The gospel / sanctification retreat
Color code:
"A*" refers to the speaker.
-------
The Gospel Continues
"The gospel sanctifies us" Quotes the verse that says "by which you are being saved", and says "this is a continual movement... this continues to affect you"
[Here he uses salvation in the dynamic sense, while using the word in the static sense in the reformation sermon.]
His gospel breakdown was: (1) God (2) Man (image) (3) Sin (commission, omission: failure to give glory cf Rom 1), (4) Jesus Life death resurrection, (5) Faith.
Later on A* quoted the two most quoted texts about how Christians still need the gospel: Romans 1 where Paul says he will preach it to "you", i.e. the Christians there. and the passage in Galatians 2 where Paul says that Peter was out of step with the gospel.
Justification and Neutrality
Says "our justification just makes us neutral".
[This struck me as very, very odd. I thought at the time, he must have been thinking about the distinction between having our sins forgiven and having the active obedience of Christ imputed to us. Looked this up in Grudem who has this same language, but justification doesn't make us morally neutral. Forgiveness of sins does. In the chapter on Justification (36), under head B ("God Declares Us to Be Just in His Sight"), he writes this on page 725:
"But if God merely declared us to be forgiven from our sins, that would not solve our problems entirely, for it would only make us morally neutral before God. ... This first aspect of justification, in which God declares that our sins are forgiven, ....,
...
We must rather move from a point of moral neutrality to a point of having positive righteousness before God, the righteousness of a life of perfect obedience to him.
...
Therefore the second aspect of justification is that God must declare us not to be merely neutral in his sight but actually to be righteous in his sight. In fact, he must declare us to have the merits of perfect righteousness before him. "]
Baptism as Conversion
Says about Romans 6
Rom. 6:3-5, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,"
He says "This is a dry passage, there is no water here. This is not a wet passage". Doesn't believe the "baptism" referenced here is in any way a reference to physical baptism.
[Obviously, this is very different from the traditional baptistic understanding of this passage that it is a metonomy for the conversion initiation experience. Because baptism was always coupled with conversion. Not that baptism saves, but rather that people used the word "baptism" to refer to the conversion experience. You can read Moo for an explanation of this in his commentary. Note that Moo himself is a professor at an EFCA seminary.]
[All through this talk I'm thinking about these passages:
1. You shall know them by their fruits
2. Don't be decived: None who are... shall inherit
3. 'Are being transformed into the same image'
4. Let us fear]
Fear as a motivation
He says the following are inadequate: (1) Will (2) Knowledge (3) Fear/Shame ("Don't we use fear and shame to motivate people towards the gospel?") (4) Law ("We're going to create rules in addition to those so you don't break God's rules.")
[The fear motivation is totally biblical, reread Hebrews. Also, the conflation of "law" with additional rules is not the proper way of thinking about law. Legalism, maybe. But the word "law", both in the Bible and in traditional reformed thought, always refers to content found in the inspired word of God.]
Accepted Works?
"Sometimes we think that if we do this law, then God will "like"/"accept"/"love" us.
[Our actions are accepted in Christ. And our works can please God. Here is WCF ch 16.11
their good works also are accepted in him;u not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight;w but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.]
Transformation Trajectory
Then he drew a line that was trending upwards, but mostly just all over the place:
Very high error. But then he asks "If we look at Paul's life chronologically, what do we see?"
[Notice that at first this isn't about Paul's evaluation of himself. The question (at the start here at least) isn't "If we look at Paul's conception/of himself, what do we see?", but rather, "If we look at Paul's life..." ]
Then he goes to these passages:
1 Cor 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
[Here Paul explicitly connects this devaluation with his former ("B.C.") life and not with a downward trend in his Christian conduct post-conversion.]
Romans 7
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
[This is obviously a contested passage on which there is no clear consensus this is talking about a Christian, much less about Paul.]
1 Tim 1:15
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
[The problem with this one is that it proves too much. Are we to believe that Paul was, in his regenerate state, a worse sinner than Nero? This can be many things (i.e. the word "proto" could mean refer to "first" in precedent, or Paul could be using hyperbole, or he could be stating that his view of himself is that he sees no one as better. But I don't think the proper translation is that the Spirit is indicating that Paul in his regenerate state is a worse sinner than anyone else on the planet.]
Revivalism
In one of the other lectures, A* says that our goal isn't "bringing them to a crisis but bringing them to a point of faith." He used the words "conversionism" and "revivalism". He characterized it by referred to Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".
[I found this reference, especially the pejorative way in which it was referenced, very baffling. No idea why he went there. That sermon is amazing and a grace from God that we have it to draw on. Thoroughly biblical and grounded.]
In a continued railing against the revivalistic methods, he said "We tend to think of that as a sort of one-time punctiliar event... I think that's one of the problems. When someone says 'I'm so excited my son or daughter prayed to receive Christ, we have to understand the prayer (i.e., the words they say) is not what saves them... It's the faith that those things express and that is a critical distinction."
