And their wisdom is free now...
I notice the "gents", as they say, at the White Horse Inn can't end a broadcast without taking a shot at Christians who actually practice the faith.
Michael Horton: "So, to wrap this up, we can see that these liberals are really coming out of the pietistic tradition-"
Lutheran Guy: "Experiencers..."
Nameless Voice: "Or we can take it back to Gnostic tendencies in the 2nd and 3rd centuries..."
Michael Horton: "There's a wonderful book by an Anglican professor-"
Lutheran Guy: "Thus Christ Does All For Me, eh-men."
Michael Horton: "No. Doing the Faith is Denying the Faith."
Nameless Voice 2: "Excellent book..."
Michael Horton: "Well, that wraps it up for...another edition of the White Horse Inn."
29 Comments:
You listen to the WHI? How quaint. For what possible purpose? The mutterings of mere mortals must be extremely tedious to the gods in training.
I do listen to the white horse inn. Which broadcast are you referring to and I will hear for myself?
How do you define the Gospel or what do you understand the Gospel to be?
Do you subscribe to a confession of faith?Because if you do, their views (WhiteHorse Inn) will not be a surprise to you.
JEFF WROTE:
Are the White Horse guys implying that Faith Alone requires an attitude of passivity? Are they criticizing those who accept Sola Fides, but at the same time think that a Christian thus saved must labor heart and soul to practice his Faith?
There's a shallowness among Reformed Protestant types which is what the White Horse Inn crew basically are, (they represent Presbyterian, and Lutheran, and Baptist). I obviously am a Reformed person myself, seeing Reformed Theology as nothing other than bibilical doctrine itself, which is what it is. The shallowness I speak of is not on the doctrinal side, but on the practice side. They are very - very, very - weak in discerning what it means to be a Christian on the doing side. Several things contribute to their confusion (and fear). Much of it has to do with the man-fearing that pervades the visible churches. Some of it though is their confusion when they see that many heresies of the past and present are seemingly connected with practical approaches to the faith. Some of it is their confusion regarding regeneration vis-a-vis man's ability to 'do'. Once regenerate you BETTER start being able to DO, Christian. Much of the approach academic type theologians have is vain and shallow. They don't really understand regeneration and the difference in the state post-regeneration vs. pre-regeneration. Basically, they think once regenerate, and once learning the foundational doctrinal truths of the faith, they are then to merely sit on their butt and make no effort in their own sanctification.
This is the real issue: sanctification. Reformed Theology tells these fools that sanctification is both the work of God in you and your own effort. YOUR OWN EFFORT. Once regenerate you have ABILITY to make effective efforts. The parable of the talents, you would think, would put some fear of God on the subject into them, but these types routinely miss anything and everything to do with the practical teaching in the Gospels regarding sanctification. Jesus says "do this, do this, and do this" and it goes over their head in a, really, one has to say, vain and prideful - and man-fearing - manner.
I P CRUZ WROTE:
I do listen to the white horse inn. Which broadcast are you referring to and I will hear for myself?
How do you define the Gospel or what do you understand the Gospel to be?
Do you subscribe to a confession of faith?Because if you do, their views (WhiteHorse Inn) will not be a surprise to you.
Listen to, for instance, their broadcast titled, I think, Spiritual Formation. The other remarks I refer to are mere asides they are always making connecting all things heterodox to groups or movements known primarily for their practical approach to the faith. As if their argument is: you can't be doctrinally sound AND make practical efforts in the faith. I notice, though, that I've yet to hear them castigate the Puritans for their own practical approach to the faith. They can't quite go that far and get away with that. They'll have to do some work to delegitimize the Puritans via scholarly propaganda some into the near future before they go that direction...
As for the defining the Gospel. My one-liner in a post-comment somewhere below was intentionally not boilerplate in answering or defining what the Gospel is. The Gospel has to be seen in context of the Law. Law and Gospel are all of the Bible. There is both Law and Gospel in the Old Testament itself, and there is both Law and Gospel in the New Testament. The Gospel really is obvious: it's the good news of God's plan of redemption involving the work of His Son and it's effects on those who believe. The Law convicts, the Gospel saves. (Though they both convict in their own way too.) There's a million ways to define the Gospel, but that is sufficient.
