Considering the Twelve Statements, Part 2

As we move into the second half of the 12 Statements of the PCA Report on Human Sexuality we find a little more controversy than in the first half. These statements, as we noted before, address the concerns of those afraid of theological compromise, and the concerns of those afraid of pastoral cruelty. As Arsenio Hall used to say, “Let’s get busy!”

Sanctification

We affirm that Christians should flee immoral behavior and not yield to temptation. By the power of the Holy Spirit working through the ordinary means of grace, Christians should seek to wither, weaken, and put to death the underlying idolatries and sinful desires that lead to sinful behavior. The goal is not just consistent fleeing from, and regular resistance to, temptation, but the diminishment and even the end of the occurrences of sinful desires through the reordering of the loves of one’s heart toward Christ. Through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, we can make substantial progress in the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord (Rom. 6:14-19; Heb. 12:14; 1 John 4:4; WCF13.1).

This positive statement of our doctrine is right on target and expresses well what it does say. It is addressing Christians, people who’ve been justified on account of the imputed righteousness of Christ by faith. Our justification is not measured by our degree of sanctification. As people who are united to Christ we are united to Him in His death and resurrection unto new life. As people who are united to Christ, we all have a responsibility to flee immoral behavior, not just SSA. We all have a responsibility to not yield to temptation, including but not limited to SSA. This is clear. This is no “cheap grace”.

How does this happen? Through the work of the Spirit through the ordinary means of grace. This is important. There is no special second blessing for those struggling with SSA (or porn or alcohol or…) that renders them perfectly sanctified. There are no special means just for those who suffer from SSA or gender dysphoria. The discussions will be different, but the means of grace the same.

The people in question will want to experience less temptation, not more if the Spirit is at work in them. Christians want to sin less. And the Christians in question are no different. Their loves are being reordered. This is happening because He who begins good works in Christ brings them to completion in Christ.

Nevertheless,this process of sanctification—even when the Christian is diligent and fervent in the application of the means of grace—will always be accompanied by many weaknesses and imperfections (WCF16.5, 6), with the Spirit and the flesh warring against one another until final glorification (WCF13.2). The believer who struggles with same-sex attraction should expect to see the regenerate nature increasingly overcome the remaining corruption of the flesh, but this progress will often be slow and uneven. Moreover, the process of mortification and vivification involves the whole person, not simply unwanted sexual desires. The aim of sanctification in one’s sexual life cannot be reduced to attraction to persons of the opposite sex (though some persons may experience movement in this direction), but rather involves growing in grace and perfecting holiness in the fear of God (WCF13.3).

Now comes the necessary counter-balance. “Sanctification … will always be accompanied by many weaknesses and imperfections.”  This is true, even when we are diligent. Though, due to the conflict between flesh and Spirit none of us is as diligent as we ought to be. In Gal. 5 Paul mentions sexual sin as one of the works of the flesh with which the Galatians were tempted. We are no different. Rare is the Christian who has no sexual temptations and struggles. To hold those with SSA to a higher and different standard than ourselves is cruel. This portion of the statement guards against such cruelty.

It is not soft on sin (both original and actual) by any stretch of the imagination. It is realistic about our remaining corruption. We should see progress. But the word is progress, not perfection. Due to that warring progress is often slow and uneven. The Report doesn’t fall into the trap of saying sanctification is about having heterosexual desires or getting married. It is about holiness, the growth of grace.

I’ve seen too many comments (imply or state) that do assume that in this area real Christians don’t experience temptation, or that some switch is flipped and they become attracted to people of the opposite sex. That doesn’t happen for everyone, and by holding out false expectations (that it should, not could, happen) much damage is done.

Impeccability

We affirm the impeccability of Christ. The incarnate Son of God neither sinned (in thought, word, deed, or desire) nor had the possibility of sinning. Christ experienced temptation passively, in the form of trials and the devil’s entreaties, not actively, in the form of disordered desires. Christ had only the suffering part of temptation, where we also have the sinning part. Christ had no inward disposition or inclination unto the least evil, being perfect in all graces and all their operations at all times.

There is an element of controversy here. Yes, “the incarnate Son of God neither sinned (in thought, word, deed or desire)”. The question is, “Was it possible for him to sin?”. The Report says He couldn’t. In the footnote they quote from Berkhof about the “essential bond between the human and divine natures.” This, to me sounds like mixture and close to violating the Chalcedonian formula. We still, confessionally, distinguish between the two complete natures while affirming one person. Monothelitism (one will) was condemned as well. The road of orthodoxy seems narrow between the two ditches error.

