Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘mortification’


In the first post, I covered the issue of temptation and sin as discussed in the Central Carolina Presbytery Committee Report on Revoice (CC). I also included reference to the North Florida Report on Same-Sex Attraction (NF). This subject took more space than I think the others will. There is more disagreement, even in the Reformed Community including the PCA, on the subject. We saw disagreement between the CC and NF reports, as well as between an older Kevin DeYoung blog post and this report he worked on.

We agree that sexual temptations arise from the remnant of sin within each of us. They are temptations to commit sin. We agree that such temptations (all temptations) should be mortified as Paul encourages in Romans 8 and Titus 2 among other places. The disagreement is about whether being tempted itself constitutes a sin.

“To conflate the two ignores the reality of God’s gracious promises of deliverance to those facing temptation (1 Cor. 10:13; Heb. 2:18) and the sinless obedience of Jesus Christ in the face of temptation (Mt. 4:11; Heb. 4:15). Christians can be confronted with an opportunity to sin and, by the grace of God, resist the temptation and pursue obedience.” NF, pp. 3

There is fundamental agreement but the focus seems to be on the finer distinctions made. None of these differences imply that same-sex attraction (SSA) is morally neutral or “good”. They have a pastoral application as to whether the person has in fact sinned or is tempted. Those are treated differently: repentance vs. mortification. No person should experience church discipline for being tempted, but persistent patterns of sinful action should usually be addressed.

Further, when we consider the Westminster Shorter Catechism on repentance we see:

Question 87: What is repentance unto life?
Answer: Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.

Repentance properly includes a “full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.” That properly describes what happens if we don’t put our temptations to death. Temptations are not a matter under our control and therefore, themselves, a matter of obedience. Obedience is about whether we entertain those temptations or mortify them.

Temptations do reveal the depths and character of our remaining corruption. In addition to mortification, they are also an occasion for lament. They also reveal to us our on-going need for Jesus so we respond much like Paul in Romans 7- O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of sin? His answer and ours is to be Jesus. That is true no matter the types of temptations, and sins (which is the context of Romans 7), we experience and commit.

I hope I’ve said enough on that topic.

The Question of Identity

Related imageCC then shifts its attention to the question of identity. At times I will appeal to sections of the Missouri Presbytery report from their investigative committee (MP). It is my opinion that this has become something as a shibboleth for some. If you don’t say it the right way, with no regard what you mean by it, you are considered wrong and should be outside the boundaries of our community of faith (see Judges 12:1-6).

Labels do matter. And what people mean by the labels matters too. Communication includes both the speaker (and their intention) and the listener.

One of the things bringing criticism to Revoice is their use of the terms “gay Christian” or “homosexual Christian.” The criticism is that these are (necessarily) terms of identity and they are therefore identifying themselves with their sinful inclinations at best, or sinful actions at worst. Revoice does, as we saw in the earlier post, affirm biblical sexuality and marriage. So theirs would presumably be a best case scenario.

The Scriptures speak of two fundamental identities: in Adam or in Christ. These can be expressed in many ways. For instance, regarding our identity in Adam, Paul refers to people in accordance with their dominant sin: the sexually immoral, idolators and adulterers among others (1 Cor. 6:9-10). Regarding our Christian identity we see Peter referring to Christians as a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own possession” (1 Peter 2:9).

Additionally, our union and identity with Christ is to shape our thinking. We see this in Colossians 3:1-4. As the text unfolds in the following verses our actions, not just our thoughts, are to follow our new identity. Sanctification is the putting off of our old identity in Adam with its sin, and the putting on of our new identity in Christ which is righteous.

Openness Unhindered: Further Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert on Sexual Identity and Union with ChristThese ideas are developed by Rosaria Butterfield in her book Openness Unhindered. In particular in the chapters Identity (pp. 35-58) and Self-Representation: What Does It Mean to Be Gay? (pp. 113-136). Christopher Yuan offers a briefer treatment in Holy Sexuality and the Gospel (pp. 7-13).

CC recognizes that Revoice accepts at least some of the identity language of our culture. For instance, they use the term “sexual minority”. Even the terms “gay” and “homosexual” in some way bow to the Freudian origination of sexual orientation (see NF, pp. 4-5). Rosaria Butterfield also traces this development of use of orientation in Sexual Orientation: Freud’s Nineteenth Century Mistake (pp. 93-112).