[Though potentially confusing, this statement is obviously true. I think it's right to rejoice that a brother or sister prayed a certain prayer. Of course, it is the faith, not the words, that saves us. But Paul puts a lot on the "confession" aspect. But still, in the end, of course, only God knows the heart. We can put together one's confession about Christ, coupled together with their outward fruit, to make as good a confirmation as we can.
I think he has been heavily influenced by Theocast's painting modern evangelicalism as mostly just pietism instead of confessionalism.]
A* said he thinks the punctiliar nature of the way we treat conversion actually lends to the sweat equity belief about Christian sanctification.
[ I didn't quite understand what he meant by "sweat equity." It wasn't clear whether he was referring to the historic Christian understanding of rewards and crowns, or whether he was referring to the heterodox understanding of justification by works.]
Some anecdotes were given: In college or around that time, A* was in a group of guys and the leader was very intent that they do their devotions. And if you said you only did them 3 times that week, 2 of the other guys got to punch you in the arm. Then he said that in seminary, they were supposed to pray and hour a day and write a report on their experience. He got a C because he formatted it wrong.
[I don't see these as right or wrong, but simply biographical giving us a glimpse into how Andy's emotions got to where they are on this topic.]
Perception of Self
He introduced this great chart:
And said we often do performing, penance, or pretending to curve the chart.
[Really liked this portion of the seminar and didn't really take a lot of notes on it consequently.]
Consider the second paragraph in this Michael Horton quote from his 2009 "Introducing Covenant Theology" book:
The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in booth, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor, are part of that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Such holiness is not simply definitive - that is, it belongs not only to our justification, which is an imputed rather than imparted righteousness, but to our sanctification, that inner renewal by the Spirit.
Jesus made it amply clear that the sheep will be distinguished from the goats on the last day by marks of their profession (Matthew 24). It is important to remember, however, that the sheep are apparently unaware of their having fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and cared for the poor and those in prison, while the goats insisted that they had. Holiness, which is defined by love of God and neighbor, is usually something that is seen by others rather than by us. Nevertheless, it is the indispensable condition of our glorification: no one will be seated at the heavenly banquet who has not begun, however imperfectly, in new obedience. There are those who "have once been enlightened [baptized], who have tasted the heavenly gift [the Supper], and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" who nevertheless fall away (Heb 6:4-5).
Does this not seriously compromise the good news of an unconditional promise that we have labored to distinguish from a covenant of works? This is a terribly important question, especially since there seems to be so much confusion in our day over how to take these sober warnings in Scripture. The first order of business is to reexamine careful distinctions.
- Speech quote
- Text quote
- Narration without evaluation
- [Evaluation]
"A*" refers to the speaker.
-------
The Gospel Continues
"The gospel sanctifies us" Quotes the verse that says "by which you are being saved", and says "this is a continual movement... this continues to affect you"
[Here he uses salvation in the dynamic sense, while using the word in the static sense in the reformation sermon.]
His gospel breakdown was: (1) God (2) Man (image) (3) Sin (commission, omission: failure to give glory cf Rom 1), (4) Jesus Life death resurrection, (5) Faith.
Later on A* quoted the two most quoted texts about how Christians still need the gospel: Romans 1 where Paul says he will preach it to "you", i.e. the Christians there. and the passage in Galatians 2 where Paul says that Peter was out of step with the gospel.
Justification and Neutrality
Says "our justification just makes us neutral".
[This struck me as very, very odd. I thought at the time, he must have been thinking about the distinction between having our sins forgiven and having the active obedience of Christ imputed to us. Looked this up in Grudem who has this same language, but justification doesn't make us morally neutral. Forgiveness of sins does. In the chapter on Justification (36), under head B ("God Declares Us to Be Just in His Sight"), he writes this on page 725:
"But if God merely declared us to be forgiven from our sins, that would not solve our problems entirely, for it would only make us morally neutral before God. ... This first aspect of justification, in which God declares that our sins are forgiven, ....,
...
We must rather move from a point of moral neutrality to a point of having positive righteousness before God, the righteousness of a life of perfect obedience to him.
...
Therefore the second aspect of justification is that God must declare us not to be merely neutral in his sight but actually to be righteous in his sight. In fact, he must declare us to have the merits of perfect righteousness before him. "]
Baptism as Conversion
Says about Romans 6
Rom. 6:3-5, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection,"
He says "This is a dry passage, there is no water here. This is not a wet passage". Doesn't believe the "baptism" referenced here is in any way a reference to physical baptism.
[Obviously, this is very different from the traditional baptistic understanding of this passage that it is a metonomy for the conversion initiation experience. Because baptism was always coupled with conversion. Not that baptism saves, but rather that people used the word "baptism" to refer to the conversion experience. You can read Moo for an explanation of this in his commentary. Note that Moo himself is a professor at an EFCA seminary.]
[All through this talk I'm thinking about these passages:
1. You shall know them by their fruits
2. Don't be decived: None who are... shall inherit
3. 'Are being transformed into the same image'
4. Let us fear]
Fear as a motivation
He says the following are inadequate: (1) Will (2) Knowledge (3) Fear/Shame ("Don't we use fear and shame to motivate people towards the gospel?") (4) Law ("We're going to create rules in addition to those so you don't break God's rules.")
