning of baptism:
It is of great importantce to understand that it is not the water that cleanses, but the blood of christ. Yet, note also the “seal” in Qu 69. The seal seals the faith, confirms the faith – so there must be faith to begin with. What else is containes in these two definitions: Repentance from sin (is implied) by the committment to a holy life.
Seriously: Can we be partakers of Christ without faith?
Let’s read on, please:
Again the power of the bood of Christ is stressed, so we don’t think the power lies in the water. Yet there is something happening in baptism. Baptism is a real cleansing: Our sins are removed and we are born again.
This is important: There need to be sins first (note: This is plural! This is NOT talking about the “original sin”, is it). An infant has not sinned, yet. Second: It is the New Birth, and this is highly significant: What did Jesus say about the New Birth?
We must receive Christ in faith in order to be born again as children of God. But Christ also said how this is NOT accomplished: Not of blood (descendency), nor the will of the flesh, nor the will of man. Without faith there is no regeneration, and faith – again Qu 65 – is given by the Holy Spritit and the preaching of the Gospel: Hearing – believing – sealing and regeneration. This is an irreversible (!) order.
If you take just these question 65 to 73 no one would even get the idea of infant baptism. All statements are clearly scriptural and provide a truly excellent definition of what baptism means and works in a believer.
An now camos a statement that overrules all of this, as soon as it comes to infants:
So why are infants to be baptized? BASED on an OT-interpretation of the New Birth! The circumcision of the heart or of Christ that requires faith and repentance is equated with the cicumcision in the flesh which requires no faith at all. This is “regeneration by descendancy” – without hearing the Gospel, without beliving it, without commitment to sanctification, and yet “all the benefits of faith” should be taken for granted? Even when not even the parents believe in Christ? Even when all witnesses are mockers of God’s Holy Name? Even when the Pastor or Priest himself, spoiled in a liberalö seminary, does not believe anymore in Christ’s divinty and resurection?
Don’t you see how nonsensical this is? We have a splendid definition of baptism and the sacraments above. Now all of the benefits of faith come without faith. Well, do you serve the Lord’s Supper to the babes? Why not? The orthodox churches are at least consistent in their theology: They believe the same about baptism and baptize infants, thus they (stubbornly!) insist they are born again and have the Holy Spirit and serve them the Eucharist as well.
But since this is not the case in the Protestant churches, they testify unto themseves that a baptized infant is not really born again and does not have the Holy Spirit. So when does the Holy Spirit come after all? Hm, revivalist movements invented the “sinner’s prayer”: You hear the Gospel, pray, get a warm-fuzzy feeling and conclude that based omn these emotions they are now born again! Where is the scriptural promise for this? And how is this brought in line with their own catechsims who tie the new birth to baptism?
To me this all looks like a messed up theology. You remember Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic verses”? Qu 74 in the HC might very well fall into this category. You need just look at the fruit, brothers. Judge the tree by its fruits!
Again Qu 65 to close it:
(I’ll gladly read the other links provided to me, but I decided to start with a plain reading of the catechism first)
Another puzzle: How does infant baptism fit into the doctrinbe of predestination? Shouldn’t we wait until God calls and convicts aperson to saving faith?
Dear Richard,
You wrote:
“I was baptised (‘christened’) as an infant for social reasons, of unbelieving parents, probably by an unbeliving Anglican priest, and in front of unbelieving witnesses. After a life of ardent atheism, I became regenerate in my mid-30s. I have not wanted to undergo credobaptism which I would see as an addition to (my) faith.
What is my status ?!”
My personal opinion would be you didn’t need to be re-baptised, brother. I would consider you regenerate at the time of your Baptism. As a Lutheran and also an Anglican (Church of England Continuing), SEQUENCE is irrelevant.
Baptism is an eschatological event in which the Triune God in Jesus Christ breaks into, breaks through the old creation – of sin, alienation, etc. from another world, aeon/age, “dimension” to reclaim lost sinners.
Baptism *is* the new life because the event encompasses the whole of the Christian life, which is why Luther is known exhort Christians to return to Baptism.
Seen in this way, Baptism is not a response to grace but is grace itself. That is, Baptism is the GOSPEL (in its sacramental form).
Thank you, and I agree. But what if
(i) I had not been christened/baptised, or
(ii) I was not sure whether or not I had been?
[I am still grappling with Luther’s view of Baptism]
“Seen in this way …” – but this is in contrast to 1Pe 3:21
“Interrogation” (ASV) or “answer” (KJV) are translations of the word ἐπερώτημα which also has the meaning if “inquiry” – depending on how you interpret the genitve case if the good conscience, we can read also (as good German translations do): “an inquiry for a good conscience” (genitivus objectivus). Either way, you cannot cut out the response orthe inquiry.
Throughout all of Acts, baptism was the response to the PREACHED Gospel. The idea that a sacrament can somehow replace hearing and believing is totally alien to the New Testament and a human or theological rationalization.
Infant initiation into the covenant community DOES indeed require faith on the part of the infant. Because, the New Testament refers to New Covenant infants as new believers who suckle the milk of the Word and who, as yet, are unable to handle “strong meat”.
Then, notice how, not Abraham Himself, but his spiritual Seed becomes, in the NT, the paradigm for the Christian in Rom 5 and Gal 3-4. Therefore, those united to the Seed through living faith receive, not a bloodless wet circumcision of the flesh, but the circumcision of their hearts, made without hands by the Spirit, and are thus the proper candidates for the sign of water baptism.
No amount of Law code can ever restrain, correct, or renew the heart of unregenerate man. In fact, the more Law you give him, the more he thinks he can do it. This is the sinister nature of the Law’s function as a ministry of condemnation and death. It kills a willing victim.
But the new man who is filled with the Spirit of God needs no Law code for the regulation of His heart, for the love of Christ controls him.
is this a comment on my post, or something else?
I must digest your paras 1,2
I totally agree (for what it’s worth) with your para 3
I hesitate on your para 4 since it can lead to charismatic excess. Do we not need the scriptures to educate us (objectively, as a paedogogue) on what God’s delightful Will is. Even Adam needed the spoken Word
for Scott and Jason if I may
I was baptised (‘christened’) as an infant for social reasons, of unbelieving parents, probably by an unbeliving Anglican priest, and in front of unbelieving witnesses. After a life of ardent atheism, I became regenerate in my mid-30s. I have not wanted to undergo credobaptism which I would see as an addition to (my) faith.
What is my status ?!
Dear Alexander,
There’s no need to refer to both Jasons. By doing so, youre’ implying that there are two DIFFERENT Jasons for the purposes of this post. AFAIK, there’s only one, i.e. yours truly.
And yes, your question: “Aren’t we are back at Luther’s old problem here: Does the infant have faith?” is certainly valid. But not exhaustively or exclusively so since the Reformed and Anglican traditions can also speak of corporate faith, i.e. faith of the sponsors as well as the congregation on behalf of the baptised infant.
“Could it possibly be that the basic requirements for baptism are simply not met in infant-baptism?”
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you. But not just re infant baptism, but also credobaptism. For Luther, baptism is a matter of faith, not obedience. Just as not all who hear the Gospel have faith, likewise not all who are baptised have faith.
“So although we speak of and treat each other as “new creatures” we actually are not – we are not simul iustus et peccator – we are simply not justifoed until we repent and believe in CHrist! But this means we are not born again either, because justification by faith and the new birth are two aspects of the same saving event! ”
The logic of infant baptism in the Reformed tradition is the logic of the covenant which means God does not only save individuals but families also. For an infant therefore, it doesn’t matter if there’s profession of faith, since the infant is part of the covenant family/ household which faith is confessed and professed by the head of the family/ household.