On confessions of faith and the White Horse Inn's guys being doctrinally sound, I don't question their doctrinal soundness (the Lutheran I question, but)... Yes, in this sense I am being seen to be attacking, or making fun of, individuals who have, in this day and age, a rare and valuable doctrinal soundness, and I shouldn't do that without spelling out just what I differ with them. But it really goes to the heart of what I talk about (and what the visible churches have no defense against): the man-fearing and vanity one finds in the churches and among the - even sound - church leaders and teachers and what not.
Ultimately, read this short post (which is mostly Holy Writ and John Calvin's writing):
http://electofgod.blogspot.com/2005/08/hebrews-61.html
This gets at, along with what I've written above, what I'm talking about with these White Horse Inn guys...
With the usual differences in the areas of church polity and sacramental issues (infant baptism vs. credo baptism, etc.) I find the doctrinal statements drawn up in both the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity to be on-the-mark biblical doctrine...
Basically they carried the "no effort on your part can save you", which is true, into the post-regeneration area of sanctification. I.e., "no effort on your part contributes to your sanctification".
This is satanically off-the-mark.
Where the man-fearing comes into play is this: a regenerate Christian has to be led by the Spirit into ideas, practices, and goals regarding sanctification. When you fear man you cut the Spirit out of your life. This is why God says: Fear God, it is the beginning of wisdom. When you fear only God, and not man, you open yourself up to the influence of the Spirit in guiding you. When you fear man you are only allowing yourself to be led by man, and man can't lead you anywhere but where he already is. When the Spirit is your guide (and now listen to these satanic witches saying: "Oh, but, that is not the Spirit guiding you, that is a demonic spirit...") the knowledge is real and the practices are real and the goals are real. A regenerate Christian is ABLE to discern wheat from chaff and to know what is on-the-mark and what is off-the-mark. These man-fearing church leaders and other 'teachers' would have you believe that you are to be sheltered by them all your life in their visible churches because you don't have 'ability' to separate wheat from chaff. So, are you a Christian or aren't you? God gives you talents (silver) and expects you to make something from them. These church 'leaders' and 'teachers' are telling you to bury the talents in the ground. You follow that advice? If you do you're fool. Just as the 'teachers' on that White Horse Inn broadcast, as doctrinally sound as they might be, are fools.
Fear only God, it is the beginning of wisdom. When you fear man you have no access to the path of wisdom or the influences where wisdom resides. When you fear only God you allow yourself to be able to pursue wisdom.
I would have normally written this comment using much harsher language (just to scare off and freak out the man-fearing fools and waterboys of the devil and make them scream about how 'bad' I am), but I'm moderating my language just a little bit for my own reasons... That can change, though, if they start to show themselves again (i.e. if they decide to reappear from out of the tall grass they all ran into the first time they thought they'd confront me...)
Folks, they're death. You can't be harsh enough with them...
Jeff does not exist.
For some people it's a big thing to find doctrinal soundness and individuals who teach and defend doctrinal soundness. In that sense I don't want to be seen making fun of or attacking a Michael Horton or similar type. Yet, the fact just is that there is more to the faith than having the foundation of doctrinal soundness. One can fear man and be able to mouth doctrinal soundness. One can value fearing man more than one values fearing God alone and still mouth doctrinal soundness. When you have doctrinal soundness and you also take the step of fearing only God and not fearing man then you are in the territory where a real Christian can only be and needs to be. It is then that you will value the practical level of the faith. It is then that you will be God-centered - truly - rather than man-centered. It is then that the Spirit can guide you and you will respond.
Laying the foundation over and over is the activity of man-fearers. Building the structure on the foundation only begins to happen when you begin to only fear God...
I know this can sound somewhat abstract when using the language I'm forced to use, but I can refine any part of it down to practical terms and examples if questioned...
You listen to the WHI? How quaint. For what possible purpose? The mutterings of mere mortals must be extremely tedious to the gods in training.
They are tedious often, but you can pick up alot of impressions of where the mainstream are and how they see things and so on.