2. The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fullness of time was come, take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin; being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, of her substance. So that two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. Which person is very God, and very man, yet one Christ, the only Mediator between God and man. WCF VIII

We clearly do not believe that Jesus had a fallen nature like us. There was no sin original nor actual of His own which blemished and disqualified Him as the Lamb of God. The temptation He experienced was from outside of Himself, not due to an inward inclination to disobey. This the Report rightfully guards.

Monophysitism (one nature) <======> Chalcedonian Orthodoxy <=====> Nestorianism (2 persons)

Charles Hodge

The Report reflects Kevin DeYoung’s article from 2019 on the Gospel Coalition blog which may have resulted from his work on this committee. He focuses on the work of W.G.T. Shedd. The focus is on the inability of Christ to sin. This is the majority report from the Church.

It has been increasingly questioned in the last few hundred years, including by esteemed theologians like Charles Hodge. DeYoung notes that Shedd likely wrote in response to Hodges’ views. In his work The Person of Christ, Donald Macleod posits that Jesus was free from actual sin, and from inherent sin (corruption). This focuses on a biblical and not speculative position since he was not born of Adam.

The late R.C. Sproul was a PCA theologian who also surmised that Jesus, pertaining to His humanity, was able to sin while also affirming that Jesus never did.

“But if Christ’s divine nature prevented him from sinning, in what sense did he obey the law of God as the second Adam? At his birth, Jesus’ human nature was exactly the same as Adam’s before the fall, with respect to his moral capabilities. Jesus had what Augustine called the posse peccare and the posse non peccare, that is, the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. … Satan was not trying to get God to sin. He was trying to get the human nature of Christ to sin, so that he would not be qualified to be the Savior. …. I may be wrong, but I think it is wrong to to believe that Christ’s divine nature made it impossible for him to sin. If that were the case, the temptation, the tests, and the assuming of the responsibilities of the first Adam would have all been charades. This position protects the authenticity of the human nature because it was the human nature that carried out the mission of the second Adam on our behalf.” Sproul, Truths We Confess, Vol. 1, pp. 251

As a result, I think that asking us to affirm that Jesus could not sin, in addition to did not sin, may be an overreach. The Confession reflects the Chalcedonian Formula and doesn’t seem to directly address this issue. I agree with Sproul’s point even if I don’t like his articulation at all points. We don’t want to sound (or be) Nestorian. But Jesus was fully man as well as fully God. Not having inherited corruption, Jesus as the second Adam likely was in the same state as the first Adam. His perfect obedience for us should draw wonder and amazement (as Sproul notes on the next page) because he succeeded where Adam the first failed. A man not only had to die, but also perfectly obey. We don’t say that Jesus wasn’t able to die by virtue of the essential bond of his nature.

Nevertheless, Christ endured, from without, real soul-wrenching temptations which qualified him to be our sympathetic high priest (Heb. 2:18; 4:15). Christ assumed a human nature that was susceptible to suffering and death.He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief (Isa. 53:3).

They seek to emphasize the reality of Christ’s suffering in temptation and in death which makes Him perfect for being our Mediator. Hebrews wants us to know of the reality of His temptation, as well as His sinlessness, so we are encouraged to draw near to Him as our Great High Priest who alone is able to help us.

Identity

We affirm that the believer’s most important identity is found in Christ (Rom. 8:38-39; Eph. 1:4, 7). Christians ought to understand themselves, define themselves, and describe themselves in light of their union with Christ and their identity as regenerate, justified, holy children of God (Rom. 6:5-11; 1 Cor. 6:15-20; Eph. 2:1-10). To juxtapose identities rooted in sinful desires alongside the term “Christian”is inconsistent with Biblical language and undermines the spiritual reality that we are new creations in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).

This is one of the issues that arose due to the Revoice Conference and caused a stir when TE Greg Johnson stated he was a “gay Christian” on the floor of General Assembly. We’ll return to the latter reference in a moment.

Yes, our most important identity is found in Christ. I’ve preached on this a few times in recent years, including in January and on Pentecost. We don’t cease to have other identities, but our “most important identity” is found in Christ, through our union with Him. Ordinarily we should not “juxapose identities rooted in sinful desire” as the Report states. Generally it does create confusion because it is inconsistent with biblical language. This is at least part of why I thought it was unwise for Greg Johnson to make the statement.

