Julian of York

Romans 7:14 to 7:16
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, (sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.

Romans 7:25
“25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”

A believer can commit homicide like David did, and be forgiven, while an unbeliever may never commit homicide yet be condemned by God. Blessed is the man whom God does not impute his sin. A believer may sleep with a prostitute like Sampson did, while an unbeliever may be a loyal husband that never had sex outside marriage in his whole life. While Sampson is mentioned as a saint in Hebrews, the unbelieving loyal husband will eternally perish. This is why the new testament calls the Corinthians saints, though fornication abounded. They were saints because they were set apart for God, not because of their good works. Civil righteousness has is not sanctification, unbelievers can and do perform good works that help society better than christians in many instances.

http://goo.gl/xp7IW

Thanks for getting back to me. I do basically agree with what you wrote in your last comments above. Your initial words that I questioned seemed to put progressive sanctification in the “gospel proper” with the closing sentence, I consider all of it the good news of the gospel. I agree it is indeed “good news” that the Spirit is working in us unto conformity with Christ as God predestined, but not that it is part of the good news.

The way I understand it is that the subjective (yet real) part of God’s work in the believer is distinct from the free promise which was kept and accomplished entirely by Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension, even though that subjective working is indeed connected as a sure and holy effect. That accomplishing of God’s promise in Christ is the glad tidings – the gospel – and it is that to which faith looks, is strengthened and finds salvation (Rom. 1:16). I think the term “gospel” can sometimes be used in too loose a fashion. By including everything of God’s working in it, the term loses meaning and focus, thereby confusing faith as to where it should to look.

From Calvin’s Inst. 3:2.29 -
Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy. And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself.

Thanks again…

A book I found at the WTS bookstore bargain books was The Family Tree Of Reformed Biblical Theology. It is easy to read and will help you understand Vos and John Owens. I found it very helpful.

I couldn’t follow what Horton said because of the audio.

It would be great to have Horton & Tipton write point-counterpoint type articles in tandem about this to really clarify this.

There are different ways “gospel” is being used here. Narrowly speaking, I would define the gospel in terms of what Paul said he delivered as of first importance in 1 Cor 15:3-7. The gospel is Christ’s life, death, resurrection, ascension, and session for sinners. In short, the gospel is the person and work of Christ (historia salutis). Yet people often speak of the gospel in a broader sense, that is, in the sense of the “good news” of what Christ has done, is doing, and will do for us. In that sense, the Spirit’s work in applying Christ’s death and resurrection to the believer is certainly part of the gospel (cf. WLC 75). The future bodily resurrection and glorification of believers is also part of the gospel. I consider it all part of the Spirit’s unified work in making us into the image of Christ—righteous and holy co-heirs (forensic, renovative, and filial aspects).

Your question is very important, and I’m glad you raised it. Maintaining this broader view of the gospel in no way imports Spirit-wrought good works as meritorious. But, in the broader sense of simply “good news,” I would still consider believer’s good works as part of God’s overall plan for our conformity to the image of Christ (Eph 2:10) even while I affirm they are all filthy rags (Isa 64:6). The good works aren’t the gospel proper, but the fact that the Spirit is moving the believer to do good works is a function of historia salutis being applied (ordo salutis).

Do you agree? I want to be as clear and precise as possible.

I agree that everyone, at one time or another, appeals to someone with more knowledge on a subject -that is the nature of learning from others- and that our trust of the knowledge they give is based on our trust of the individual. Or, as Pipa says in his lecture you pointed to on Genesis 1, we trust witnesses we trust. I would, for instance, listen to and read various specialists on astronomy if I desired to learn about it, since I am not an expert on astronomy (I am so much of a non-expert on astronomy that I referred to it in earlier posts as astrology…yikes.) Nonetheless, if I truly wanted to learn astronomy, would I selectively learn from or interact with Christian astronomers that agree only with my particular biblical interpretations? Mr. Pipa, in that lecture, points out that there are diverging theories on how to interpret scientific facts while being faithful to scripture, and I agree. Yet he does not mention the faithfulness of those with diverging interpretations from his on Genesis 1. He finds them unfaithful, or inconsistent creationists. I see this as a bubble.