Fear in the biblical sense of 'fear God' is a combination of fear, reverence, awe.
When you have this for men it manifests as a sort of psychological and emotional bondage to humans and the opinions (collective and otherwise) of humans. And on a larger scale bondage to the world.
Human beings and the world in general are default agents of the devil and his kingdom regarding their effect on you vis-a-vis your own awakening to the truth of the Word of God and to your shifting to the fear of God and away from the fear of the world and of men.
It's a difficult thing to describe, but it is what 'fear God' means. There is a real 'fear-of-God' presence even. You can have a fear-of-God presence as opposed to a fear-of-man presence.
The world envelops you, and the opinions of humans envelop you. It's a strong, blanketing force to get out from under the tyranny of. But this is what 'fear God' and fear ONLY God means. Once you are able to fear only God then for you it is the beginning of wisdom (i.e. it is the beginning of your potential to pursue and develop wisdom). Because you now are no longer in bondage to the fear of the world and of man and of man's opinion, so you are able to now be led by the Spirit. Practically speaking: you will be free to now pursue any influence available because your bondage to opinions of what is 'correct' or 'proper' or 'serious' and 'not serious', 'taboo' and 'not taboo' (all determined by the standard of the world and men and the devil's kingdom in general) will be broken.
Your standard will be purely God's standard, as revealed in His Word, and as discerned by His Spirit in you: the Spirit of Truth.
I assume of course a person has read the Word of God and is self-identified as a Christian and has experienced regeneration, or is in that process perhaps. What I talk about can't apply to a person who doesn't yet have the ability to discern up from down.
Regeneration is the most important thing, and it is effected, when it is, by the Word and the Spirit. Get that. Force the issue. Approach God humbly though forcibly by His Word. Dedicated complete readings of His Word...
Once you have discernment then of course you can learn from teachers. Some will be very on-the-mark, some maybe only by degree, but you will be able to discern what is of worth from each. That is to get the foundational sound doctrine though (which is easy enough to discern and learn if you have the Spirit of Truth in you). Once you have that, though, it is possible to be led by the Spirit into more practical levels of the faith. This is the effort part of sanctification that the mainstream Christians - of all stripes - deny through fear and ignorance (and some for worse motives).
But if you fear only God and not man it won't matter what men teach regarding effort vis-a-vis sanctification. You'll 'know'.
When you only fear God too you approach His Word differently. You approach it as if it is something that is 'above' you. Rather than as something to be vainly brought down to 'your' level.
Calvin didn't approach the Word of God as if it was at his level. He approached it as if it were above him. Calvin never adopted the vain 'scholarly' approach to the Bible and never claimed or demanded the usual vain scholarly/worldly 'respect' that the wet boys with 'pieces of paper' demand. To Calvin when he engaged the Bible he was in the presence of God and God was speaking to him.
Biblical doctrine exists because God decreed it exist, and it can be discerned from his Word and through teachers given the gift of teaching by the Holy Spirit (like a Calvin). It is not man's doctrine, it is biblical doctrine. It is the foundation. And it is not difficult to understanding once you are ABLE to see to begin with. Once you have the foundation though, and you take the step to build upon it, it is there too where your fearing only God gives you ability to see God's truth in the practice of the faith and in the building of yourself up in the faith...
The mainstream level of the visible church is mired in the fear of man. It's a shallow environment inhabited by shallow souls. Those who are at least able to discern on-the-mark biblical doctrine still are in a deadening, inane bondage to man and the world. They don't know what it is to walk with the presence of one who only fears God. It's a vertical orientation and it MARKS you. It makes you known to the world and the devil (and it puts you at war with your own carnal self as well).
This really is the stumblingblock for the mainstream Christian. The fear of being 'marked' by the world. It is not pleasant to be separated out from the world. They join a church or denomination of fellow man-fearers thinking or affecting that they are joining a group that is separated from the world, but they are exposed when they run into a real Christian. The moment they meet a real Christian their true standing is exposed. They are as worldly and as man-fearing as the atheist or any dead asleep non-Christian on their block.