Is it always wrong to do so? You might think “yes” based on the above. However:

Nevertheless, being honest about our sin struggles is important. While Christians should not identify with their sin so as to embrace it or seek to base their identity on it, Christians ought to acknowledge their sin in an effort to overcome it. There is a difference between speaking about a phenomenological facet of a person’s sin-stained reality and employing the language of sinful desires as a personal identity marker. That is, we name our sins, but are not named by them. Moreover, we recognize that there are some secondary identities, when not rooted in sinful desires or struggles against the flesh, that can be legitimately affirmed along with our primary identity as Christians. For example, the distinctions between male and female, or between various nationalities and people groups, are not eradicated in becoming Christians, but serve to magnify the glory of God in his plan of salvation (Gen. 1:27; 1 Peter 3:7; Rev. 5:9; 7:9-10).

They don’t make it an absolute prohibition, as some in our denomination seek to. It is a statement that involves context- “What is that person mean by it?” TE Johnson did not mean he was a practicing homosexual. He was not making an identity statement. Earlier in his statement he made clear that he has been and is celibate. He was “being honest” about his on-going sin struggle. This is not simply some ivy tower discussion but involves men in the room. He does not “embrace it or seek to base [his] identity on it.

We shouldn’t just go along with someone’s statement. We should ask what they mean. That should have been clear to the Assembly by the rest of TE Johnson’s comments. I understood it but unfortunately some either didn’t or refused to take those qualifiers into account. We can extend charity instead of jumping all over a brother for using a phrase we don’t like or find inappropriate. This distinctions should matter to us. Charity helps us to maintain the bond of peace while not driving strugglers into the dark. We should reject the use of shibboleths as ways to “ferret out” theological enemies. This is why I will oppose any Overtures that seek to ban phrases outright.

Language

We affirm that those in our churches would be wise to avoid the term “gay Christian.” Although the term “gay”may refer to more than being attracted to persons of the same sex, the term does not communicate less than that. For many people in our culture, to self-identify as “gay”suggests that one is engaged in homosexual practice. At the very least, the term normally communicates the presence and approval of same-sex sexual attraction as morally neutral or morally praiseworthy. Even if “gay,”for some Christians, simply means “same-sex attraction,”it is still inappropriate to juxtapose this sinful desire, or any other sinful desire, as an identity marker alongside our identity as new creations in Christ.

This covers much of the same ground as the statement on identity. I agree with the wisdom of the statement. We should be wise in our use of language, keeping our context in mind. When examining another person’s language we should keep their context in mind instead of imputing our understanding. We are not deconstructionists, but hold to authorial intent.

Nevertheless, we recognize that some Christians may use the term “gay”in an effort to be more readily understood by non-Christians. The word “gay”is common in our culture, and we do not think it wise for churches to police every use of the term. Our burden is that we do not justify our sin struggles by affixing them to our identity as Christians. Churches should be gentle, patient, and intentional with believers who call themselves “gay Christians,” encouraging them, as part of the process of sanctification, to leave behind identification language rooted in sinful desires, to live chaste lives, to refrain from entering into temptation, and to mortify their sinful desires.

The balancing statement recognizes that “gay” is a term more readily used and understood by non-Christians. Use of same sex attraction can create unnecessary barriers in evangelism and apologetics. They rightfully warn about turning into the language police as though we gladly lived in Orwell’s 1984. Yes, we don’t want to justify struggles with sin. We want to continue to encourage growth in sanctification.

Friendship

We affirm that our contemporary ecclesiastical culture has an underdeveloped understanding of friendship and often does not honor singleness as it should. The church must work to see that all members, including believers who struggle with same-sex attraction, are valued members of the body of Christ and engaged in meaningful relationships through the blessings of the family of God. Likewise we affirm the value of Christians who share common struggles gathering together for mutual accountability, exhortation, and encouragement.

This statement reverses the order, addressing the need for compassion first. We affirm the need for healthy, God-honoring relationships. There is an admission that the Church generally struggles to honor singleness. As one who did not marry until I was in my mid-30’s it was not an act of rebellion or due to a lack of interest. God’s providence is part of marriage. I know many whom in the providence of God are not married, though they would like to be. They are not attracted to people who are attracted to them, and the ones to whom they are attracted are not attracted to them. A person with SSA may be providentially hindered from marriage. They shouldn’t “fake it”. But God can and has given some sufficient attraction to a friend of the opposite sex.

Marriage should not be entered into wantonly, and if one person has SSA this should be discussed precisely because at some point it will matter. Most of the times I’ve known men to leave their wives, this was not disclosed prior to marriage. They thought or hoped that marriage would fix them.

The Church needs to do a better job of enfolding single people into the life of the church. In this way people will walk with them through the ups and downs of life. There can be loving accountability in sexual issues. We can affirm common struggles. Too often people struggling with sexual issues, including SSA, can feel excluded and/or hounded as if that was the only issue of sanctification in their live. This can be due to shame on their part, or rejection on the part of others due to their struggle. They will need extra encouragement to be involved.