The logic of infant baptism in the Lutheran tradition is the logic of eschatology. Meaning that baptism is not an event like OT rituals but an event in which God breaks in from another age/ aeon/ dimension. So it doesnt matter if infants can profess faith since time and space become irrelevant in Baptism.
Thus, whether faith precedes or succeeds baptism for the infant, it doesn’t matter. This is especially so when infants are the pre-eminent figures of entry into the New Testament community of the Kingdom of God.
Alexander,
Infant initiation into the covenant community does not require faith on the part of the infant. It never has. When the Lord established infant initiation (Gen 17) he did not establish faith on the part of the one being initiated as a condition. Rather, he established faith on the part of the one doing the initiating! Then, notice how Abraham becomes, in the NT, the paradigm for the Christian in Rom 4 and Gal 3-4 and in John 8.
Take a look at these resources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSbWVClZS24
http://heidelblog.net/2007/08/ishmael-and-infant-baptism/
http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/a-contemporary-reformed-defense-of-infant-baptism/
http://rscottclark.org/2011/01/on-the-new-covenant/
Dear Nick, Brother,
Your point is well taken. As Dr Clark pointed out, our Lord in Matthew 19 did not point to Himself but simply to creation – “natural law” – which was republished and restated in Moses’ 10 Commandments. Sexual ethics has its origins in creation order and the creation order is regulated by the Law as summed up in the Ten Commandments. Bigamy and polygamy are deviations from the creation order — as is same-sex unions.
Jason
1. How was Adam to know that bigamy etc were deviations from the creation order? (Many of the patriarchs were clearly unaware of or disobedient to these ‘laws’)
2. Secondly, surely the Mosaic code goes way, way beyond the creation/natural law?
3. And if God was content to withdraw, at least until the end of time, the vegetarian element of the creation order, then just how significant was the creation order?
Adam did not have the ten commandments in any form before the fall. The word adultery would have been meaningless to Adam (he had only Eve). Adam did not have an independent moral conscience. He received this at the fall when he gained the knowledge of good and evil. In this sense the Law is not simply a restatement of the Adamic covenant. The law pre-supposes the presence of sin. Adam had no sin, no inner code warning alerting him to sin, he had simply a word from God which childlike he was called to obey.
John,
This is EXACTLY wrong! “The day you eat thereof you shall surely die” contained the entire law. James says explicitly that when we break one law we break them all. Adam and Eve were to procreate. Of course adultery was a possibility. What are talking about?
In your desire to obliterate the law you’ve taken a radically sub-Christian position. This is a matter of catholic, universal truth taught by the entire church since the earliest days of the 2nd century.
This sort of talk is extremely distressing.
Hi Scott
I know you will not agree with this. Let me say my desire is not to distress you. I commend your strong feeling and jealousy for what you believe to be true and important. I prefer this to arguing for for sake of arguing. I understand your dilemma as to what comments to allow on the blog. I understand the desire not to allow a platform for false teaching.
Personally, although we disagree on this matter, I don’t consider our disagreements as matters of primary truth, though I think them important.
Blogs have a difficulty – do we allow open discussion in the belief that iron sharpens iron and that truth will triumph or do we put a fence around what is written. There is probably no right or wrong and each must do what his conscience dictates. On the whole I see blogs as ideal ‘public squares’ or ‘corridors’ where different views may meet and discuss. Having said this, if someone was continually opposing something I believed fundamental I may well wish him to be silent.
In terms of ythe issue itself, ‘he who breaks one point of the law breaks all’ would indeed be true if Adam had such law. My point is he had but one command, not to eat of the forbidden fruit’. In fact, I think the ‘but one command’ is important in terms of the theological narrative. The narrative I believe teaches that God tried Adam with only one command yet he fell. It stresses the generosity of God and the culpability of Adam who failed in such a simple test. God was not making it hard for Adam but easy to obey, yet he didn’t.
Only after the fall does Adam have a moral self-awareness and ‘the work of the law written on his heart’.
You know, of course, that while I argue the law was given to Israel and only Israel was ever ‘under law’ (gentiles (those who have not the law) in Roms 1,2 are accused not of breaking the law but of failing to acknowledge who God is and obeying the voice of conscience).
Of course, I believe we can learn from the law as we can learn from all of Scripture. I believe too there are imperatives in the Christian life. I find I am generally the one arguing for Christians pursuing holiness in old-lifers blogs. Without practical holiness no man can see the Lord. Thus while I am ‘technically’ antinomian I am by no means antinomian in any moral sense of the word – I am under law to Christ.
Anyway, there it is.
PS
There is a certain irony that on the one hand old-lifers brand me as antinomian (because I insist that the believer is not under law in any shape or form – if we were we would all be culturally Jews) and at the same time they call me a legalist (because I argue that we are called to a life of godliness and holy living and insist faith is expressed in obedience and love).
Dear John,
Yes, I agree with you. But we are also the Old Adam. On this side of the eschaton, the Old Adam remains in existence just as the old creation remains in existence.
We are not yet taken out of this aeon and yet by *faith* alone we have already been translated into New Aeon — “already/ not yet.”
We are still sinful and experience sin on a daily basis – “omission & commission” – thought, word, deed … as such we remain imperfect although by faith we are perfect in Christ. Hence, in so far as the New Man is concerned, we have the law written in our hearts by *faith*; in so far as the Old Man is concerned, we still need the Law … which functions *externally* in the forms of the 2 uses of the Law.
Brother, you appealed to the outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost … yet Peter who preached on Pentecost continued in his old religious outlook and habit of segregation from the Gentiles, the ritual allergies/ inhibitions, etc.
The embryonic church in Jerusalem also had to convene an assembly to decide on ritual matters.
The epistles contain Pauline warnings against typical human sins such as malice, bad temper, lust, sexual immorality and yes, even apostasy. There is no indication that Paul made a distinction between Spirit-filled and non-Spirit-filled Christians since his epistles were naturally to Christians.
Jason
.Yes, I agree with you. But we are also the Old Adam. On this side of the eschaton, the Old Adam remains in existence just as the old creation remains in existence.
We are not yet taken out of this aeon and yet by *faith* alone we have already been translated into New Aeon — “already/ not yet.”’
But Jason you agree we are to live by faith. Faith means that we believe what God says. Indeed to the extent we actually do live by faith we will always live as those of the new age for faith is life in the new age now. Scripture never allows believers to speak or think of themselves as ‘in Adam’ or ‘in sin’ or ‘in the flesh’ or ‘under law’. We are always ‘in Christ’ ‘in the Spirit’ ‘under Christ’. We have the flesh in us but we are not in the flesh. To be in the flesh is to be under its power and control. This is not true of one who lives by faith. We may of course make it so just as we may put ourselves ‘under law’ but this is a lack of a true grasp of the gospel, a lack of gospel faith.
But Jason, if you are *in* the New Adam by faith – having been baptised into his death and resurrection, then you are a New Creation!
The old (Adam) has passed away; behold, the new has come! (2 Cor 5:17). Why then do you place yourself under the Law of the old Adam, when you have now received the Law of the New Adam . . . the Spirit, now written upon the tablets of your heart?
Nick, you are reading Christ backward into the Law, and thereby bringing the saints back under bondage to condemning law code. Instead, read the Law as that which pointed forward to Christ. He is the true substance, definition, meaning, and fulfillment of all the Law and the Prophets.