They say: "I don't know that person, really. Neighbors, I assure you, that outcast, that stranger passing (hopefully) through our fine neighborhood? I don't know that person. That person disgusts me as much as he disgusts you, I assure you of that, neighbor."
Fear of man.
It's the same with higher influences. "Really, good neighbors, I'm not interested in that that you may have seen me with. I was merely educating myself on what NOT to be interested in. Truly, good neighbors... Uh, um, I'm the good person you've always known me to be!"
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ct,
There are zillions of ways of restating the Gospel, but in the end, there is one point and one meaning of the Gospel. So what is the good news to you? Is it about God making humans good? Is it about being born again?
As far as I know, the guys at Whitehorse are confessing protestants so faithful to the traditional confessions. I am somewhat Lutheran leaning though I hold to Heidelberg/Belgic Confessions - i.e. Continental Reformed.
Perhaps the reason you disagree is because you have a different concept of the Gospel with them and its role or how it functions even after being a believer.
Puritanism is like Pietism happening in the English/Scottish Reformed Camp. I know for sure they have an unromantic view of Puritans. Horton is very familiar with Puritans - in fact his thesis was on Thomas Goodwin...
Rosenblatt was a Pietistic Lutheran before, just for you info.
Let me know what you think of the Gospel is and I think I can help where you disagree (I had been listening to them since 1996).
I P, your responding as if I didn't already respond to you.
The question is not 'what is the gospel', the question is: once regenerate does sanctification call for effort on the part of the regenerated believer? Or is it all the work of God in you and you do nothing because you are unable to do anything?
Reformed Theology itself teaches you it is both.
Of course a regenerated person is to make efforts in the process of sanctification. Christian (in Pilgrim's Progress) would not have even left home if effort was not necessary.
The fact is: one can be on-the-mark doctrinally AND practice the faith at the practical, doing level. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.
Hebrews 6:1 is Holy Writ rebuking Christians who have the notion that all the faith involves is continually laying the foundation of faith and repentance and never making the effort to build on that foundation.
I don't question - as I stated - the White Horse Inn's crew's doctrinal soundness. (I have to wonder if you read my responses above.) I call them on their typical and common disparaging of Christians who actually practice the faith at the practical level.
The associating of practical level doing with heterodoxy by default is dumb.
You write:
Puritanism is like Pietism happening in the English/Scottish Reformed Camp. I know for sure they have an unromantic view of Puritans.
'Unromantic' is a loaded word and typical of one who is engaging more in propaganda than in saying anything accurate or honest. The Puritans represent themselves rather well through their own writings, we don't need Michael Horton telling us what the Puritans were. And one doesn't need to have a 'romantic' view of the Puritans to not be negative towards the Purtians.
The Puritans 'reduced to practice' biblical doctrine (and in the Puritan's case their doctrine was on-the-mark, biblical doctrine).
The Purtians were something called 'Calvinists'. They practiced 'experimental Calvinism', which was NOT a sort of emotionalism, which is how the current shallow church leader types like the White Horse Inn crew want to redefine the word. It is bringing biblical doctrine down to the level of practical level practice in the common, average, events and situations and circumstances of everyday life. It is also getting serious with the faith by actually doing the faith. And recording the fact to keep yourself honest that you are actually doing the faith and not the usual among Christian: talking about doing the faith, or thinking that you are doing the faith, without ever getting around to actually doing the faith. An athlete who imagines he's an athlete yet never trains and never competes. If the White Horse Inn crew are negative towards Puritans it only validates my own suspicion I wrote out in the original post above.
All this is pretty clear in its own terms. I'm wondering whether a regenerate person who defaults on the issue of sanctification is just guilty of dereliction of duty? Or is his own salvation in question, if that's the right term? I guess this is just a version of the question one finds discussed among Evangelicals: "If you're once saved, are you always saved?"
When you start - if you start - to conflate sanctification with justification then I'll probably be calling you "papist dupe" in "bondage to the Roman Beast" and all that (just kidding, sort of)...