Sam Allberry addresses all of this as well.

CC spends time delving into General Revelational arguments in this case. They are not ignoring Scripture (for there are plenty of quotes) but explaining and assessing the worldly theories that NF simply recognizes as worldly.

Adjectives, at times, may be helpful modifiers of the noun “Christian”. Reformed Christian differentiates me from Orthodox Christian, Evangelical Christian etc. American Christian may be used to differentiate me from an Asian or African Christian as well. Cultural background has an effect on how you tend to live out your faith.

The problem both CC and NF express is when the adjective describes a sinful inclination or action. Both reports acknowledge that due to the remnant of sin, many Christians continue to experience these sinful inclinations. Regeneration does not remove them in every instance. We don’t want to promise anyone that if they come to Jesus, they will suddenly have no more SSA. But the reports warn against using the terms “homosexual Christian” and “gay Christian”.

How and why does Revoice use those terms?

Revoice generally uses those adjectives to refer to their struggle, not their identity. In this they are following the lead of Wesley Hill, on of the keynote speakers from his earlier book, Washed and Waiting. In the introduction he explains his usage.

“I hope to send a subtle linguistic signal that being gay isn’t the most important thing about my or any other gay person’s identity. I am a Christian before I am anything else. My homosexuality is part of my makeup, a facet of my personality. One day, I believe, whether in this life or in the resurrection, it will fade away. But my identity as a Christian- someone incorporated into Christ’s body by his Spirit- will remain.” pp. 22

Later he writes:

“Washed and waiting. That is my life- my identity as one who is forgiven and spiritually cleansed and my struggle as one who perseveres with a frustrating thorn in the flesh, looking forward to what God has promised to do. That is what this book is all about.” pp. 50

You can’t properly understand Revoice on this issue apart from this book. They should be more clear about that! They use Christian to express their identity. They use “gay” or “homosexual” to express their struggle.

In doing so they are addressing those who struggle with SSA and the gay community more than people like me and other PCA presbyters. Their audience shuts down, so the claim is made, with the terms SSA or ex-gay.

While I do not prefer their language, I seek to understand their meaning by the phrases instead of demanding they not use those terms based on how I’d use them. Instead of refusing to acknowledge how they are used and bearing false witness against them (imputing an erroneous meaning), we should faithfully express their intentions. We can criticize them for it, but we should properly interpret their intention, not the one that we think it should mean.

After her chapter on Self-Representation, Rosaria Butterfield has a chapter called Conflict: When Sisters Disagree. There she focuses on this particular disagreement. Rosaria strongly believes that the phrases not be used. Yet she wrote:

“The conservative Christian world is one of the only places where gay still means primarily an identity associated with a sociopolitical community.” pp. 139.

She focuses on the need for Christian love in these matters of disagreement. Those relationships may be complex, but we don’t cut them off. She notes:

“Friendship and neighborly proximity are necessary components to working through theological differences in Christian love. Ideas are not enough. … Ideas that divide must travel on the back of Christian life practices that allow us to stand shoulder to shoulder as we submit before our holy and loving God. This is the Christian labor of real neighbors.” (pp. 146)

I take those words to heart. I was dismayed when Rosaria responded to Revoice in a way that seemed inconsistent with those words, at least to me. She focused on her material on identity (which, I do agree with), but offered a very different tone to Revoice and the PCA than she seems to have offered her friend with whom she disagreed more profoundly.

MP offered caution to both Revoice and their detractors on this point. I find their counsel to both to be wise.

We agree that the way Revoice and Side B believers in general use terms has been confusing to many of our churches. But we reject the claim that this is because terms like “gay,” sexual orientation,” “queer,” and “sexual minorities” are always or necessarily unbiblical. These terms pose a particularly challenging problem for both the Revoice project and its critics. We encourage Revoice and those who would adopt such language to do so with great care, recognizing its potential to cause offense and division within the church. At the same time, we would encourage those who are inclined to hear such language and dismiss those who would use it, to charitably, sincerely, and carefully listen to what those people are intending to mean by it. The ongoing and evolving discussion of terminology around sexuality in the 21st century has led the committee to suggest that terminology be one area of study taken up by a General Assembly study/consensus-building committee. (pp. 61)

To one: be careful you don’t confuse or create unnecessary offense. To the other: be charitable and listen to what they actually mean. Don’t assume and accuse.