John,
You haven’t explained our Lord’s appeal to creation in Matt 19 nor to creation re “the sabbath was made for man.”
Hebrews 12 teaches that JESUS gave the law & in Matt 5-7 he re-stated it.
Your hermeneutic was rejected by the fathers, medievals, & reformers. It’s really shocking. I tell my students that views like yours exist but they think I exaggerate. I’m glad to have this exhibit but this is enough.
You may answer questions but I won’t have heresy against the Christian faith promulgated here. Keep it up and I’ll ban you.
@ both Jasons
Aren’t we are back at Luther’s old problem here: Does the infant have faith?
Seemingly all who are “baptized” are viewed as “regenerated”, as being “in the New Adam” – but we wonder why so many struggle with the reality of the new Birth. Could it possibly be that the basic requirements for baptism are simply not met in infant-baptism?
So although we speak of and treat each other as “new creatures” we actually are not – we are not simul iustus et peccator – we are simply not justifoed until we repent and believe in CHrist! But this means we are not born again either, because justification by faith and the new birth are two aspects of the same saving event!
Obviously many are still in sin and consequently under the Law; at least until they come to a living faith (and then it is still an open question whether God accepts the infant baptism – I see no reason why he should; because this is something the church made u0p and not that He ordained).
Something is quite wrong here, isn’t it?
John,
The point I’m making is that “I would not have known what sin was except through the law” (Rom 7:7). The law gives shape to sin and defines it. Without it, we wouldn’t have know what punishment Christ was bearing, i.e. the curse of the Law. Sure the grace of God in Christ teaches us to say no to unrighteousness (Titus 2:12), but how do we know what unrighteousness is?
Nick – yours of 8 Jan 0537 and 0756 hrs
1a. Yes, the law defines sin (ie teaches us about sin but also it teaches us we ought to say no – just feel its condemnation for a second!). Yes, it also gives shape to sin, condemns us, and indeed brings forth sin in sinful man. So it is not in fact grace that teaches us to say no to sin (the law has already done that)
1b. The purpose of grace is instead to free us from the ‘obligations’ of the law (not in an antinomian sense); from its condemnation; and from its deadly consequences. Instead grace gives life unconditionally and, with a maturity I do not have, gives a desire for the law.
1c. I am therefore hard pushed to say, as I think you suggest, that it teaches in the usual sense of that word. You quote Titus but arguably that verse means that grace ‘disciplines’ us which means it leads us or drives us into holiness, which it does – indeed this is its ‘new life’ purpose; only grace can bring new life whether relatively smoothly or through painful discipline.
2a. I totally sympathesise with your puzzlement when you were told you were not a believer but nevertheless should be sexually pure. Why is it that youth workers (and others) are more concerned to elicit correct behaviour than to use our total sinfulness (including the behaviour we simply cannot achieve – lust of the eyes, covetness, anger) to drive us to the mercy of God.
2b. But even if they had told you about bestiality and incest from the OT, that would have done you few favours. It would have implied that you had now come aboard. They should be telling you not about the sins you had no intention of committing, but of the sins that you were committing minute by awful minute (or at least such is the case with me).
3a. The NT doesn’t need, or intend, to tell you about cussing with Jesus’ name. If it did so, it would reduce salvation to a set of laws. The NT introduces you to the most beautiful person in the world. As you realise this, and why the crowds followed him everywhere, cussing in His name simply becomes more unsatisfactory, more dissatisfying, more purposeless, more unnatural. Similarly bestiality – the more one realises that relationship is at the heart of everything, the more you realise that bestiality is simply sex with the relationship stripped out of it – a bizarre fleshly parody. So I suppose, in your terms, I am saying you pick all this up slowly in some nebulous fashion from being ‘in the Spirit’.
4a. I think by ‘ambivalence to the law’ you are suggesting antinomianism. Ambivalence is a pejorative term. I am suggesting single-minded focus on that beautiful Person and the rest will follow. Then you are abiding in Him – do not grieve the Holy Spirit by returning to the Old way (Hebrews)
4b. We do not need a Christocentric application of Moses, as much as a Mosaic set of spectacles on Christ – loosely speaking
Forgive me the lecturing style!
Nick
‘The point I’m making is that “I would not have known what sin was except through the law” (Rom 7:7). The law gives shape to sin and defines it. ‘
Paul is not saying here that he new of coveting only through law but that he knew through the law the strength and power of coveting. Conscience tells a man that coveting is wrong. However when we take what we instinctively know and turn it into a law then we discover that far from helping us to obey it we want to break it all the more. Thus law gives a sense of the real grip sin has in the Adamic heart.
Paul is speaking not of individual sins but sin as a personified power.
Rom 7:7-12 (ESV2011)
Rom 7:7; What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.”Rom 7:8; But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.Rom 7:9; I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.Rom 7:10; The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me.Rom 7:11; For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.Rom 7:12; So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
“How real is the death, Paul speaks of in Romans 6 and 7 and 8?”
As a Lutheran, I believe the death which Paul speaks of in Romans 6 is real, not metaphorical.
Both Reformed and Lutheran can agree that death is no mere metaphor. At the very least, something *happens* to the baptised – whether in Baptism or alongside Baptism.
The death of the Old Adam and the resurrection of the NEW ADAM is real. The New Adam then presupposes and implies the Old Adam.
Jason
In Christ, and in his death, God has taken us out of Adam (though Adam, the flesh, is still in us). We share in his resurrection life and position in God’s right hand. This is firstly a judicial or positional or existential reality. In terms of internal difference we have a new life (a new nature) and the indwelling Spirit. The moral implications are a) that we seek things above for that is where our life and heart and destiny lie b) we have inclinations and longings for holiness for that is the essence of the divine nature of which we are partakers c) we can overcome sin and live holily for the indwelling Spirit empowers us to do so. He also enables us to put to death Adamic temptations. d) all of these are realized presently by faith.
On baptism and HC 74
Dear brother! Baptism is tied to many aspects of the Gospel: the response to hearing the Gospel, the repentance from Sin, the washing off of guilt, the good conscience, the New Birth, the circumcision of the Heart.
What HC74 does, although I fully agree with all the preceding articles on baptism and the sacraments! – is confusing the shadow with the body.
It is true, that the circumcision commanded to and practced by Abraham involved children, or to be more precice: Sons. But what was the result of this? A people of God according to the flesh and not according to faith. The huge difference between this covenant and the New Covenant is that being born of God is no matter of human descendency at all! It is about the circumcision of our hearts that comes through faith and repentance in the washing of regenaration (i.e. baptism). The Israel of God is the fellowship of believers – THEY are the true sons and daughters of Abraham! – not of those that are merely born into a fellwoship of humans naturally. HC 74 is in direct contradiction to the wole message of Galatians, introducing a bloodless but nonetheless Jewish circumcision into the church of the New Covenant!
Infanft baptism rules out faith – that is tied to baptism in Mark 16:16
Infant baptism requires no repentance – as is required in Acts 2:38
Infant baptism does not wash off sins, since the infant hasn’t sinned yet – but it is cleansing from sin in Acts 22:16
Infant baptism has nothing to do with the New Birth – and yet baptism is the washing of regeneration in Tit 3:5
Infant baptism meets not one criteria by which baptism is defined in the NT.
What is the fruit there of? Denominations whose vast majority of their members are unregenerated. Worse: They even have a vote in the denomination! Consequence: Increasing worldliness and liberalism, and no church discipline at all.