Nevertheless, we do not support the formation of exclusive, contractual marriage-like friendships, nor do we support same-sex romantic behavior or the assumption that certain sensibilities and interests are necessarily aspects of a gay identity. We do not consider same-sex attraction a gift in itself, nor do we think this sin struggle, or any sin struggle, should be celebrated in the church.

In light of the direction some in the Revoice movement have taken, this is an important counterbalance. The covenant relationship between church members is good. The covenant relationship of marriage, between one man and one woman, is good. Having something akin to a same-sex, non-sexual marriage is not good. We should not encourage “romantic” relationships even if their are promises of chastity. These relationships are driven by their inner corruption and are therefore sinful. Their longing for romance should not be satisfied with such an exclusive  relationship.

Yes, we should not consider SSA itself to be a gift, though it may be something God uses (as part of the “all things”) to make us more like Jesus (this is one of those gospel tensions). The gospel, not sin, should be celebrated in the Church and by churches. This should serve as a caution to some elements of Revoice.

Repentance and Hope

We affirm that the entire life of the believer is one of repentance. Where we have mistreated those who struggle with same-sex attraction, or with any other sinful desires, we call ourselves to repentance. Where we have nurtured or made peace with sinful thoughts, desires, words, or deeds, we call ourselves to repentance. Where we have heaped upon others misplaced shame or have not dealt well with necessary God-given shame, we call ourselves to repentance.

As you can see, this is not about the doctrine of repentance but a call to repentance on the part of the PCA and its churches. We have often stressed the sinfulness of homosexuality without also holding out hope in the gospel. They recognize that some have made peace with sin of various kinds. Honestly, some of our churches have ignored other sins much to their detriment. This is a good reminder that repentance is for us, not just those sexual sinners.

Nevertheless, as we call ourselves to the evangelical grace of repentance (WCF15.1), we see many reasons for rejoicing (Phil. 4:1). We give thanks for penitent believers who, though they continue to struggle with same-sex attraction, are living lives of chastity and obedience. These brothers and sisters can serve as courageous examples of faith and faithfulness, as they pursue Christ with a long obedience in gospel dependence. We also give thanks for ministries and churches within our denomination that minister to sexual strugglers (of all kinds) with Biblical truth and grace. Most importantly, we give thanks for the gospel that can save and transform the worst of sinners—older brothers and younger brothers, tax collectors and Pharisees, insiders and outsiders. We rejoice in ten thousand spiritual blessings that are ours when we turn from sin by the power of the Spirit, trust in the promises of God, and rest upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life (WCF14.2).

It ends on the note of joy for those who have repented and now struggle. Those who are obedient and chaste. We are thankful for ministries and congregations that serve those that struggle with sexual issues. We should be grateful for the realities of the gospel and the transformation it produces.

It is my hope that the Twelve Statements unify our denomination, or rather help us to see that we are largely united on these issues. We recognize that same sex attraction and activity are sins original and actual, but that the gospel holds out the offer of forgiveness, justification & sanctification through union with Christ and therefore fellowship with God. There is hope.

My hope, in part, is that we see that the areas of difference are not significant, should not prohibit fellowship and are not cause for schism. Let’s leave room for the church discipline of the unrepentant as we ought.

Next we’ll move through the supporting arguments for these statements.

Read Full Post »

Considering Extravagant Grace

In the last few years there has been an explosion of books on the topic of grace. Some of been excellent. Some have been controversial. Some of those that have been controversial had some significant flaws. Not a fatal flaw, mind you. They were still within the bounds of Christianity but not necessarily within the bounds of the community to which the author belonged (how’s this for vague?).

So, it was with a measure of anticipation and trepidation that I read Extravagant Grace: God’s Glory Displayed in Our Weakness by Barbara Duguid. I had a sense of anticipation because I have found her husband Iain’s books very helpful. Additionally I saw that she was very dependent on John Newton from whom I’ve also benefited greatly. But I also had sanctification controversy PTSD.

Here is my bottom line: I loved the forest, but some of the particular trees may have issues.

Barbara has some obvious influences, and some that aren’t as obvious. In addition to John Newton, she has a certificate from CCEF, and holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith. When she sticks close to those the book is quite excellent and helpful. When she goes beyond them I found it less helpful and has some of the same issues that troubled me about Tullian Tchividjian’s books on grace. I try to remember what Dr. Pratt taught us: you can’t say everything any time you say anything. Yet a qualification or two saves a world of misunderstanding.