Summing Up

Revoice and the PCA (and other conservative denominations) agree that our identity is in Christ. The point of disagreement is on appropriate terms to be used to speak of professing Christians who struggle with SSA. As in many disagreements, we should define our terms so people don’t misunderstand what we are saying. We should also take those definitions at face value even if we tend to use a different definition.

Bottom Line:

Revoice is not using these terms to signify people who profess to be Christians but also embrace a gay lifestyle and/or their attraction to people of the same sex. Revoice is seeking to help them live as chaste Christians. They could clearly be more clear about that.

 

Read Full Post »


I first heard of this book from Tim Challies’ blog. It piqued my interest. I thought it may prove a good resource when I preach through NT epistles.

This book is Sexual Morality in a Christless World by Matthew Rueger. Rueger is a Lutheran pastor who was asked to teach a lesson “on the other side” at a university class on ethics. The argument by cultural progressives is that Christianity is morally regressive. Rueger explodes this myth/fallacy by showing what the world was like before the Christian sexual ethic took root in the Roman Empire with the spread of the gospel. The sexual morals of societies before the spread of Christianity looks like where the progressives are trying to bring society. Rueger then moves to the present and discusses the current debate over homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

“My desire in writing this book is to help Christians engage the world around them in reasoned discussion.”

In a sense this feels like two books at times- or perhaps three. There are historical sections, theological/expositional sections and then sociological sections. They all work together to build a compelling case.

In many ways this is not an easy read, or one that should be read by everybody. In particular, some may struggle with the early chapters discussing the sexual morality of Greece and Rome. It made me very glad I was not born in that time and place. People who have suffered similar victimization may be troubled by it. However, this is an excellent book to offset the views students are taught in public schools and centers for higher learning.

The first chapter is The Roman Context, which necessarily includes Greece too. At the time of Christ, much of the Roman Empire had once been part of the Greek Empire and Hellenized. There were not really differences of practice, but there were differences of rationale behind those behaviors.

He begins by noting that orientation is a “modern phenomenon” which seems to be lost on most conservatives. Orientation is slippery, in a sense, because some gay activists freely acknowledge that orientation is a concept of recent conception, and some would not agree with the way orientation is defined by the courts. They see orientation as fluid, while the courts have defined it as immutable (he notes Varnum v. Brien, Iowa 2009).

The ancients, therefore, including the early Christians “did not understand sexuality in terms of orientation.” For Greek culture, “sex was about the pursuit of beauty”, and they took it where they could get it. The ideal of beauty in their culture was young boys. In Roman culture, sex was tied to their idea of masculinity which was domination. Men were honored for dominating others sexually, and ridiculed if they were dominated sexually. It was an ethic very much like what we see in prisons today. This shaped their view of rape in the legal system. It was only rape if it involved a free Roman citizen. Slaves and non-citizens could be raped without consequence, particularly by free Roman citizens (talk about privilege!).

Greeks made no such distinction between citizens and non-citizens. Pederasty was common among Greeks and Romans, though there was some taboo in Rome where freeborn boys were concerned. Young male slaves were vulnerable. You were expected to take advantage of them.

“Our early Christian ancestors did not confess biblical chastity in a safe culture that naturally agreed with them.”

Marriage was not between equals. Male privilege ran rampant in these “progressive” cultures. Marriage was for status and heirs and the Empire, not love. Sexual pleasure was sought elsewhere. Seeking sex from a boy or man was viewed as a higher form of sexual relationship which included intellectual love.

He discusses the role of the gymnasium in Greek and Roman life. The word meant ‘naked’ for it was where the boys and young men exercised naked. One of the more popular sports was wrestling. Clothes, inhibitions and modesty were all shed together. Generally slaves were prohibited from entering the gymnasium. These teens were watched, and pursued, by older men in this environment.

Family life was twisted by their diminished view of women. Greek wives were virtually prisoners in their homes. They would leave for some religious rites, but that was about it. Roman wives had more rights and mobility. They could conduct trade. Since their “job” was to produce children for the Empire, women were often married once they were able to have children to maximize the child-bearing years due to infant mortality rates. For the population to grow, you needed to have at least 3 children survive to adulthood (it’s all about the Empire)so you needed to have at least 6 children. Expectations were different for the wealthy (you can’t have too many elites), and infanticide was a problem in Rome.