But this is really the issue: with degreed, doctrinally sound Protestants (I'm trying to capture a 'type' here) there IS that fear that to admit that there is effort involved in the process of sanctification that it will somehow compromise faith alone regarding jutification. This is just the old confusion of pre-regeneration vs. post-regeneration understanding of doctrine and practice. Theologians are always talking as if their audience is pre-regeneration. Fine. But you have to realize that when you start to discuss sanctification you can't talk in terms of pre-regeneration solely. You have to assume regeneration or don't talk about sanctification at all.
Regarding regenerate people who neglect to make efforts in their own sanctification? They are still justified (faith alone), yet Paul talks explicitly of 'reward' in the afterlife, as-well-as there being differences, hierarchical differences, in level-of-being. The Parable of the Talents is powerful as well on this subject.
I'm also curious where you think this false attitude comes from? Do you think its just another example of "man-fearing" or is it just laziness? Or does it have more complex doctrinal wellsprings?
Along with what I've written above, it is definitely due to desire for comfort (laziness); but it is mostly man-fearing. It is a very strong 'ethic' in the mainstream churches and seminaries that being a Christian does not involve any kind of practice at the practical level or even in the level of emotional development (or, let's say, anything involving a balanced development of physical, emotional, intellectual aspects of a Christian).
The specific 'man-fearing' in that is the making of 'church' to be solely an environment with the uses and reasons for being that correspond to, basically, an average family unit. 'Church' to mainstream Christians is where they go to be 'with family' and to talk of their children and to have activities that will be 'good' for their 'family' and their 'children', and of course when this is the sole defining ethic and standard and reason for existence of 'church' of course anybody who is involved in efforts that by default SEPARATE oneself FROM family and FROM society and the world that person and his efforts are going to be seen as 'wrong' and 'dangerous' and similar bad things.
You would think Jesus never said woman what do I have to do with thee? You would think Jesus never made several statements (about dividing families and letting the dead bury their dead, etc.) to cut people off at the pass who would naturally fall into this devilish pattern of making the faith a thing of the world rather than something that separates one from the world.
Should one take care of their children? Of course. That's called a goodhouseholder issue. You do that by default. But you don't make of it the faith. Taking care of your family IS NOT the faith. Making people conform to your demands that your family be put front and center and be the be-all and end-all of 'church' activity IS NOT the faith.
They are all man-fearing and feminized. Some of them are worse: they are purely devilish, because they know they have taken over the visible churches with this worldly activity and they know they are policing their fellow man and making sure nobody actually does what the Bible commands Christians to do.
When you fear only God you are oriented vertically, your standard is God and God's Word. When you fear man you are oriented horizontally, your standard is man and man's opinion.
I could be talking about different orders of Christians here, too, but so be it. The church level needs to hear what real Christian faith is and how it manifests at some point, so...
I take back 'feminized'. They don't have to be feminized to be lame.
You force me to write uncharacteristic nice responses (it's hard to thunder at you). Thanks for all you say. I must say for my part I may be hammering people for something they just aren't. I mean: hammering people for being something they are not trying to be, or can't currently be. Afterall, once you enter the practical level of the faith you by default really exit the mainstream level where there is contentment in merely knowing the philosophy and theory level of doctrine and never getting near or valuing the practical level of doctrine.
The fact is: you need to know on-the-mark biblical doctrine. That is the foundation. But then, using Calvin's metaphor again, you have to begin to build the structure upon the foundation...
In the orthodox mainstream churches and seminaries this is inanely considered 'heterodox'...
CT,
It is like this, if you say we are saved by grace through faith and now that we are saved we are sustained by faith and works, then that is really Roman Catholicism. In RC, baptism starts you off, now you are in the race - you are to work with your faith. Baptism to RC, infuses you with the power to do good. That infused grace is what the RC uses to do good works.
The issue is how works can be made to happen to the Christian? This is where the WhiteHorse Inn guys are at. The Christian must continually see his guilt and God's amazing Grace which results in gratitude - which automatically expresses in good works, but this is pure heart action that comes through the Gospel. I think you have a different understanding of the Gospel than them.
You do not have the same view of CHristian life. For confessional protestants, Christianity is progressive sanctification but it is not a linear climb to the top, it is a spiral with Christ as the center.