The Good

Throughout the book Barbara Duguid is quite honest about her own struggles, which essentially drive the book. This is nothing new. Many theologians have a doctrinal emphasis that reflects their own personal struggles. Think Luther and his emphasis on justification by faith alone. There is nothing wrong with this, particularly when we consider the providence of God in the matter. Yet we should recognize that we, as sinners saved by grace, can still run off into extremes. Her honesty, to get back to my point, is helpful. She is not writing theoretically, but has walked with God through these difficult places.

“God thinks that you will actually come to know and love him better as a desperate and weak sinner in continual need of grace than you would as a triumphant Christian warrior who wins each and every battle against sin.”

This book is easy to read. It is not a technical book but intends to make theology practical. She does a good job of this. The first chapter, Welcome to Your Heart, easily introduces you to her heart and by extension yours through a story. She shows how pride lurks in our hearts, distorting our experience by trying to make us the center of … everything.

The next three chapters, leaning heavily on Newton, are about the three stages of Christian life: babes in Christ, maturing and grown-ups. Sadly, not many people talk about this. It is helpful to recognize the differences so a person has more accurate expectations. Babes often have few trials and lots of joy. God has merciful on them. There is often, in my experience, significant change almost immediately if one converts as an adult. But then life gets hard. God begins to work more deeply, and most often through hardship and failure. The focus is on developing deeper dependence on God, and the destruction of our pride.

“A mature believer studies all the aspects of a person’s struggle with sin and makes allowances. He never stops calling sin the ugly and evil thing that it is, but he understands how deeply rooted it is in human nature and how helpless every Christian is to stand against it.”

Her book offers hope to all of us who struggle with sin, which is every Christian. She reminds us of the providence of God, the preservation of the saints, and the doctrine of assurance (from the Westminster Confession of Faith) which instruct us that sometimes God does in fact bring us through periods of disobedience. The problem is most Christians don’t talk about with struggles (contrary to James 5) so when we struggle with sin we think we are the only one, or more messed up than everyone else in church.  We have to remember that God is up to something bigger than “sin management.”

Our struggles with sin should translate into greater patience with the sins of other Christians. When we consider how patient God is with us, and how sufficient His mercy is to us, we are able to be patient and extend mercy to our brothers and sisters even (particularly!) when they sin against us.

“The more I see myself as the biggest sinner and the worst transgressor, the more I will be able to step up to love others even when they sin against me time and time again.”

I can see Ed Welch’s (a professor at CCEF)  as well as Newton’s influence in the last chapter. Part of how we strive for holiness is in community and making use of the means of grace (Word and sacrament). We need each other profoundly. Her the individualism of Americans is anti-thetical to the gospel. We need help to see our sins. We need help through the prayers of others not only for our illnesses but our sins. We need to remember that the Lord’s Table is for us as saved sinners who still need grace along the pilgrim road.

Her audience is those who are depressed and overwhelmed by their on-going struggle with sin. These people need to know of God’s extravagant grace toward sinners saved by grace. There is plenty of truth to encourage them so they can strengthen their weak knees and keep moving by the grace of God.

“Although God did not create your struggle or tempt you to it, he has called you to walk with it. He has assigned it to you, and he loves you as he calls you to walk through it. He is not disgusted by you.”

The Questions the Reformed Community Needs to Address

There are some questions that are raised by this book, reflecting problems with other books on grace. The sanctification debates seemed largely focused on the third use of the law. These go deeper and are, I think, more important.

1. Is sanctification monergistic or synergistic? This book seems to give conflicting answers at times. Newton often refers to striving for holiness, and she echos that at times. But she is also critical of unnamed pastors who seem to focus on our responsibility. Philippians 2:13 has been one of the key verses for me to understand the relationship between gospel indicatives (facts) and gospel imperatives (commands). God works in me so I will and work according to His purpose. We can’t focus on only one part of that. Edwards noted that it is “all of God and all of me”. I can only work because He works in me (grace!!). But I actually work. He’s not working for me, believing for me, repenting for me. It is typically a hyper-Calvinist view to minimize the exercise of our wills. At times she comes really close to this.

2. What is the nature, or goal, of sanctification? She frequently criticizes the view that it is “sinning less and less.” This seems contrary to the way it is expressed in the Westminster Shorter Catechism to which she holds as a member of the ARP.

Question 35: What is sanctification?
Answer: Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.

She doesn’t really qualify or explain what she means. She is correct if she is referring to simply external obedience. The truth is that our “obedience” is often driven by fear and pride instead of faith and love. When we obey out of fear (the fear of getting caught, what people will think etc.) or pride (having a reputation to uphold, a sense of entitlement) we are not really obeying. If this is what she means, I wholeheartedly agree. God is working to address the fear and pride behind so much “obedience.” God also won’t give us “victory” (I hate that term) if it will lead us to spiritual pride. Fear and pride are sins too, but sins that drive other sins as well as counterfeit obedience.

