About R. Scott Clark
R. Scott Clark is the President of the
Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several
books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University.
Read more» He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
HT: Logos Reformed
Who’s the dude in the picture?
It’s an American thing. Jeff Foxworthy is an American comedian from the South. He does a routine, “You might be a redneck if…” Lots of Youtube videos. I won’t link one here because not everyone has the same degree of appreciation for his brand of humor.
I wonder if you have seen this, from Reformation 21 blog (Dr. Garner) http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/antinomianism-reformed-theologys-unwelcome-guest.php:
If you believe that sanctification is getting used to your justification or reveling more fully in your reliance upon Jesus’ righteousness, you just might be an antinomian.
• If you believe that sanctification grows only from gratitude for your justification, you just might be an antinomian.
• If you believe that God loves you and that your ongoing sin or your incremental obedience does not in any way affect God’s love for you, you just might be an antinomian.
• If you think that assurance of your Christian faith comes without consideration of personal holiness, you just might be an antinomian.
• If you believe works are not necessary for salvation, you just might be an antinomian.
• If you believe that the gospel brings no obligation and that any sense of obligation is antithetical to the gospel, you just might be an antinomian.
• If you believe that preaching must avoid imperatives and only celebrate the indicative of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection and/or the declarative of Jesus’ forgiveness, you just might be an antinomian.
This may be an example of why Christians shouldn’t do doctrine as stand up comedy…
Derivative. 🙂
More seriously, this thesis:
is debatable.
The phrase “in any way” is ambiguous. Do we believe that when a Christian sins that God stops loving him? I doubt we want to say that. Does not Hebrews say that God chastens those whom he loves?
Can we say that God is displeased with us when we sin? Sure. This language, quoted above, however, seems like an over reaction to the antinomian notion that God cannot see our sins.
Ditto for this one:
Here the term “salvation”needs to be defined. I think, that we say as Protestants that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Don’t we?
The other ambiguity here is the preposition “for.” It is the case that believers will produce works. It is the case that good trees produce good fruit. It is the case that good works are a logical and evidentiary necessity. The denial of works as fruit or evidence would be antinomian.
This language, quoted above, however, could be interpreted to imply some sort of causal or even instrumental relation between works and justification. I doubt that is what the author intended but it isn’t very clear.
The word “necessary” is ambiguous. Necessary in what sense? In an instrumental sense or in an evidentiary sense? All Reformed theologians affirm the latter.
Salvation often means justification and sanctification. To be sure, sanctification involves effort and works are the fruit of sanctification. The word salvation, however, is frequently used among Reformed writers to mean simply justification. In that sense it would be quite improper to say salvation is by works or that works are, in that sense, necessary for salvation.
More than a few of our classic Reformed writers have said that salvation is “by grace alone.” I doubt that we want to dismiss those writers as antinomian.
If we consider salvation as deliverance by God from sin and death we still want to say it is by grace alone don’t we? Were the Israelites delivered from death, at the Red Sea, partly by their works?
Surely we want to agree that works are a product of our sanctification, which is wrought by the Spirit. There can be no question that Christians ought to do good works. The question is whether we May ascribe to them some instrumental role.
I think we should agree with the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Is anyone prepared to say that the WSC is antinomian? That would be something to see! I don’t see anything here about the instrumental role of works. Further, I see that we confess that we “are renewed” and “are enabled” and that righteousness, that is sanctification, is the consequence of God’s working in us.
In our attempt to respond to antinomianism let us not lose sight of the rest of what we believe.