[The fear motivation is totally biblical, reread Hebrews. Also, the conflation of "law" with additional rules is not the proper way of thinking about law. Legalism, maybe. But the word "law", both in the Bible and in traditional reformed thought, always refers to content found in the inspired word of God.]
Accepted Works?
"Sometimes we think that if we do this law, then God will "like"/"accept"/"love" us.
[Our actions are accepted in Christ. And our works can please God. Here is WCF ch 16.11
their good works also are accepted in him;u not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreproveable in God’s sight;w but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.]
Transformation Trajectory
Then he drew a line that was trending upwards, but mostly just all over the place:
Very high error. But then he asks "If we look at Paul's life chronologically, what do we see?"
[Notice that at first this isn't about Paul's evaluation of himself. The question (at the start here at least) isn't "If we look at Paul's conception/of himself, what do we see?", but rather, "If we look at Paul's life..." ]
Then he goes to these passages:
1 Cor 15:9
For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
[Here Paul explicitly connects this devaluation with his former ("B.C.") life and not with a downward trend in his Christian conduct post-conversion.]
Romans 7
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?
[This is obviously a contested passage on which there is no clear consensus this is talking about a Christian, much less about Paul.]
1 Tim 1:15
The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
[The problem with this one is that it proves too much. Are we to believe that Paul was, in his regenerate state, a worse sinner than Nero? This can be many things (i.e. the word "proto" could mean refer to "first" in precedent, or Paul could be using hyperbole, or he could be stating that his view of himself is that he sees no one as better. But I don't think the proper translation is that the Spirit is indicating that Paul in his regenerate state is a worse sinner than anyone else on the planet.]
Revivalism
In one of the other lectures, A* says that our goal isn't "bringing them to a crisis but bringing them to a point of faith." He used the words "conversionism" and "revivalism". He characterized it by referred to Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the hands of an angry God".
[I found this reference, especially the pejorative way in which it was referenced, very baffling. No idea why he went there. That sermon is amazing and a grace from God that we have it to draw on. Thoroughly biblical and grounded.]
In a continued railing against the revivalistic methods, he said "We tend to think of that as a sort of one-time punctiliar event... I think that's one of the problems. When someone says 'I'm so excited my son or daughter prayed to receive Christ, we have to understand the prayer (i.e., the words they say) is not what saves them... It's the faith that those things express and that is a critical distinction."
[Though potentially confusing, this statement is obviously true. I think it's right to rejoice that a brother or sister prayed a certain prayer. Of course, it is the faith, not the words, that saves us. But Paul puts a lot on the "confession" aspect. But still, in the end, of course, only God knows the heart. We can put together one's confession about Christ, coupled together with their outward fruit, to make as good a confirmation as we can.
I think he has been heavily influenced by Theocast's painting modern evangelicalism as mostly just pietism instead of confessionalism.]
A* said he thinks the punctiliar nature of the way we treat conversion actually lends to the sweat equity belief about Christian sanctification.
[ I didn't quite understand what he meant by "sweat equity." It wasn't clear whether he was referring to the historic Christian understanding of rewards and crowns, or whether he was referring to the heterodox understanding of justification by works.]
Some anecdotes were given: In college or around that time, A* was in a group of guys and the leader was very intent that they do their devotions. And if you said you only did them 3 times that week, 2 of the other guys got to punch you in the arm. Then he said that in seminary, they were supposed to pray and hour a day and write a report on their experience. He got a C because he formatted it wrong.
[I don't see these as right or wrong, but simply biographical giving us a glimpse into how Andy's emotions got to where they are on this topic.]
Perception of Self
He introduced this great chart:
And said we often do performing, penance, or pretending to curve the chart.
[Really liked this portion of the seminar and didn't really take a lot of notes on it consequently.]
Consider the second paragraph in this Michael Horton quote from his 2009 "Introducing Covenant Theology" book:
The New Testament lays before us a vast array of conditions for final salvation. Not only initial repentance and faith, but perseverance in booth, demonstrated in love toward God and neighbor, are part of that holiness without which no one shall see the Lord (Heb 12:14). Such holiness is not simply definitive - that is, it belongs not only to our justification, which is an imputed rather than imparted righteousness, but to our sanctification, that inner renewal by the Spirit.
Jesus made it amply clear that the sheep will be distinguished from the goats on the last day by marks of their profession (Matthew 24). It is important to remember, however, that the sheep are apparently unaware of their having fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and cared for the poor and those in prison, while the goats insisted that they had. Holiness, which is defined by love of God and neighbor, is usually something that is seen by others rather than by us. Nevertheless, it is the indispensable condition of our glorification: no one will be seated at the heavenly banquet who has not begun, however imperfectly, in new obedience. There are those who "have once been enlightened [baptized], who have tasted the heavenly gift [the Supper], and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" who nevertheless fall away (Heb 6:4-5).
Does this not seriously compromise the good news of an unconditional promise that we have labored to distinguish from a covenant of works? This is a terribly important question, especially since there seems to be so much confusion in our day over how to take these sober warnings in Scripture. The first order of business is to reexamine careful distinctions.
Comments
Post a Comment