I am really puzzled how this can be defended from scripture. But here lies the danger when we elevate human and historic confession over the Word of God.
Alexander Basnar/Vienna, Austria
Dear John,
As a Lutherite/ Lutheran who follows Luther rather than the confessions, I agree with you about the Law on the other side of the eschaton. I appreciate your conviction, passion and eschatological vision. But on this side of the eschaton, I agree with Dr Clark and ORE. Christians are still under the Law re the Old Adam. The Law still accuses us of sin (2nd/ theological use) and in reality, we *are* under the political use of the Law (1st use), and we *need* its use as well in our vocation. In short, we still sin, err, and live the Christian life (i.e. life here on this old creation) grudgingly not in continuous spontaneity. IOW, life here on earth remains both a playground and toiling ground.
It is a PARADOX: We just cannot escape from the Law and yet Christ is the end of the Law to all who believe.
I don’t know, but doing away with the existential paradox may have some practical implications if your teaching (highly commendable though it is to a certain) enjoys a large following, i.e. in the context of a communal setting. (Some of the Anabaptists held to your views which is why they established “communes” and sought to withdraw from earthly kingdoms).
Thus, as Luther said, it’s impossible to erase the Law on this side of the eschaton.
I do apologise for any unnecessary offense caused.
Thank you for your attention.
How real is the death, Paul speaks of in Romans 6 and 7 and 8?
– – Dr Clark
Please do not ban John – I have found your exchanges seriously and beneficially illuminating
– – Jason
IMHO, as I read them, Scott and John both accept the now/not yet, the simul justus/peccator and the Old/New coexistence. John is very usefully reminding us of the ‘New’ and its glories (your ‘playground’). Scott is warning against ORE and deadly historic attempts at living that out. I see this as different emphases, paradoxical if you like but not inconsistent (Scott – please do not ban me!)
I agree with you on the 1st and 2nd uses of the Law you identify. And going further, the paedogogue is both guardian and also teacher. Even as Christians we need to know how to express our ‘New’ life – eg we should contend for the truth but we should forgive our enemies not kill them. We need to know more clearly where it is that the power of the spirit is directing us.
But, forgive me, I am concerned at your phrases ‘under the Law’, ‘we need its use’ (unless you mean its teaching role), and ‘toil’.
I am in no way advocating anti-nomianism, but your phrases strike me (and perhaps John) as a form of backing off from our New life (of the Spirit – the playground) towards the safety of the Law life. In many ways we prefer the life of the servant, not of a son; appropriating the status of sonship is simply too bold for us.
Surely it is not so much yes or not to the ‘Law’ but how we now view it. At this point, the words ‘handbook’ or guideline’ become darkly ambiguous. If some, like King David, can and want to say that the Law is their delight, then that is trule marvellous – I hope I will too. But when we start to smuggle in ideas like we ought to obey the law, or we ought to want to obey it, or surely we are grateful, or we ought to be grateful, then I hear hints of potetntial condemnation – but there is no condemnation…
Did not Luther say that we should preach the Law to Christians NOT because, as Christians, they can now go out and fulfil/obey it; but because, in their old man, they still need to see their sin and be driven back to Christ – because they CANNOT fulfil/obey it.
When, on a ‘good’ day, I hear the Law, I think ‘wow; that’s great; that’s what I’m going to be like one day (when glorified)’. I suspect/hope we all have good days like that, and I don’t think it is just experiental guff.
PS – When Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount, He taught it, surely, as the last and greatest prophet within the Old Covenant. He showed the Law of God in all its awful (internal) significance. He certainly did not abolish the (old) Law but extended it. But He then fulfilled it all, and gave us a New Covenant at the Last Supper bought with His blood the following day. (Whether this is a re-establishment of the Creation Order, or the introduction of a New Order which transcends the all the old – I don’t know. I was unaware of the strength of Scott’s arguments on behalf of creation) ordinances.
Abraham’s life was a microcosm of both the Old Covenant (old creation, works of man, covenant breaking, Hagar, failure, slave children) AND the New Covenant (Sarah, children of the promise – of the Spirit, grace, new name/creation, Christ the seed).
Abram’s first covenant-event contained explicit creational imagery and resulted in his covenant-breaking disobedience and illegitimate slave children of the flesh (Ishmael) who represented Israel, sold under Sinai’s Law (Gal 4:21-25).
Abraham’s second covenant-event contained new creation imagery (a new name). Abraham was the New Creation! The second covenant was accomplished by pure grace, not through the unfaithful works of Abraham. It was given by promise. It was sealed in his flesh through circumcision – which was but a type of the promised Spirit to come, who would circumcise the fleshly “old man” from our hearts. Thus the latter end of Abraham’s life, so celebrated in the NT, typified and pointed toward that which would be permanent with the coming of Messiah. Namely the New Covenant in which the promised Seed would come and pour out the promised Spirit who would circumcise the hearts of all those who were united to Him in true faith, thus making them a New Creation like Abraham, in which they would receive a “new name” (Rev 2:17, 3:12).
Israel at Sinai was indeed a recapitulation and amplification of Adam and the full display of Abram & Hagar. As such, Israel represented all the nations as rebellious Adamic covenant-breakers (Rom 3), through whom all the nations would become guilty. Sinai is where sin was formally “counted” and arraigned in a written covenantal works arrangement (Rom 5:13). The imagery surrounding the entire Exodus/Sinai event had very pointed creational imagery. Sinai is the paradigm of creation, works, Adamic fall, sin, and death.
As such, Sinai and her slave children waited to be replaced and fulfilled by the Abrahamic Seed and the New Creation, *in the very same way* that Hagar and Ishmael waited to be replaced and fulfilled by Yahweh’s new creation established in Sarah and Isaac.
I grew up in a dispensational environment with a very ambivalent attitude to the Law. As a result, I grew up a very confused young man. For instance, when I was taught in the youth groups that I shouldn’t commit sexual immorality, I asked “How do you define sexual immorality?”. The answer I got was some kind of general “sex outside of marriage” response. When I asked from where they got this idea I was told that it was just a general pattern derived from the NT. Unfortunately, this answer was less than helpful as I found it hard, being a teenager, to detect any kind of pattern in the NT. Heck, I was so distracted with ADHD, I couldn’t detect a pattern in my Grandmother’s wallpaper. (BTW, I was also unsure why I had to be sexually pure, given that I was told that I was an unbeliever).
Imagine if I’d been told that the Mosaic Law extensively defines sexual immorality, even to the level of bestiality and incest? I’d have been satisfied and not as confused. Yet I wasn’t pointed anywhere near the Law. Depending on who was teaching, we were either done with Moses or had nothing to do with him in the first place.
The problem occurs when a New Covenant Hermeneutic breeds ambivalence to the Law. Without the details of the Mosaic Law, which the New Covenant documents assume, we are left to figure eithics out for ourselves. Where does it say in the NT that I must not cuss using Jesus’ name? Where does it say that I can’t have sexual relations with a bovine quadriped? Am I supposed to just pick that up in some kind of nebulous fashion from being “in the Spirit?” Now I know that no NCT advocate would teach this, but the ambivalence to Moses leaves this impression with many. A Christocentric application of Moses is what needs to be pressed more thoroughly.
‘As such, Israel represented all the nations as rebellious Adamic covenant-breakers (Rom 3),’
Yes. If Israel with all its privileges could produce ‘none good, no not one’ (as the law said) then the whole world could be pronounced guilty. Israel was God’s historical moral test case for fallen man. If the cultivated vine brought only wild grapes then all the vines are useless.