I see a bubble when he speaks on how we need to start from scripture and then go to science (which I would not disagree with,) and then quickly he uses science he believes in (I presume that of Sarfati) as a foundation for his following scriptural talk, to give it more weight.

Take geology, for example. It is not a complicated subject to study. One can take a single college course on the matter, or read various books and get a decent handle on it. Then one can investigate where they live, (an excuse to go hiking or take some walks at least,) and see for themselves how these theories add up. Or, one can close ranks, shut doors, and only listen to who they want to listen to in order to back up what they already are presupposing. The same process happens, as we all know, with what news one receives today and through which format it is delivered. It is easy to reinforce a belief with selective “facts” if one so chooses.

I agree with those that think Pipa is using a fundamentalist (I would say biblicist) hermeneutic. I think Pipa, though I do truly value his theological insights, is being selective and inconsistent. Hence, the bubble. The error I implied is his using selected “science” to then go to scripture, and then using his hermeneutic to then go back to that scientific viewpoint, etc., and everything becomes self-sustaining. I find that troublesome.

In Christ,
RB

“Instead, many stay in their own bubble, and use “scientists” to back up their own opinions without investigating it themselves. Dr. Pipa, for instance, who I respect greatly, nonetheless makes the same error most make.”

RB, what exactly do you mean by this? Since many of our are not scientists, not many of us can do the digs, examine bones, etc. etc. etc., we do rely upon others…hopefully those who are trustworthy. I would assume you would not have a problem with this…although your words above seem to indicate this is the case.

With that said, Dr. Pipa is a theologian and an exegete, therefore his view(s) of creation are grounded in the Word of God.

I’m still waiting, however, to hear of one advocate of young-earth, literal 24-hour days who is open to theistic evolution. In my view, YEC, since it is uncompromisingly Biblical, is a bulwark against “evolution creep.”

No, I actually don’t agree with definitive sanctification being a part of regeneration. I’m sorry. I meant to address that in my comment but forgot by the time I sent it.

I think that would be equally confusing, even though Calvin spoke of regeneration as including the whole salvation applied, I think the later Reformed distinctions are much more helpful in what we think of the as the typical later Reformed ordo.

My point of agreement with Jack Miller’s comment, is that “definitive” is already taken up and included BEFORE we discuss ordo issues. That was the full extent of my agreement. I prefer the Confessional ordo (calling, justification, adoption, sanctification) over these other unnecessary distinctions.

BTW, to be fair in the debate on CTC, I don’t think Horton’s language of proclamation of Gospel as “justification” is helpful either. I understand what he is saying and in general agreement with the thrust of his argument but I think it is because we are not sticking close to confessional language in making theological points that so much confusion is going about.

I do not think it is all about confusing language or misunderstanding of what is being said. After all, these are both professors at highly prestigious seminaries. They out to be able to communicate clearly and understand one another clearly. We saw this sort of sloppy analysis in the Norman Shepherd debates. Every time a point was made and disagreed upon both sides came to the table and claimed “oh, well he wasn’t clear” or “you just misunderstood what he was saying.” I think a lot of that approach is laziness, cowardly, and deceptive.

I do believe we have two different approaches to the ordo coming out of Westminster West and East. We shouldn’t sugar coat it but investigate, study, and do the hard work to see who is coming up with the best theological understanding of the Scriptures and our Reformed tradition. It’s possible that both are wrong, but it is also clear that both can’t be right. It’s up to the ecclesiastical community to make that decision and for both of them to keep presenting their exegetical, theological, historical, and confessional arguments to help us in that ecclesiastical community to understand and decide which best expresses our Reformed Confession.