3. What is the Degree of Regeneration?

Our depravity is total, but not absolute. Every aspect of us is affected but we aren’t as bad as we could be. She notes that though saved, we are depraved, weak little sinners. Where is regeneration? To what degree have we changed? Thomas Boston, in the Human Nature in its Fourfold Estate, argues that our regeneration is total in the same way that depravity is. Every aspect of us is affected by regeneration, but not absolutely. While regenerate we still have indwelling sin. We want to be neither triumphalists nor fatalists. She rightly criticizes the former but sounds an awful lot like the later.

4. Does God get angry with us? Can He be pleased by our actions?

She hammers our position in Christ. Indeed there is cause for great rejoicing with regard to our position in Christ as perfectly righteous. This is our hope: union with Christ. But in sanctification does God only see us positionally or does He also see us personally?

She notes the Israelites in the wilderness as the pattern for us in many respects, particularly their failure (she overlooks how many times it does say they did everything the Lord commanded Moses in particular matters). If they were converted (which I think many/most of them were) they were then united to Christ (apart from whom there is no salvation). During the wilderness journey we often see God angry with Israel (with no differentiation between the elect and non-elect). In Hebrews 12 we see that God disciplines us so we bear the harvest of righteousness. He necessarily sees us as less than personally righteous and moves us toward greater personal righteousness. We have Christ’s imputed righteousness in justification, and He imparts Christ’s righteousness to us in sanctification. These distinctions seem to be missing here (and in other some books about grace). If we can’t please God personally, then why does Paul pray for this in Colossians 1.

Love is not contrary to anger, as she seems to argue. Anger is an important part of love to protect the beloved from danger, including the destructiveness of sin. I wonder how much her own anger issues (one of the sins she says she struggles with) influence her views on this. I don’t want God to be angry with me, but I need his fatherly anger at times, as Calvin notes.

“The Spirit of love was given to Christ alone, for the express purpose of conferring this Spirit upon his members; and there can be no doubt that the following words of Paul apply to the elect only: “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us,” (Rom. 5:5); namely, the love which begets that confidence in prayer to which I have above adverted. On the other hand, we see that God is mysteriously offended [wondrously angry] with his children, though he ceases not to love them. He certainly hates them not, but he alarms them with a sense of his anger, that he may humble the pride of the flesh, arouse them from lethargy, and urge them to repentance. Hence they, at the same instant, feel that he is angry with them for their sins, and also propitious to their persons.” John Calvin (Institutes 3:2:12)

The Big Picture Problem?

When she moves away from Newton, CCEF and the Westminster Standards, I pick up an organizational principle for salvation that is more Lutheran than Reformed. Lutheran theology (after Luther’s death) made justification by faith alone the organizing principle so union with Christ and sanctification (and all the other benefits) flow out of justification. This, in my opinion, means that justification flattens the other doctrines, our understanding of Scripture and the dynamic rather than static relationship we have with God. This shows up in focusing on the positional almost exclusively.

The Reformed view sees union with Christ as the organizing principle (to borrow Lane Tipton’s terminology, see Calvin’s Institutes, book 3 and the WLC #65-69). Out of our union with Christ we receive all the (distinct) blessings of Christ. We receive the double grace of justification and sanctification at the same time, though they are distinct. We experience definitive or definite sanctification at that point. It focuses on us as positionally sanctified (see Hoekema’s Saved by Grace). Progressive sanctification necessarily focuses on our personal sanctification. He sees us as we are in ourselves (but doesn’t condemn us because of our position in Christ). Reformed Theology has historically held these two in a biblical tension that appears to be lacking here.

Yesterday I looked at some other reviews to make sure I wasn’t missing the boat, or seeing something that isn’t there. Both Mark Jones and Dane Ortland saw the same things or similar things.

Like Dane Ortland I recognize the many good things about this book which includes some things that are rarely taught which need to be heard. But I want to filter out the ways in which she departs from (my understanding of?) Reformed Theology. Enjoy the forest, even if some trees have thorns. Or to use a different metaphor: it is a good meal, but there is some bone and gristle to toss out.

Time for a little Double Cure.

Read Full Post »

Considering Obedience

In my devotional reading these days I’m in Deuteronomy. Since all Scripture is useful to admonish, correct and train the righteous person to live uprightly (2 Timothy 3) we can learn lessons here about obedience.