Husbands had rights over their wives, but not wives over her husband. He was free to sow his oats outside of the marriage. She was not. If caught, she and her male partner could be prosecuted (assuming the husband was a free man with means). In keeping with the twisted view of sexuality in Rome, the husband could “rape the male offender and then, if he desired, to kill his wife.” This was a brutal and depraved society.

Image result for escherIt was a world of promiscuity and perversion into which the gospel of Jesus Christ was first preached. Paul called it a crooked and twisted generation (Phil. 2:15). The Gentiles who converted came from a background of pornography, prostitution (including temple prostitutes), homosexuality/bisexuality, and rape. Like those around them, they had been given over to their disordered desires. The Gospel called people out of this perverse way of life, confronting the sexual mores of Rome.

Rueger then addresses the Jewish Context, which should not be assumed to be the same as the Christian viewpoint because it wasn’t. Judaism did not permit homosexuality like the Gentiles did. It prohibited prostitution. It did, however, permit polygamy and concubines. There was also a double standard concerning adultery. Wives were to produce heirs.

The sexual abuse of children was considered punishable. But it was merely a fine in the Mishnah. Generally, Jewish culture was less perverse than Greek and Roman cultures. But we see it was still warped by sin. The Gospel and subsequent definition of holy living would confront aspect of Jewish sexuality and marriage as well.

“We live in a culture that has a vested interest in misinterpreting the passages about sex and morality.”

He then moves into the expositional section of the book. Rueger looks at particular passages that are central to these discussions. He discusses context, briefly, to help people understand how to interpret texts. He includes some passages about marriage to indicate the equal rights and responsibilities of spouses in sexual matters. He then moves into sexual immorality and homosexual sex. In 1 Corinthians he notes the two words used for homosexual activity which indicate both the penetrator and penetrated are guilty of breaking God’s Law, which is quite contrary to Roman ethics.

“It should be noticed that Paul does not treat homosexual sins differently than heterosexual sins when it comes to the application of Law and Gospel. Both are addressed side by side as equally contrary to God’s Law and both are spoken of as equally forgivable.”

He then moves to the present with “Mom, Dad, I’m Gay”. As a Lutheran pastor, he applies Law and Gospel to this situation. He also challenges the basis for those who challenge traditional/biblical teachings on homosexuality. In our culture, objectivity is laid aside and subjectivity is embraced. He discusses the many reasons why someone could be homosexual.

“It is important for us as Christians to understand that not all homosexuality is the same. … Christians do a great disservice to those who seek Christ’s grace and mercy by lumping all same-sec attracted people into one group.”

In that application of Law and Gospel, he draws a big distinction between those who seek to normalize homosexuality and those who believe it is wrong and struggle with their same sex desires (as well as other sexual sins). The former need the Law to convict them of sin, and the latter need to Gospel for forgiveness and sanctification. Too often I hear Christians speak of people struggling with same sex desire as one big group, as if they are all activists. There is a quiet majority (?) of those who are conflicted in themselves between what they experience and what they believe is right.

Additionally, the Church needs to remember that heterosexual desire also creates sinful desires (such as for adultery, fornication, pornography, polygamy etc.). I’ve had pastors say to me that it is different because same-sex attraction is unnatural. But we need to put those desires to sin to death because they are just as deadly & dangerous, just as sinful, as same-sex desires. Until we do that, we will treat them as lepers.

He stresses the role of the Church as making the pardoning and purifying grace of Jesus Christ known to its members who struggle with these desires. Being Lutheran, he stresses the sacraments. As a Reformed Christian, I hold a high view of the sacraments and their being means of grace. But not as high as Lutherans. He seems to disconnect their efficacy from faith. But the Table is a place to bring disordered desires of all kinds to Jesus and receive His help through our union with Him.

“Temptation is not the same as sin. Temptations play on those elements of our inner being that have a weakness for a certain sin, but in and of themselves temptations are not sins.”

He moves into an area of debate among even conservative Christians. He distinguishes temptation from sin. His statements are similar to those of Nancy Pearcey, Rosaria Butterfield and others (though Rosaria then seems to put homosexual temptation in a separate category in the next paragraph). The gospel does teach us to say ‘no’ to unrighteousness, which means we are mortifying our temptations. As Christians our temptations, while real and present, should not define us. He includes three paragraphs from Luther’s Larger Catechism in which Luther differentiates temptation and sin. Luther further distinguishes temptation from desire (or what we call lust), in which we are entertaining or giving way to temptation rather than mortifying it, but have not yet committed the act in question. This is likely what Owen means in his phrase “entering into temptation.” I find this a helpful distinction.