IMO it is also essential to make a distinction between biological evolution as a theory which generates hypotheses and research from evolution held as a philosophical view held by many (most) of the same researchers doing evolutionary biology. The philosophy is much easier to deal with than the biology. It is very rare that you find someone equipped to discuss both the theology and science of biological evolution.

(although what is defined as ‘definitive sanctification’, I think, is already included in regeneration)

This is very helpful. This is what I was describing in my previous response of a confusion between BT (Biblical Theology) and ST (Systematic Theology) as two distinct, yet interrelated methods of doing theology.

What Murray is doing in making a distinction between “definitive” and “progressive” is using a BT insight to help explain a ST point — our sanctification (which is progressive as the WORK of God’s free grace, not ours) is grounded in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (already completed sanctification) in order to help explain that sanctification is monergistic not synergistic.

But to then leave that discussion of “sanctification” and try to reinsert that mini-discussion (species) into the larger “ordo” (genus) gets confusing because the theologian then has to decide where to place “definitive” and where to place “progressive”. The confusion comes when “definitive” is then placed with justification in the ordo and “progressive then follows on its heels.

You can see what happens when your BT method gets jumbled with your ST method and the two methods are not kept separate from one another. Of course, they can each give us help at getting at the one Scripture and theology, but they approach them differently.

Here is the crux of the issue: in ST approach to “definitive” sanctification we are dealing with Christology – the work that Christ accomplishes as prophet, priest, and king. This is the category of what Murray would speak of as “Redemption Accomplished.” Traditionally, in regards to what Gaffin-Tipton mean by “definitive sanctification,” Reformed theologians have rooted in the pactum salutis, not the unio mystica. Christ is fulfilling the obedience to the Father through his active and passive obedience.

But once we move to a discussion of the “ordo salutis” we are no longer in the category of Christology regarding the work of Christ – we are discussing Pneumatology or the application of the work of Christ by the Holy Spirit to the believer. “Definitive Sanctification” is not part of the “ordo” because it would be an illogical step to discuss – calling, regeneration, conversion, justification (which are applications of Christ’s work) TO THEN go back to Christ’s work in “definitive sanctification” AND THEN return to application to speak of “progressive sanctification. This is neither logical, nor chronological and because BT and ST are being confused it SOUNDS as if something regarding the restorative/transformative work of the Holy Spirit is being equated with the legal/forensic grounding of those gracious benefits.

What is usually understood by “definitive” is what Christ does for us in His work and that work of Christ which fulfills the Covenant of Redemption is imputed to us as the grounding of all the benefits of Christ. As Calvin stresses, that work of Christ is no use to us as long as Christ is outside of us – but nevertheless that work is already completed. It is then Christ in us where we move the entire discussion to the “order of salvation” in the Holy Spirit’s application to the elect of the Father. At that point in our theological enterprise (ST) the “definitive” is no longer under direct study — that is already complete in our Christology. What then becomes the focus is what has now been called “progressive” which is grounded in our justification and can never be coterminous with justification. Thus the logical priority of the forensic ground of our sanctification.

You ended your comments with, “To be quite honest, I’m happy and relieved that His Spirit is working within me to put sin to death. Though I’m acquitted through my justification and accepted as a son through my adoption, I’d still like the Lord to continue to work in my life. I consider all of it the good news of the gospel.”

Up to that point I find myself in agreement (although what is defined as ‘definitive sanctification’, I think, is already included in regeneration). But in these words above you seem to be saying that ‘my loving my neighbor’ (as the Spirit works in me) is part of the gospel. Are you including our good works, i.e. progressive sanctification, as part of the gospel?

Thanks…

Camden, I think this would be a good issues to address, exegetically and theologically, on your program. Dr. Pipa would be a great guest for this.