Heb 6:1-2 does not mean (to me) that we abandon or never look at these basics again, the Jewish Christians are to go on to maturity by believing that Jesus is their high priest and they have no need of OT Judaism with its Laws and Rituals. Jesus however being the high priest is the message of the Gospel - the resurrected high priest of the believing sinner (the CHristian).
The Gospel does not only start you off it also sustains you (that is their point). The Christian (as one put it) will do good works (though imperfectly) the same way he/she has to go to the toilet. He/She just can not help it.
I P, you write:
It is like this, if you say we are saved by grace through faith and now that we are saved we are sustained by faith and works, then that is really Roman Catholicism.
Since this is not what I say everything youw write after it does not pertain.
Look how you had to insert the word 'sustained' in that paragraph. You are so mechanical in knee-jerking against Roman Catholic bad doctrine that you will see what you want - or need - to see no matter what.
The fact is, also, with the White Horse Inn guys they grudgingly admit my position, but they have to be rebuked into it. In their broadcast 'Big Words of the Bible' one of their own (I think the Baptist) pulls them down from the thin branches in their claim that sanctification involves no effort.
And it's no agument against effort to say that the effort we make is made possible by the very fact that we have been regenerated by God and given the very ability to make efforts. You still have to make efforts. (Actually you don't 'have' to make efforts, you can enter the Kingdom of God with the very least basics of development. I.e., you don't have to actively make efforts to mortify your sinful nature to get into the Kingdom of God. Justified is justified. Justification is an absolute, it's not a matter of degree and it has nothing to do with your effort. You are sanctified as well. Done. To the basic degree that makes you righteous and able to enter the Kingdom of God. All that the Bible then says about making efforts on all that foundation you can ignore, certainly, and STILL triumphantly enter the Kingdom of God...)
I've been given talents, and God's Word tells me not to bury them in the ground...
You also write:
Heb 6:1-2 does not mean (to me) that we abandon or never look at these basics again,
Notice in the Calvin commentary on that verse I linked he predicts just such a response and answers it. Of course you don't leave the foundation. You build upon it.
When you have the ability to sail a ship, you have been taught that ability, given it, you then don't hug the shore the rest of your life. You set sail on the open sea. You navigate while on the open sea. You sail known waters, you sometimes maybe sail unknown waters...
CT,
The analogy with talents and foundation I see as not applicable. The Gospel is not a talent I have. It came outside me.
The foundation supports us - ie Jesus is the chief corner stone, and the cap stone also. That is my point about "sustain" _ what sustains the Christian in doing good works is the Law and the Gospel (together) proclaimed - at least that is the theory as I look at the confessions.
Here is where I think the Gospel needs to be reviewed again - it is when the Christian is in trial - when the result of sin amplified by the Law shakes his ship, it gets tossed by life. He needs to look down and see what is sustaining him, even all of his feelings and senses says God has abandoned him.
I think there is also the view of original sin that may be different from your theology that the White Horse Inn guys are at odds at.
I do not always adhere to their opinions but their critique of evangelicalism looking more roman catholic in teaching is I think correct. The Evangelical today do not look RC but they do sound like RC when they teach.
I P wrote:
The analogy with talents and foundation I see as not applicable. The Gospel is not a talent I have. It came outside me.
You may use a translation that translates 'talents' as 'silver'. In the parable of the talents three people are given silver (i.e. money, or 'talents'). It is most explicitly something outside them, given to them. (Matthew 25:14-30.)
I P also wrote:
I think there is also the view of original sin that may be different from your theology that the White Horse Inn guys are at odds at.
No, my view of original sin is biblical. I'm a Calvinist. My understanding of Calvinism is hardcore and bold and pure. I don't flinch from any hard truths of the Word of God. What you are saying is typical of the misunderstanding of Christians regarding one's state pre- and post-regeneration.
Ultimately, Reformed (Calvinist) systematic theologies teach what I'm saying. They just do it a little too 'grudgingly', and they tend to get ignored by the mainstream Reformed theologians who just apparently don't want to see what they don't want to see.