Tempted? Mortify it! Lusting? Mortify it and repent! Done it? Repent!

“Christians are not less sinful than non-Christians, but they do have a Savior who both forgives sins and fights within them against the temptations in their path.”

He returns to the question of orientation. It usually refers to the idea that sexuality and attraction are essential elements of a person resulting from their individual biology which cannot be changed. This “immutability” is an accident of their birth. This is how the courts have spoken about this. As Rueger notes, real life is not some simple. For some people, “orientation” or attraction is more fluid. They shift between heterosexual and homosexual at points in life (as opposed to bisexuality). The claims of the courts, and activists, don’t fit reality. Instead of orientation, he advocates talking about sexual identity or gender preference. These leave room for the gospel to be at work, while the language of orientation is misleading and fatalistic.

Rueger then addresses “A Mixed Bag of Objections”. He brings up objections to the Christian understanding of homosexuality and refutes them. We see objections like “inconsistency in applying the law” to which he responds with the three divisions of the law. He brings up racial prejudice and slavery, genetics and brain studies, and twin studies. He explores them, affirms where there are real concerns (Christians have been guilty of prejudice and advocated for and against race-based slavery rooted in man-stealing). He examines those studies and mentions other studies that sought to correct methodological flaws.

The next chapter focuses on same-sex marriage. He builds a case against it from natural law and reason since most people (especially the courts) aren’t concerned about what Scripture says. He brings up studies indicating that children thrive to a greater extent with two parents of the opposite sex. They do better in school and get into less trouble with the law. Where traditional marriage decays (including through divorce and never-married parents), state funding to support children increases greatly. He recognizes the limits of these arguments. Most people, while appealing to reason, often don’t listen to it. Their hearts want what their hearts want. Only God, by His Spirit can change that.

“Sexual promiscuity leaves a trail of broken people and regret. It also tends to go hand in hand with an attitude that sees people as objects for one’s own sexual gratification and not as beings worthy of committed love.”

This was a very helpful book. It is not a long book. Rueger is generally succinct and gets to the point. He does make a number of good and necessary distinctions which often trip up discussions by their absence. This would be a helpful book for pastors, youth workers, teachers, parents and students facing pressure to conform to worldly standards.

To return to his thesis: Christianity is not affirming regressive sexual mores, but continues to call people out of the regressive sexuality that results in rampant promiscuity, sexual abuse and assault, societal instability and misogyny.

 

Read Full Post »


Last week we looked at a Lutheran perspective on sanctification by Gerhard Forde in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification. We (this would be the imperial we if no one reads this) also noted some of the responses, particularly the one by Sinclair Ferguson. Dr. Ferguson is the next to present his view of sanctification, a Reformed perspective on this doctrine.

It should not surprise anyone familiar with Sinclair Ferguson to know that his presentation is not polemical, but well-reasoned (polemics can be well-reasoned, but often aren’t) and interacts quite a bit with Scripture (not just tossing out a reference proof text). As a Reformed pastor, I have a strong affinity with this presentation. Since it pretty much represents my view (recognizing that in 20 pages you can’t say all there is to say about sanctification) I can see no weaknesses or faults to discredit this view. The other authors obviously pointed out some they perceived (and in some cases imagined).

“A necessary connection between biblical doctrine and holy living is fundamental to the biblical and apostolic way of thinking. That is why Scripture is so full of moral imperatives logically derived from doctrinal indicatives…”

Instead of starting with justification like Forde did, Ferguson starts with the profound and oft-neglected doctrine of union with Christ. As Christ is our justification, so He is our sanctification: thru our union with Him. United to Him in His death, burial and resurrection (though I could add more) we are justified and sanctified (the double blessing of union that Calvin notes).

“Christ himself is the only adequate resource we have for the development of sanctification in our own lives.”

He shares His resources with us. So, Ferguson notes that sanctification is neither accomplished by divine fiat or self-exertion. Christ has provided all we need, and by virtue of our gracious union with Christ we are able to draw on these resources. It is not like a Matrix download where Neo instantaneously gains skills. By faith we drawn His resources and trust His Spirit to work in us. We participate but are utterly dependent.

“Faith involves trusting in and resting on the resources of Christ as though they were our own.”