Rom 3:19-20 (ESV2011)
Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.Rom 3For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Of course not. We are free from sin, free from the “moral law”, precisely because the Spirit of God has not inscribed the image of Sinai (the ministry of death and condemnation) or original creation upon our hearts . . . rather, he writes the very image of Jesus Christ, the New Creation, upon our hearts . . . who is the supreme revelation of the creational Law’s shadowy righteousness, now perfected and revealed in Incarnate Flesh.
When we look at Christ’s glory we are transformed from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor 3:18), from those who live under the curse of Law-keeping condmenation and death, to those who now begin to keep the true essence of the Law . . . Spirit-wrought faith in the Son and love!
Jesus IS the new “moral law” that surpasses Sinai (Heb 10:28:29). All who obey Him – believe on Him are saved. And all who disobey Him – reject him are condemned already. Jesus himself tied true commandment keeping with the life of the Spirit to be poured out at Pentecost (John 14:15-16, also 1 John 3:23-24).
In this way, the so-called “moral law” has been eschatologically transformed in the Messiah! His death has put to death the old order. His resurrection has made it gloriously new in power and spiritual substance. And He now writes himself in Spirit upon our hearts, so that we now produce the heavenly fruit of righteousness, “against such things there is no Law” (Gal 5:23).
As such, Jesus is the full and final expression, the very exschatological substance of the Law, the Covenant, the Temple, the Nation, the Priesthood, the Sacrifice, the Sabbath. This is why the Gospel, alone, apart from the Law, is sufficient for conviction of sin and repentance. Preach Jesus Christ and him crucified.
Said another way, Jesus is the substance of the New Covenant. He now writes himself, not on shadowy tables of stone. But on tables of human hearts, in the “writing” – the personal indwelling of the Spirit. The OC tablets of stone pointed away from themselves to Jesus, toward the indwelling Spirit of Christ in his new Temple.
In Jesus we have the Trinitarian fullness of God revealed. He is the Word (torah) made Flesh (John 1:14). He is the fullness of deity dwelling bodily (Col 2:9). Christ is the revelation of the Father and the only Way to Him (John 14:8-14). Jesus is the sender of the Holy Spirit (John 7:38-39). Jesus indwells his saints by the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9-10). He is all and in all!
Therefore to hearken to the old creational pattern is to go backwards. In Jesus, a new creation is springing forth. And all the fountains flow from Him. The new creation will not be a mere renewal of the original creation. There will be no sun or moon in the new creation, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb (Rev 21:23).
Even now, we begin to walk in the Light of this new eschatological creation (John 8:12, Eph 5:8, 1 John 1:7).
That which is sown a fleshly, perishable body will be raised in a new spiritual body of incorruption and power (1 Cor 15). And the new creation will obtain the *same* freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom 8:19-21). Therefore, the original creation was merely a typoligical shadow of the redeemed creation which will gloriously outshine the original creation in spiritual power and heavenly incorruption.
John,
Creation isn’t Moses and Moses isn’t creation. According to Gal 3-4 Moses was temporary but Abraham wasn’t.
The NT never does to Abraham what you’re trying to do.
Abraham is always the paradigm for New Cov Christians.
John
Most, if not all of this is well said and I agree with it. I agree too and especially that new creation is far more than creation restored. There is a transformation that includes the end of marriage and probably patriarchy. Yet at present new creation believers uphold these though they are not intrinsic to new creation life. Why seems to be because as aliens we still have responsibilities to the values of the foreign country in which we live, which is still, in one sense, God’s country.
Scott
The Abrahamic covenant is prior to the mosaic but both in different ways (one by continuity and the other by contrast) find fulfilment in Christ, If we are actually in formal covenant with Abraham we ought to be circumcised for that is what the covenant demanded. Christ was in covenant with Abraham and because we are ‘in him’ we are Abraham’s seed and heirs.
I’m enjoying this discussion though and benefitting from it. Scott, I’m pleased to see you interacting with Scripture I can’t seem to get DGH to do this so iron sharpening iron is difficult.
Richard
‘When Jesus taught the Sermon on the Mount, He taught it, surely, as the last and greatest prophet within the Old Covenant. ‘
No. John the Baptist was the last and greatest prophet. (Matt 11:11-13; Lk 16). Jesus brings in the kingdom of God. He is not the last of the old but the first of the new.
I would argue that the old creation order has already passed away *in Christ* and is awaiting its final destruction. Christ is the substance of the New Creation, as He is the *beginning*, the firstborn from the dead, the firstborn of all creation.
The old creation order is presently being swallowed up by the New Creation, which has come, is coming, and is yet to come in consummation fulness. It has begun *in us* by the firstfruits of the Spirit within us as we await the renewal of the entire cosmos (2 Cor 5:16-17, Col 3:1-3, Rom 8:23).
The things that are presently seen are transient and passing. And the life of the Spirit has broken forth in us. Is this dualism?
Was Abraham a dualist? He received promises of an earthly nature but entered into the eschatological spiritual realities they represented. How? By faith.
So we too have entered *by faith* into the unseen heavenly places (Eph 2:6) and have begun to serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code (Rom 7:6).
– We are to put off the flesh by the power of the Spirit (Rom 8:9, 12).
– We are to be sanctified by grace alone (Titus 2:11-14).
– We are to account ourselves presently dead to sin, dead to the old man, and presently raised to newness of life *in Christ* (Rom 6).
– We are to account ourselves as dead to the rule and condemnation the Law (Rom 7:1-6, 8:1).
– Our “rule of life” is now found in the New Covenant ministry of the Spirit – the “ministry of Righteousness” – who is now written upon the coveantal tablets, not of stone, but on human hearts (2 Cor 3).
In short, we are not to regard the old creation any longer. Our faith-vision should be fixed wholly on Christ, and thus we are to be filled with his Spirit, free from the Law, and living as the holy firstfruits of the eschatological New Creation that has presently broken forth!
“From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” (2 Cor 5:16-17)
John,
Your response seems to suggest that my diagnosis is correct. You have a case of ORE – “over-realized eschatology.”
Our Lord Jesus did not take the same attitude toward creation. When confronted by the Pharisees he did not appeal to Moses but to creation:
According to our Lord, creation, not Moses, forms the baseline for marriage. Remember that God created everything “good” and nothing about that has changed. The fall is a corruption of the good creation but the fall doesn’t make bad what God made good.
The new creation has been inaugurated but it has not been consummated and the new creation will finally be a renewal of the original creation. This is why the Reformed speak of grace renewing creation not obliterating it. Your rhetoric is that of the original Anabaptists.
“Old” as Paul uses it has, in this connection, connotations that do not attach to creation per se. Paul’s contrast in 2Cor 5 is not in terms of being but in spiritual categories. Unbelievers do belong to the “old” just as they belong to the “flesh” (which is a moral and spiritual not ontological [being] category). In Christ we are new creatures indeed. The Spirit has inaugurated (Phil 2) a new thing but this existence, between the Ascension and Parousia is not the time for consummation. We live in two world simultaneously. With your rhetoric about the old testament (in the broad sense of that word) You seem to be verging in Marcionite territory.
When Paul speaks of the tablets of flesh he’s invoking the promise of the New Covenant that was expressed in the OLD COVENANT in Jer 31. The very image of “tablets” comes from Sinai and that which is to be inscribed is God’s MORAL LAW.
Surely, you’re not suggesting that we are free now to commit adultery, fornication, idolatry, or theft etc are you?