Let me say that all of this must be understood in light of being a justified person, one who has experienced the redemption from sin just as Israel experienced redemption from slavery. This should not be seen as an attempt to gain life. The blessing of obedience for Israel was not eternal life, but remaining in the land. Gross apostasy would result in exile. For us it results in excommunication. Gross apostasy reveals a heart that was not transformed by grace.

While we are talking about obedience to the law, let us not think (as many erroneously claim about any such discussion) that we are sanctified BY the law. Just as the law has no power to justify (Rom. 6-7), it has no power to sanctify. The Law is the sign showing us what a sanctified life looks like. The power of sanctification is the Spirit who works in us to apply the work of Christ for us. Read the following in light of that or you will grossly misunderstand what I say.

Deuteronomy is the giving of the law to the generation that was going to enter the land. The last of the adult “rebels” who left Egypt has died for their unbelief and refusal to enter the land out of fear. Moses lays out God’s commands for them before he dies, unable to enter the land for his own unrighteous anger earlier.

And Moses summoned all Israel and said to them, “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the rules that I speak in your hearing today, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them. (5:1)

This is the process of discipleship which we must follow for ourselves and teach to those under our spiritual care. There is a progression here that we must keep in mind.

Hear => Learn => Do

We cannot do unless we first learn and we cannot learn unless we first hear. The end or goal is to grow in obedience to the One who loved us and gave Himself for us. If you think that is an OT thing, recall the Great Commission includes “teaching them to obey all I have commanded you.” That command is not limited to faith and repentance. Love is vague and Paul reminds us that the Law actually shows us the dimensions of loving God and others (Rom. 12). A desire to obey God rooted in faith, love and gratitude is NOT legalism.

To achieve this final goal, we need to recall the lessor goals or intermediate goals. Hear it! Read the Scriptures and listen to the Word preached and taught. There is no other way to hear.

Don’t “just” listen, but learn. Seek to understand the meaning of the law, what it does and doesn’t require or prohibit. Begin to store it in your heart (and memory) so you have a practical use of it. The Law is not for our times of ease, but the times of temptation. That is when we need God’s moral guidance. There will probably not be a Bible in the back seat of the car when needed, or the corporate boardroom or wherever you find yourself under temptation and in need of God’s moral guidance. You have to learn it.

Then of course apply it, by faith. Work it out knowing that God is at work in you to will and work according to His good purpose. You are not alone. When you struggle, cry out for help.

“Oh that they had such a heart as this always, to fear me and to keep all my commandments.” (5:29)

“that you may fear the LORD your God … by keeping all his statues and his commandments…” (6:2)

There is another ingredient to the obedient life. A healthy fear or reverence for God. At the moment they expressed such a heart, a sincere desire to obey God in all things. Such mountain top experiences don’t last. We obey what we fear (either positively or negatively) most. Obedience is a heart issue, as I recently reminded my children. They didn’t listen to their mother because they didn’t respect her as they ought. They ignore her far too often. They tend to fear missing out on some thing they think better than obedience. We do that too. Or we fear other people, and the list could go one for some time. We are to fear God above all. The measure of that fear appears to be obedience. Reverence isn’t just about showing up on Sunday to sing songs and pray. Reverence is about wanting to please Him all week long: worship thru service.

“And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, …” (6:24)

Moses returns to the question of obedience, and therefore fear. But see what He adds. God’s laws, and our obedience, are for our good. Sin is self-destructive, and often destroys others including the ones we love. Sin destroys relationships. Obedience only destroys relationships when others don’t delight in righteousness. It often takes a great deal of faith to believe this. God doesn’t give me moral guidance to destroy me but to protect me and do good to me. The Law, as Paul said, is good and holy. The problem is always me, or my sinful nature.

We can’t make others fear God. But we can pray God to grant them this fear, and this knowledge that God intends all this for our good. We should walk the path of obedience and talk to others about it. We should also talk about how to return to the path when we wander from it (which we will do). I’m not talking about perfection, but progressive sanctification. While we do not arrive in this life, we make progress as the Spirit teaches us to say “no” to ungodly desires (Titus 2) and “yes” to godly ones. The good purpose God works in you to will and work is faith in Christ, and a faith accompanied by faithfulness or obedience.

Read Full Post »

Considering Sanctification: a Lutheran View

“Sanctification, if it is to be spoken of as something other than justification, is perhaps best defined as the art of getting used to the unconditional justification wrought by the grace of God for Jesus’ sake. … Sanctification is thus simply the art of getting used to justification. … Our sanctification consists merely in being shaped by, or getting used to, justification.”

At first glance you’d think I culled this from Tullian Tchvidjian’s blog. These are the words of Gerhard Forde in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification. The first view that is examined is the Lutheran view. I’m not sure Luther himself would fully embrace this view, but it is built on many elements of his teaching (perhaps taking them farther than he intended).