At this point Ferguson walks through Romans 6 to understand how our union with Christ effects our sanctification. In Christ we have died to sin (via His atoning death) and live to God (via the resurrection) which is the essence of our sanctification. Death to sin does not mean we don’t sin (see Romans 7) but our sin no longer condemns us (Romans 8:1). We are no longer under its authority. Our life is no longer determined by our past, but Christ’s past. The verdict has been passed and Christ’s vindication means we are alive to God, and live for God. Because we are united to Christ we are a new creation. We are no longer the old man in Adam but the new man in Christ. Sanctification can be understood not as getting used to our justification, but as growing into our new identity in Christ.

This new man encounters oppositions from the world, the flesh and the devil. Spiritual warfare, in Scripture, is about the struggle between them and the Spirit. They seek to undermine our new life in Christ like old drinking buddies. They use guilt, shame, temptation and more. This is the context of Paul’s statements on the subject in Ephesians 6. Our sanctification is not an easy thing but one met with great resistance: internal and external.

“All that is true for me in Christ has not yet been accomplished in me by the Spirit.”

This is close to Frame’s perspectivalism. Christ’s work for us has already taken place and I already benefit from it. I have imputed righteousness, for example. Christ’s work in my by the Spirit (and His work thru me by the Spirit) is not been fully applied. Some of it is not yet, or not completely. Imparted righteousness has begin but is not complete. It won’t be until glorification. Romans 7 and Galatians 5 are two places that introduces us to this painful tension we must live with and in.

One aspect of sanctification is called mortification, the putting to death of sin aka the practices of the old man in Adam (Ephesians 4; Colossians 3). This imperative follows the great indicative of our union with Christ. We begin to live in accordance with our new identity in Christ (called vivification which Ferguson does not explicitly mention). We do not work to earn a new status or identity in Christ. Christ is restoring His image in us by His sanctifying grace.

Ferguson then moves to discuss the means of grace essential to our sanctification. These do not merit grace, but are the ordinary means by which God gives us grace as we seek Him by faith. He mentions the Word, God’s providences (often affliction or prosperity which reveals our weaknesses and vulnerabilities as well as sins that need to be confessed), fellowship and the sacraments. You will notice much of this is found in the Church. The Church is one of Christ’s essential means of grace for our sanctification. There we hear the Word, receive the sacraments and enjoy fellowship (including rebuke and encouragement).

The controversial aspect to this is the Law and the Christian’s relationship to the Law as part of the Word. It should not be controversial in light of 2 Timothy 3’s view of Scripture. The third use of the law, as a guide for Christian living, is often accused of being legalistic. But we are not trying to establish or maintain our status through obedience. We have these by grace. The Law shows us what it looks like to live as the new man in love. We don’t say, as we are often accused of saying, that the Law has the power to sanctify us. The power comes through our union with Christ in the power of the Spirit through faith and love.

The Responses

Ferguson said very little about the Law (just about 1 page), but Forde sees this as overplaying the role of the law in our sanctification. He puts words in Ferguson’s mouth about the law “producing holiness.” He is allergic to the law and misinterprets Ferguson as a result. In some sense Forde underestimates the “already” aspects of our salvation such that we still interact with the law as if non-Christians. I can read the Law and say “this is who Christ is and who He wants me to be- help me to be like You.” Forde agrees with Ferguson’s description of sanctification (though it differs greatly from his own chapter) but faults him on implementation. Perhaps because there is so little implementation in Forde’s scheme (to borrow his phrase).

Wood, the Wesleyan perspective, agrees with much of what Ferguson says but claims that the intention of the heart is what is decisive. That is rather subjective in practice. He takes this to briefly introduce Wesleyan perfeectionism. It is not sinless perfectionism but we’ll get there next time.

Spittler calls himself a “Reformed Pentecostal” and sees much to affirm in Ferguson’s presentation. He would not share Ferguson’s high view of the sacraments. He also thinks there is too much focus on controlling behavior.

The Contemplative response, by Hinson notes that Ferguson makes too little of prayer in his discussion of the means. I suspect Ferguson would agree with this oversight. He then lapses into a great misunderstanding of the Puritans which seems to imply that Ferguson wants to coerce obedience from people, even non-Christians. I really didn’t follow this line of reasoning because it was quite irrational as well as historically inaccurate.

Bottom Line: Sanctification by being united to Christ and appropriated by the means of grace.

Read Full Post »