Blessings,
Jeff Downs

But, and this is the qualification: Must one affirm a young earth 6/24? No. The problem is that often YE 6/24 proponents tend to lump all non YE 6/24 views into one, long, anti-scriptural spiral that negates the historical Adam. Qualifications, qualifications…

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I hope I did not imply that 6/24 is a cultural teaching. It is not, as there are many solid biblical theologians and many early church fathers, etc. that have held and hold today a 6/24 interpretation. I meant to state that those within AIG, or shall we call them: young earth proponents…tend to be involved in the culture war over and against say, secular education. Moreover, they tend to do a very poor job at this in my opinion (having been on both sides)… This is a generalization on my part.

There are many young earth proponents that absolutely desire to defend scripture, and according to their consciences do. There needs to be a distinction here though: A 6/24 view can hold to an old earth, for example, and even old earth proponents are technically “Creationists.” Framework proponents or those of different views that do not hold to a 6/24 view desire to defend scripture equally. They honor the historical reality of Adam, the fall, etc., and have been some of the greatest defenders of biblical inerrancy and orthodox theology (justification, sacraments, etc.) in the past 200 years. I intended to highlight that those in our Christian past, those bright lights in theology that do not hold to a 6/24 are solidly within orthodoxy, just as 6/24 are. And I agree with your statement:

“I think nonetheless they rise to an important level and are worth much study and consideration and at some point, some conclusions as to what we believe and why.”

100% yes. But -and this is a qualification- to make 6/24 a cutoff, as if a non 6/24 view is a direct downward spiral into rejection of our confessions, is to cut off generations of solid biblical faithfulness, and separate the body of Christ over a matter that should not cause division. The best solution is for both sides to truly read and study the other, without fear of losing one’s faith or position, as there is rampant misrepresentation in even defining what the various views actually are.

Nevertheless, I am glad both you and I can hold the same faith, once delivered to the saints, as expressed in our confessions, and yet disagree on the non-essential matters. The moment this becomes essential, however, then there sadly is a problem. Young Earth proponents tend (opinion on my part) to make this essential, and that is the problem I intended to highlight.

With you, my sister, in Him…

Blessings,
Derek Ashton

It is my understanding that individual churches within the PCA (of which I am a member) are allowed to determine whether they wish to teach within their church a particular view of Genesis, while not making it a test of orthodoxy or requirement to join the church. Our church was recently blessed to have Gordon Reed as our interim pastor, who addressed issues pertaining to origins and the flood as he preached from II Peter. His son, John Reed, also in the PCA and a geologist, has written on these issues as well.

So I understand that these issues are not tests of orthodoxy, but I think nonetheless they rise to an important level and are worth much study and consideration and at some point, some conclusions as to what we believe and why. And certainly as a parent I am extremely responsible to have an answer for my children, teach them what I believe the Bible is teaching and why I believe that – whether on Adam, the creation week, justification, sanctification, the sacraments. There is so much for me to learn and I am grateful for others who study and teach that I may benefit from their learning. I don’t mean to cite these others for the purpose of giving them glory or as though they I am following them and not the Bible, but to be specific about resources which have been helpful in equipping me on this issue discussed on the forum this week.

Once again, I fully understand your passion and your view, as I stated above, I used to agree with you…but, please, and I mean this with nothing but love in my heart towards you as a sister in Christ… the views of Answers in Genesis are not the definition of orthodoxy. Our confessions, if you are a member of a confessing church, are orthodoxy. Be it WCF, or Three Forms, which we hold articulate the interpretation of the bible properly… those are what matter…those are essential. All too often, and this is just my opinion based on studying and interacting with be it ICR or AIG or the Snelling material, there is an inclination to assign certain reactionary cultural views as essential, when historically they never have been defined as essential within the reformed confessions. Defending Snelling’s views, or AIG, is not defending the Bible or the faith. It is simply defending a cultural view, which you, as a parent, have the freedom to do. Thankfully, our confessions have not imposed them on everyone.