John
I am with you in most things as I have read you on line. I agree that we are not under law and its obligations. I am with you too that we are new creation in Christ. However, I would nuance the relationship between old and new creation more than you seem to be doing. I would say that as members of God’s new creation we uphold and honour the order of the old creation. The NT bases its theology of marriage and patriarchy upon creational norms.
I take fully your exegesis of 2 Cor 5 and agree with it, nevertheless we must reckon with the appeal to creational norms. (I do recognise that we may choose for new creational reasons to forego marriage etc however this is different from dispensing with marriage or sex distinctions as new creation in consummation appears to do).
I’d be interested in your comments here.
You wrote: “The Mosaic covenant was intended nothing more than to serve as a historical footlight, to bring attention to the covenant of grace. More than that the substance of the new covenant is the Abrahamic covenant.”
I disagree. The Mosaic covenant was not a mere historical footlight. Rather, the New Covenant is the grand fulfillment AND convergence of all Yahweh’s OT covenantal promises and types, now located in Christ. The substance of the New Covenant is Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic.
There is an entire world of NT fulfillments which clearly show that the New Covenant is, among other things, a fulfillment of the Mosaic economy, a glorious new Passover-Exodus event!
See here: http://www.takeacopy.com/
What once was fleshly, has given way to Spirit.
What once was legal and killing, has given way to grace and life.
The Mosaic covenant does not just insignificantly fall away like a piece of temporary scaffolding. The Mosaic has been gloriously fulfilled, so that the typological promises made to Abraham and the typological promises found in Exodus/Passover/Sinai all converge in a glorious eschatological apex in Christ – all of grace.
It was for no small signification that the risen Christ poured out his Spirit on the anniversary of the Sinai event – Pentecost.
It was for no small signification that the crucified Christ was killed on the anniversary of the Exodus event – Passover.
John,
Take a look at the materials linked, esp. the piece on the New Covenant. The NT consistently assigns the ‘old covenant” to Moses.
Abraham, Noah, et al aren’t “old covenant” figures in the strict sense of the word.
I agree with you when you say:
None of this changes creation however.
Historically, if we don’t account for creation and if we don’t account for continuity between the typology and fulfillment, if eschatology overwhelms creation before the consummation then gnosticism or radical ontological dualism often follows. Be careful.
Hi R. Scott and friends,
I am one of those evangelical “antinomians” or NEOnomians of which you speak. However, I prefer ‘New Covenant NeoPneumain’, as that would be the most accurate title derived from the New Testament.
Here are a few reasons I do not find my foundation of “morality” grounded in the big 10:
1) The big 10 were the very essence, the very body of the Old Covenant agreement, ratified with the blood of animals (Deut 9:9-11).
2) The Law belongs rightly to the Old Covenant slave woman and her children (Gal 4:21-31).
3) The Law (Old Covenant) has been transcended by the New Covenant, now embodied in Incarnate flesh, and ratified by His blood (Isa 42:6, 49:8, Luke 22:20).
4) Jesus, alone, is the new standard of Righteousness (Rom 3:21-22, Rom 10:4). Believing into Him makes one a true “moral” covenant keeper.
5) The big 10 no longer act as a “dividing wall” for determining who is in the covenant, who is out of the covenant, who is godly , who is not godly. (Eph 2:14-15). The Old Covenant and its entire ministry has now been abolished (2 Cor 3:7-13, Heb 8:13).
6) Jesus alone is now that “dividing wall”, of the New Covenant (John 3:18-21, 5:22-29, Matt 10:34-39). And faith in Him and love for others is the true fulfillment of the Law’s dim shadow (John 6:28-29, Gal 5:6, Gal 5:14, Rom 13:8-10, 1 John 3:22-24). Only Jesus gives the Law its true eschatological definition and meaning: faith in the Son & redeeming love. The Law does not define Jesus or righteousness. (Nor does the Temple, the Priesthood, the Sacrifices, etc). Jesus is the eschatological embodiment and true definition of all these things.
7) The big 10’s ministry and glory has passed away, having been transcended by the new eschatological indwelling-teacher and pedagogue of Righteousness . . . the Spirit (Rom 8:1-4, 2 Cor 3, 1 John 2:20,27).
8) The Spirit is now the “sanctifier”, not the Law, teaching us how to love with Christ’s divine love (Rom 5:5, Rom 8:13, Gal 5:16,24, 1 Pet 2:24).
9) We now walk in the *new way* of the Spirit, by faith, and not in the old way of the written code (Rom 7:6). The Law is not of faith (Gal 3:12).
10) The Spirit is the New Covenant “ministry of righteousness” and life, now standing directly opposed to the big 10 – the “ministry of death” and condemnation (2 Cor 3).
11) Grace alone now accomplishes in us what the Law could not do (Titus 2:11-14, Rom 6:14-15).
12) The Law was intimately tied to the old order, the old creation. But for those *in Christ*, the Last Adam, that old creation has passed away. Behold the eschatological New Creation has sprung forth in our hearts, by faith. We no longer behold the old order of the flesh and its old codified Law system. (2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Eph 4:24, Heb 7:12,18).
13) The old creation order is now awaiting soon destruction (1 Cor 7:31, 1 John 2:17, 1 Pet 4:7).
14) We are to have eyes of faith like Abraham, believing into the present New Covenant heavenly realities that already exist *in Christ* but which we cannot yet see (Eph 2:5-6). Believing that old creation and its Law of Commandments, expressed in ordinances, has been completely abolished (Eph 2:15, Col 2;14) and that we now walk by the Spirit – the Law of the Spirit of Life (Rom 8:2).
15) New Covenant saints no longer sit under Sinai’s thundering shadow, but have come to the new eschatological mountain of Zion, as promised in the prophets where they recieve his Spirit (Isa 2:3, Heb 12:18-24).
16) To cling to a “continuing use” of the big 10 is to admit some impurity, blemish, or imperfection in Christ. It is to find deficiency in the blood of his new covenant. It is to outrage the Spirit of Grace. Is there something lacking in Christ that a single jot or tittle of the Old Covenant and its Law was left unfulfilled? Shall we deny the supreme completeness of Jesus, as the full and final revelation of God’s Righteousness, by returning to the shadows of Law code? He either came to fulfill the entire Law and the Prophets or He fulfilled nothing. Moses wrote of Him (John 5:44-47). The 10 point away from themselves to Him!
Believe into Jesus and you have kept all Righteousness . . . and begin to live righteously through Spirit-wrought love (1 John 3:23-24, 4:13).
John,
What you’re advocating is antinomianism. Neo-nomianism is the doctrine that we justified by law-keeping.
I think if you understand the historic protestant view better you wouldn’t need to say some of the things you do.
No confessional protestant advocates the 10 commandments today as if the progress of redemption and revelation has not happened. There were typological elements in the 10 commandments and those aspects have been fulfilled.
We all understand that that the Mosaic covenant has been fulfilled. Take a look at this account of what the NT says about the new covenant.
http://rscottclark.org/2011/01/on-the-new-covenant/
Another thing you overlook is the fact that the moral law did not come into existence with the Mosaic covenant. It existed long before Moses and that creational law did expire with the abrogation of the 613 commandments of the Mosaic law.
Take a look at this post:
http://heidelblog.net/2010/10/the-abiding-validity-of-the-creational-law-in-exhaustive-detail/
Amen and amen.