J. I. Packer puts it well in his little Concise Theology: "Regeneration was a momentary monergistic act of quickening the spiritually dead. As such, it was God's work alone. Sanctification, however, is in one sense synergistic -- it is an ongoing cooperative process in which regenerate persons, alive to God and freed from sin's dominion (Rom. 6:11, 14-18), are required to exert themselves in sustained obedience. God's method of sanctification is neither activism (self-reliant activity) nor apathy (God-reliant passivity), but God-dependent effort (2 Cor. 7: 1; Phil. 3:10-14; Heb. 12:14)."
The theologians such as you hear on the White Horse Inn (they are typical of modern day seminary-shallow types) argue, basically, that orthodox doctrine and practical effort can't go together. Tell the Puritans this. And when you then take the step to criticise the Puritans to sustain your argument and demands you are retreating into typical, worldly, lukewarm territory. This is what happens when you divorce doctrine from practical effort. You get warped with the doctrine itself. Inevitably. In ways you can't even see. And then you kick against the pricks (another KJV rendering) endlessly when it's pointed out to you...
Yes, Jeff, what you wrote gets at the central issue.
Packer threads the needle nicely:
It's not 'activism' (self-reliant activity)
neither is it 'apathy' (God-reliant passivity)
but it's God-dependent effort.
Effort.
Some always want to overlook or bypass that word 'effort'.
What you hear taught endlessly (and petulantly, and really almost satanically) from Reformed theologians and church leaders is 'apathy'. It's off-the-mark, and it's an insult to the gift and wealth of the Spirit that has been given you. They bury their talent (silver) in the ground. Read the end of the parable in Matthew 25:14-30 to see how God looks on that...
My disappointment is that each time I ask for your definition, you always say you did. Many times people get cross communication because they do not use the same terms the same way.
I am not surprised Jeff that you and CT have many things in agreement.
I. P., I once quoted, on a Calvinist forum, J. I. Packer, R. C. Sproul, Louis Berkhof, two or three of the major Reformed confessions, and John Calvin himself on the subject of effort vis-a-vis sanctification, and it didn't make a dent in the minds of the Reformed types on the forum. It's a subject that Reformed types are a brick wall on because, I have to conclude, it's a regeneration issue, and most just can't see it yet...
By the way, J. I. Packer agrees with me (as does Wayne Grudem, to name another Reformed theologian, and as does the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Bible itself), but just focusing on the Packer extract I posted, what in it do you disagree with?
Roman Catholics believe effort in sanctification and justification are tied together.
A Calvinist knows - one who derives doctrine solely from the Bible knows - that justification is from grace alone by faith alone in Christ alone.
Read the commentary on Hebrews 6:1 by Calvin linked in the right hand margin of this blog. Building the structure on the foundation takes effort. The foundation is given by God when you are effectually called and justified and convert and have saving faith and repentance unto life.
Learn this...understand this...or don't. I can't force anybody to understand it, but I can rebuke theologians and church leaders who teach a dead, lukewarm, off-the-mark doctrine that says there is no effort required in building oneself up in the faith.
And, so now I'm Roman Catholic. I used to be Gnostic. Before that I was pietistic. Prior to that anabaptist. Prior to that... Anything one can throw at one who holds to biblical doctrine in a bold, pure, and practical manner...
Do RCs regard justification to be monergistic? I don't think they do. Then we'll have to talk about the clericalism and sacramentalism. And many other things (the antichrist pope for instance).
The Bible is my authority: show me where in the Bible it says God demands no effort from His own in the process of sanctification? And, no, don't pull verses about justification. Justification and sanctification are not synonyms.
Are you up to this homework? or do you just want to make baseless accusations...?
No, I've been making fun of people, and calling people bad names, and even used a bad name in connection with your church.
But I was under attack by the devil!
Really, I was. It can't always be discerned by onlookers, but...that is the case...
Better, yes. The battle is over. Even if he starts it up again, it's still over. The crescendo has come and gone. Ground was held.
If you ever get on spiritual ground and become marked by the world and the devil (and you'll have to leave the RC domain for it to happen) you'll see how it happens...
Post a Comment
<< Home