I fully understand your concern, and I am sympathetic to it. I was once very much a fan of Answers in Genesis, ICR, etc., but it became a hamper to my spiritual growth, and added to an improper (in my opinion) and unbalanced hermeneutic that I had that was encouraged by a belief in the culture war. Might I ask you which “front line” you are referring to? And which war is that a line in? I am curious…thanks

In Hebrews were Christ’s perfect sacrifice is explained to the jewish people and the old testament sacrifices are referenced, the reference is made to the atonment of sin, satisfying the penalty of sin. The atonement refers to the guilt and just penalty for sin, it does not refer to personal renewal. In the old testament is the same, the purpose of the sacrifices was not to renew the sinner, but to put the sinner in a right standing with God (justify the sinner), to appease God’s wrath. Christ died to atone for sin, not for directly renewing us internally. Renewal or sanctification follows, but is always mediated by justification. The removal of the penalty of sin produces renewal (loosens the power of sin).

As a homeschool mother, I believe that teaching my children anything other than the plain meaning of Scripture will hamper their spiritual growth in years ahead. We just finished teaching through Genesis 1-11, and the clear meaning of both the creation account and flood account was plain to them. If I were to tell them, well, you see, this account SEEMS to be teaching creation in 6 days and a universal flood, but, well, we know NOW that this really can’t be what it IS teaching because modern science tells a different story – that would be setting the stage for them to dismiss every future account in Scripture that doesn’t appear to be replicated, proven, etc…, by modern scientific analysis, including the resurrection, the virgin birth, etc… Teaching anything other than 6 days would be spiritually deadly to my children. We appreciate those on the “front line” who are speaking up for this truth in the church.

In short, definitive sanctification is the breach in sin’s power. Murray’s exegesis of Romans 6:1-7 is helpful at this point. If you reject this notion of the crucifixion of the old man, I’m curious how you interpret this passage. Some argue that justification mortifies the old man. Yet this understanding compromises the very forensic nature of justification. For justification would no longer be a forensic declaration that changes one’s state, but a transformative work that alters one’s condition.

Although I greatly appreciate your concern to maintain the integrity of justification by faith alone, you are protecting against a faulty understanding of definitive sanctification. To argue that the Spirit breaks sin’s power in the believer’s life does not compromise the ground of justification in any way. The ground of justification always remains the imputed righteousness of Christ which is received by faith alone. Faith, works, infused righteousness, etc. never affect the believer’s status before God nor contribute or merit anything in any way.

It also appears that you conflate faith with justification. Granted, faith is the instrument of justification, but it is important to distinguish the two. You write:

Faith removes the penalty of sin, it does not remove the inner corruption in man.

Faith does neither. Faith is the instrument by which the believer is justified. But it’s also the instrument by which the Spirit sanctifies (cf. Acts 26:18). How else would you be sanctified? Sanctification (definitive or progressive) cannot be identified exhaustively with good works. Sanctification is first and foremost the work of the Spirit to apply Christ’s death and resurrection to the one that has faith in Jesus Christ.

…the gospel is about imputed righteousness and not infused righteousness (sanctification). It’s not about both.

If the gospel is only about justification, then you have no “good news” for your indwelling sin. In that case, Christ has done nothing for you in terms of conforming you into his image or bringing you to consummation. But praise God that the gospel is about all the blessings we receive in Christ Jesus (Eph 1:3). It also includes the reality of our Spiritual resurrection already and the hope of the bodily resurrection to come.

To be quite honest, I’m happy and relieved that His Spirit is working within me to put sin to death. Though I’m acquitted through my justification and accepted as a son through my adoption, I’d still like the Lord to continue to work in my life. I consider all of it the good news of the gospel.

I think my point has been misunderstood. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify by thoughts. I am not saying that a division between “definitive” and “progressive” is entirely wrongheaded with the category “God’s WORK of free grace”. I think Murray’s treatment can help clarify how sanctification should be understood, grounding the progressive element in the definitive sanctification of Christ.