I am not kidding at all. First the Protestant churches don’t ususllay preach the Kingdom of God, but center on Grace and forgiveness (as is the case in the Heidelber Catechism). But these are a means and not an end in themselves. That Luther, Zwingli and Calvin reamined in state-church-structures prooves that they did not understand the Kingdom Christ ushered in, even that they used the sword in matters of “church discipline” (persecuting and killing dissenters).
Second – esp. infant-baptizing Protestant churches don’t separate from the world, but allow a majority of unbelievers in their ranks. Thus they don’t reflect the Kingdom of God as they should.
What the confessional statements contain is theology. But the reality is very different. But even the confessional statements concerning the Kingdom are insufficient.
Whenever we stress: Obedience is not meritorous but should come out of a grateful heart, we place obedience on the level of “good will”, which is totally inconsistant with confessing Christ as Lord and King. Because then – in effect – WE decide to what extend we are going to follow the Lord, which is absolutely inappropriate. That’s self centeredness.
While I stress that no requirement aside hearing, believing, repentance and baptism (in this order) are (on our part) necessary in order to be received into the Kingdom, I affirm that obedience is essential to remain in it. Here the Heidelberg Catechism says the same BTW: Disobedience excludes us from the Kingdom until we repent again. A disobedient church member therefore must be excluded from communion and fellowship. The same way Christ will deny the workers of lawlessness at his coming. So we cannot say, obedience has nothing to do with our ultimate salvation either …
I do believe, that in the end you do agree that we must live holy lives, but the way it is argued for is insufficient. The Kingdom bears hardly any relevance in the day-to-day-preaching of the churches. Maybe also because the few references to the King Jesus seemed sufficient in former times when everyone had a basic idea of royal power and authority. But in our day and age this has been lost, so we need a much stronger emphasis on the Kingdom of God.
As for the Heidelberg Catechism: Christ is mentioned as being King in Question 31; the Kingdom is mentioned in Question 49; Question 50 also hints to it. Again we read about it in Question 83 and 85 and 87. BTW Question 101 flatly contradicts Christ and James and places worldly Authority OVER the Kingdom of God. Question 123 is the only passage that comes near a definition of the Kingdom (yet, it falls short compared to scripture). In Question 128 again the Kingdom is mentioned.
If you take the sum-total of what is said about the Kingdom in the Heidelberg Catechism, it is not much at all. What is totally absent is the fact that we receive a new citizenship that urges us to separate ourselves from this world. A “Kingdom Teaching” from the Sermon on the Mount that forbids swearing of oaths is overruled by the Old Covenant (!) and worldly authorities (!). That Christians love their enemies and don’t draw their swords is of no effect as soon as these worldly authorities call to war (I know of no incident where a church forbade her members to participate in these wars because they viewed it as unjust, BTW; except the Anabaptists).
What destroys any Kingdom ambition are the questions on Baptism. Qu 65 states the order of preaching – beliving – confirmation by the sacraments: Q 66 calls the sacrament a seal of faith. I totally agree with the Qu 69-73 on Baptism – based on the premise that faith preceds the sacrament. In Qu 74 the New Testament principle that we will not become children of God because of our parents is overrules again by an Old Covenant (!) principle: a people of God according to fleshly decendancy is being restored in this answer! Qu 74 contradicts all that has been said about the sacaments before. The reason why this is so important: By baptizing infants who have no faith and of whom the majority will remain faithless throughout their lives, the boundaries of the Kingdom of God are willfully torn down and brought to naught!
Having summed that all up, I don’t mean to offend you personally; but think about it. Compare this Catechism with scripture. Study the issue of the Kindom from the Word of God, and it should become obvious that the Catechism falls short on this.
P.S. The numbers of the Questions are from my German Copy ofthe Catechism; just in case they might differ from the English version.
Well said, but here’s why I think it is insufficient – although the emphasis is on God’s Grace, to me this concept contains a big deal of self-centeredness. By this I mean it is all about the individual: HIS guilt, the grace bestowed on HIM and the deeds HE decides to do out of gratitude. At least that’s how it can be read.
What is missing? The Lordship of Christ who can command and demand obedience whether we feel grateful or not. The Kingship of our Messiah who has and pursues a global perspective. Yet, the Kingdom of God is hardly ever part of our Gospel Message, rather we focus on OUR guilt, the grace bestowed on US and what WE then personally decide to do for Christ out of gratitude and faith.
By this we easily lose sight of His majesty and the plain fact that obedience is mandatory in His Kingdom – not to earn salvation, but because he is King. Our gratitude cannot rest on forgiveness of sin only, but we shall develop a deep gratitude for being accepted into His Kingdom, like a refugee who made it into Austria and – finally – got the citizenship! Will he obey our country’s laws as he pleases, picking and choosing, or will he obey, because this simply is part of the citzenship? Of course gratitude will fill the former refugee’s heart, but will this be strong enough in times of disappointments or even frustration?
The main weakness in Protestant Preaching is that the Kingdom is missing. Therefore Christ is viewed not so uch as King and Lord, but foremost as Saviour (which He truly is) – this is a diminished view of Him, and at the same time it exalts our self to a point where WE decide how and when we obey. By this I do not want to say that Reformed Christians are bad Christians, the more one truly loves God, the more he will meet Christ’s commands. But this theology leaves a ölot of room for picking and choosing. My point is: Gratitude alone is not what brings about obedience, but a genuine understanding of who Christ is.
Alexander,
1. You’re kidding, right? The kingdom is missing from Protestant preaching? On what basis could you possibly say such a thing? That’s a huge claim that is EASILY falsified by the most cursory reading of Protestant theology. Luther, Calvin, and their successors wrote about the kingdom constantly. If I began listing titles or giving examples it wouldn’t end.
2. Self-centeredness. So, you’ve ignored WSC 1: What is the chief end of man?
To glorify God and enjoy him forever.
3. Lordship? Have you read the third part of the Heidelberg Catechism? Have you seen the exposition of the Decalogue in the Westminster Larger Catechism? Have you read the 3rd part of Romans (on which the Heidelberg was based)?
4. Of course I don’t expect papists and others to be satisfied with biblical and Reformed theology. The question wasn’t absolute. It was a response to those Reformed folk who seem to be dissatisfied with what they confess and whose dissatisfaction may tend to lead them and others away from the basic structure of guilt, grace, and gratitude.
No, we’re not going to make acceptance with God conditional upon sanctification but it is the logically, morally, necessary fruit of justification. To say otherwise is, from the confessional Protestant reading of Scripture, rationalism and moralism. It has NEVER worked to make justification contingent upon sanctification. The whole history of the church testifies that scheme to be a failure. The whole history of redemption likewise testifies.
Dr. Clark,
Thanks for the reply. There’s much to read and learn.
I have noticed the emphasis on the family; I am currently looking at material concerning infant baptism, and it is evident there. I am trying to be objective as I study this because I want to find a church where I can be a member and submit to their practice in baptism.
Alberto,
On baptism:
http://rscottclark.org/2012/09/a-contemporary-reformed-defense-of-infant-baptism/
http://heidelblog.net/2012/11/baptism-the-doctrine-that-caused-tears-1/
http://heidelblog.net/2012/09/baptism-and-circumcision-according-to-colossians-211-12/
http://www.cpjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/CPJ2-RSClark.pdf
http://heidelblog.net/category/baptism/
http://rscottclark.org/2011/01/on-the-new-covenant/
http://rscottclark.org/2011/01/on-the-new-covenant/
http://bookstore.wscal.edu/products/1341
http://bookstore.wscal.edu/products/2852
http://rscottclark.org/2007/09/three-ways-of-relating-to-the-one-covenant-of-grace/
Jack’s comment makes me think about some confusion I have due to presentations made on the “sufficiency” and “perspicuity” of Scripture. I have gotten the sense that Baptist and Reformed Christians mean different things by Sola Scriptura. I remember reading Keith Mathison’s essay on Sola Scriptura in After Darkness, Light and thinking that this seemed different from what I normally hear. Correct me if necessary Jack or anyone else.