Much of Forde’s chapter is largely rhetorical and polemical rather than putting for a clearly articulated understanding. In this way it also sounds like much I hear from the previously mentioned PCA pastor on the subject of sanctification.. I am left wondering with whom he is arguing for the views argued against do not reflect those of my own theological heritage. He is obsessively concerned with legalism, but offers no concern about antinomianism. As a result (or perhaps I’ve got the causality backwards) the focus is almost completely on justification.

I agree, we need to begin living as justified people who are fully accepted in light of the righteousness of Christ. Sanctification is to be pursued as justified people. But in his Lutheran logic (which often trips me up in many areas of theology) any view of progressive sanctification (righteousness imparted, not a self-improvement project) is antithetical to and undermines the free grace of God in justification. It is as if he thinks one could lose one’s justification for not being sanctified enough.

I see him making a similar error to that which Roman Catholicism make though in the opposite direction. Both end up conflating justification and sanctification. For Roman Catholic theology you cannot be justified unless you are sanctified; or, your sanctification is your justification. In Forde’s expression of Lutheran theology, your justification is your sanctification.

In Reformed Theology we make distinctions, almost to a fault, to best understand the dynamic quality of Scripture. We recognize initial or definite sanctification (which is positional, like justification) and progressive sanctification. The latter is rooted in the former. In relating texts about sanctification, Forde refers to all those about definite sanctification and ignores those about progressive sanctification.

“Doesn’t the Bible follow the declaration of grace with certain exhortations and imperatives? So the protestations go, for the most part designed to reimpose at least a minimal conditionality on the promise.”

Here is evidence of polemics, and bad polemics at that. He doesn’t deal with the biblical data (all those imperatives in Paul’s letters to CHRISTIANS), but an ad hominem attack. Obviously anyone who wants to deal with God’s commands wants to undermine God’s grace, in his mind. Rather, as a new creature in Christ I now want to please God (before I was primarily concerned with pleasing myself). As a justified man the law no longer condemns me. It still shows me where I fall short of God’s glory, but also points me to God’s glory and what it means to imitate the Father. He writes as if we only hear the law as the old man, not the new man. The law, obviously doesn’t provide any power. The Holy Spirit provides that. According to Paul the problem was never with the law, but with us as sinners. But the legalistic strawman grows wearisome quite quickly. He repeated talks about “the scheme”. of sanctification which is presented in an obviously negative light.

Read Full Post »

Considering Progress

No, I’m not talking about progressivism. I’m not talking about evolutionary progress. I’m not talking about the progress of civilization.

I’m talking about progress in sanctification. Sometimes we fall into the trap that it really isn’t possible. We see our sins more clearly and more abundantly than we did before. We seem mired in it.

In the final chapter of The Hole in Our Holiness, Kevin DeYoung address the very real possibility, and expectation, of progress. There is such a thing as hope and change, in the life of a Christian.

He starts in 1 Timothy 4:15. Shortly after his ordination, it clicked for him.

¹⁵ Practice these things, immerse yourself in them, so that all may see your progress. ¹⁶ Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Paul wanted people to see Timothy’s progress, not just as a pastor but as a godly man. He was to practice “the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching.” But in verse 12 he’s told to “set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” He was to be growing, making progress, in these things. This implies that while Timothy was godly, he was not perfect and could become more godly.

“Paul didn’t think “set an example” means “get everything right the first time.”

Read Full Post »

Considering the Possibility of Godliness

Is there a reasonable hope for godliness for the Christian? Can we please God?

In the 5th chapter of The Hole in Our Holiness, Kevin DeYoung addresses this very question. He starts with the qualifications for office. The standards can seem so high that most men feel unqualified. They humble us. Taken absolutely, they disqualify everyone but Jesus. How are we to sort this out?

“It’s one thing to be humble about our piety. It’s another thing to think piety is impossible.”

At times we tend to flatten out holiness. We see it as static, not dynamic. It is part of our dynamic life with God. As we affirm our depravity, and the remnant of indwelling sin, we can start to think that we can obey God. We start to think we cannot please God.

But Scripture doesn’t talk that way.

And if we don’t think carefully and biblically, our lives are stunted.

He wants us to consider Zechariah and Elizabeth. They were righteous, walking blamelessly before God. That is not justification. That is sanctification.

Consider Job. He was called blameless and upright. Again, sanctification.

It isn’t just the Old Testament. Jesus expected people to put his words into practice (Mt. 7:24). James basically said the same thing (James 2:22-25).

Read Full Post »