However, what I find confusing and unhelpful (perhaps dangerous?) is to then separate the “definitive” and “progressive” from one another and then join one aspect of sanctification to justification as the duplex gratia and then having separated the one work of God to join the “definitive” to justification, “God’s ACT of free grace”.

It is this construction I find helpful, which I am not aware of appearing in Reformed theology until Gaffin, i.e., the innovation I am concerned about.

I think one of the problems here is the confusion of the work of Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. There is a reason why “union with Christ” has no distinct confessional article in our Reformed confessions. Union with Christ helps us to explain the “historia” acts of salvation in “redemption accomplished and applied” but it is too general a term to make the fine distinctions in Systematic Theology as are done in our confessions by making a distinction between the “act” of God and the “work” of God. These are distinctions important in Systematics where we also make distinctions between “chronological” and “logical” order and priorities. So, in confusing these two ways of doing our theology, surely having a vital connection between them, but yet two different ways of doing theology is why I think there is so much confusion in this difference. Also, by confusing the methods of BT and ST, we end up making statements in our theological abstractions can lead to deadly thinking and therefore practice in our Christian life, as when someone who isn’t as careful as Gaffin or Tipton might teach something like sanctification as being the ground of our justification (PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying either Gaffin or Tipton teach this . . . my point is that confusing these categories can result from those who don’t understand the careful clarification and make such statements.)

Even Murray was very clear that the legal/forensic is the context and ground of sanctification and that ground is justification. He then went on to divide sanctification into “definitive” and “progressive” but separately and distinct from his discussion of justification. He was careful to do this so as not to confuse the distinct categories of “justification” and “sanctification” which is how you do ST. Then our ST limits will protect us from BT saying something contrary to our theological reflections of our Reformed Confessions.

I hope that helps clarify my thinking in regards to previous posts.

John Bunyan:
One day as I was passing into the field…this sentence fell upon my
soul. Thy righteousness is in heaven. And me thought, withal, I saw
with the eyes of my soul Jesus Christ at God’s right hand; there, I
say, was my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was
doing, God could not say of me, he wants [=lacks] my righteousness,
for that was just [in front of] him. I also saw, moreover, that it
was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better,
nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse, for my
righteousness was Jesus Christ himself, “The same yesterday, today
and, and forever.” …

Now did my chains fall off my legs indeed. I was loosed from my
afflictions and irons; my temptations also fled away; so that from
that time those dreadful scriptures of God [e.g. Hebrews 12:16 –17]
left off to trouble me; now went I also home rejoicing for the grace
and love of God.

This is the believing sinner’s great hope—to see his righteousness
firmly, securely resting at the right hand of God the Father in the
person and finished work of Jesus Christ His Son. To have such a
faith-directed vision is to be set free.

“Justification and sanctification are thought of as parallel products of faith. This is not, however, the New Testament representation. According to its teaching, sanctification is not related to faith directly and immediately, so that in believing in Jesus we receive both justification and sanctification as parallel products of our faith; or either the one or the other, according as our faith is directed to the one or the other.

Sanctification is related directly not to faith but to justification;
and as faith is the instrumental cause of justification, so is
justification the instrumental cause of sanctification. That which binds justification and sanctification together is not that they
are both effects of faith – so that he who believes must have both –
because faith is the condition of both alike.

Nor is it even that both are obtained in Christ, so that he who has Christ, who is made to us both righteousness and sanctification, must have both because Christ is the common source of both. It is true that he who has faith has and must have both; and it is true that he who has Christ has and must have both. But they do not come out of faith or from Christ in the same way.

Justification comes through faith; sanctification through
justification, and only mediately, through justification, through
faith. So that the order is invariable, faith, justification,
sanctification; not arbitrarily, but in the nature of the case.”

B.B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, p 362