I don’t hear Baptists say what Dr. Clark said, “we need to get back to Scripture as confessed by our churches, we we need to get back to our confessional roots.”
Hi Alberto,
Rather than me responding to your comments, I’d love to hear Dr. Clark’s thoughts. Suffice to say, we live in an individualistic age (especially as Americans) and are too concerned with what “I” believe not enough with what the Church believes.
“we need to get back to Scripture as confessed by our churches, we we [sic] need to get back to our confessional roots.” ~a Baptist 🙂
Thanks Rich.
Hi Alberto,
There’s a detailed discussion of this in Recovering the Reformed Confession and Mike Horton has a terrific chapter touching on this in Always Reformed so I’ll be brief here.
Here are some posts on Sola Scriptura.
We (the Reformed Churches) confess that God’s Word is the sole, unique, final authority for the Christian faith and the Christian life. In N. American evangelical culture, however, which has been heavily influenced by Anabaptist theology, piety, and practice the phrasesola Scriptura tends to be re-interpreted in an individualistic, egalitarian way. The Baptists talk about the “soul competency” of the believer. Well, it’s true that families and churches do not save but it’s also true that God has ordained the administration of salvation through units such as congregations and families.
We recognize that someone must read and interpret Scripture. We say that the visible institutional church has a duty to interpret Scripture on the essential points of theology, piety, and practice. We’ve done this and confessed our conclusions in documents that have the sanction of the church.
The church’s conclusions are always subject to revision. The church works for Scripture, its authority is ministerial not magisterial—that is the mistake that Rome makes. She substitutes her own authority for Scripture. She ultimately makes Scripture work for her. She leverages God’s Word with unwritten traditions and and ecclesiastical declarations.
We say that Popes and councils do err. They are and must be subject to the Word of God. We say Scripture is sufficiently clear (perspicuous) on what must be known and believed such that when there’s a question we can appeal not to Popes and councils or unwritten traditions but to God’s Word.
At the same time we do not accept the theological, spiritual, and practical chaos that the American turn to Anabaptist enthusiasm (see RRC and see my chapter on this in Always Reformed) brings. Every man is not a pope. Every man is not a church. God has instituted a visible, institutional church and that church has genuine, ministerial authority.
This is why I say “God’s Word as confessed by the Reformed churches.” We confess the Word. We don’t make the Word, we don’t authorize the Word, we don’t control the Word. The Word makes the church, the Word authorizes the church, the Word controls the church.
There is a reciprocal relation, however, since the church reads and receives the Word. The Word is always first but the Word is never naked, as it were.
Does this help? I hope you’ll take a look at the resources listed as they explain more fully than I can here. Links to the books are near the top of the page.
Amen!
Lord, increase my faith to the size of a mustard seed.
Dr Clark
Thank you – it is refreshing indeed to be reminded of Art 24 (and its non-egotistical emphasis)
In parallel I have read your 2008 ‘Moralism post-FV’ article. If this be the right place, can I ask what you mean by the ‘abiding norm’ in
“In truth, antinomianism is denial of the third use of the law, i.e., that the moral law (e.g., Exodus 20; Matt 22:37–40) is the abiding norm of the Christian life. No Reformed Christian can deny the third use of the law and still be faithful to God’s Word and the Reformed confessions.”
If you mean ‘the ideal’ then yes
If ‘the normal condition of’ then not – we clearly still all fall very short
If ‘the ideal that we should strive for’ then is that not synergism (covenantal Arminianism is your excellent phrase)
I am (hopefully) not antinomian in the sense that God is not interested in the Christ-likeness of his children. But I am anti-NEOnomianism, ie all forms of synergistic FV/moralistic teaching.
But as you say Moralism is very difficult to pin down. Many take an essentially FV line but seek to nuance it. They insist that justification is sola fide; they might even say that sanctification is also sola fide. They then say that we are called to act synergistically alongside the Holy Spirit (either for something or out of something). But the net effect is still seems Baxterian
If that picture is valid, where can one hold the line or push back?
(Maybe phrases like ‘third use’ and ‘abiding norm’ are understood in too many different ways. I am against the third use for believers if that means ‘the law tells us what you should and can do, at least in part (maturity if not perfection)’, but I am for the third use if that means ‘the law tells you what you should by cannot do’ )
ps – and Lord, increase my faith to the size that Steve’s currently is !
Hi Richard,
Yes, I’m writing/speaking about the doctrine of antinomianism, not the practice of it. We’re all practical antinomians inasmuch as we’re all sinners. Theological antinomianism, however, is a different thing. To say or to teach that the moral law is no longer binding or morally obligatory as the objective standard of Christian morality and ethics, that’s antinomianism. It’s widespread in American evangelicalism. Many American evangelicals are taught that the moral law is so associated with Moses that, when the Mosaic/Old Covenant was fulfilled by Christ’s death, that the 10 commandments are no longer in effect.
Now, if you ask most evangelicals, “Are we now free to commit idolatry?” or “are we now free to commit adultery?” they will likely say “No!” but they will not connect their answer to the Decalogue or to the moral law. They especially believe that the 4th commandment is no longer in effect.
Many American evangelicals have little sense that the law given at Sinai was first given in creation and that the essence of the moral law, stripped of the typological aspects, is basic to creation and thus was not abolished on the cross. Further, they don’t tend to see reflections of the moral law in the NT, even though (arguably) each of the ten words is re-stated in the NT. The 4th commandment is disputed of course but Jesus did say that the Sabbath was made for man…. He grounded it in creation, not Moses but most evangelicals have little sense of creational or natural law.
After the fall, the law continued to demand perfect righteousness but after the fall we are incapable of meeting that standard. Christ has done it for his people and all who believe are reckoned by God as if they have done it themselves. Nevertheless, the law continues to demand obedience and it obligates believers to seek to obey it out of gratitude. Thus HC 115 says:
As you can see, the HC reminds us that, even under the third use, the law continues to be law. It continues to convict us of sin and drive us to Christ. Calvin was quite clear about this too. My good friend Tom Wenger did his MA thesis on this at WSC. I wish everyone could read it.
True progress in Gospel-centered sanctification is not better doing, but better believing.
Not better seeing with the eyes, but better faith-vision.
Not better earthly attainments, but better apprehension of heavenly realities.
Not better self-realization, but better Christ-exaltation.
Not better me, but death to me, and the fullness of Christ-in-me.
Not better introspection/self-examination, but better love for God and others.
Not fuller code-obedience, but being filled with the Spirit.
Lord, increase my faith and make me to see Jesus in ever greater degrees of glory! Then shall I be made into Thy likeness.
It’s amazing how the idea of each individual interpreting scripture has unconsciously become the accepted norm for understanding doctrine, even among reformed Christians, while the confessions and catechisms of the church are often relegated to an operational position of mere “historical” documents.
When it comes to divining what we need to believe, we moderns too often overestimate our individual aptitude and expertise, especially as compared to that of the 16th and 17th century reformed theologians who gave us those foundational documents.
New Year’s resolution: Pastors – in with the old, out with the new!
what Leon said
Yes!