Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFideles  Quote:
Originally Posted by Amazing Grace Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Check your reformed confessions and Scripture, because justification and sanctification are both acts of God's free grace, but sanctification is an infusion of grace by the Spirit (WLC Question 77). Sanctification is God's grace at work in us but it also requires works from us. Sanctification is always progressive and if it is not, then it is an indication that one is not justified by faith. Luther refered to the works in sanctification as the fruits of righteousness. I think you mistated the point when you said that the law has no part in our sanctification. The law certainly is at work in our sanctification. The third use of the law is the means of holiness. We are delivered from the law as a covenant of works, so that we are neither justified or condemned, but we are called to walk in holiness and continually put to death the deeds of the body. You have to make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification. | Stephen, I have checked them over and over and over again. I am very leary of what is meant by infusion, but that is a whole other topic. Santification is both positional and progressive. Yet both are in Christ alone by grace through faith, not by works obedience as a believers focus. I have heard all the cliche sayings as you have mentioned above and have certainly concluded it is wanting. Anyway you slice it, works sanctification is an impossibility. What does walking in holiness mean to you? Scripture says we walk by faith. Walk in this newness of life procured by Christ. Our life is not supposed to be some rollercaoster ride of failure and victory based upon sinning vs not sinning every day or every hour. It is finished Christ said. And that means more than justification. We have been taught that we become saved by faith in the gospel, but now that we are saved we need to perform well to walk righteously. If at any time we fail to perform well we need to get back on track of good performance in order to get on God's good side again. If we really screw up then it may take several days (or even weeks) of good performance before we 'feel' that God is accepting us again. If we are able to sustain a decent run of good behavior we believe that God is beginning to smile on us again thereby increasing our confidence in approaching and sharing Him. this 'good performance' is a works-based righteousness no different than living under the law. Let me repeat, good performance under the law is no different than 'good performance' under grace. 'Good performance' will not bring us into good standing with God. Good works could not help 1% before salvation and cannot help 1% after salvation. In God's view, a 'successful' five hour period or a five year flawless track record makes no difference to God in relation to our righteousness and acceptability.
Again, I only ask that you interact with Paul on this point:
Galatians 2:21-3:3, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain… This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"
There is no other way to understand this verse, becasue it is exactly the same in the original. The Spirit is what saves, then why go back to the flesh/Law/obedience for sanctification? How are we to walk in Christ? The same way we were saved, by faith in the gospel. We are to walk in the faith that God loves us and that we can do nothing to make Him love us more. He proved His love for us by offering Himself in our stead on the cross. We cannot earn His love by being a better Christian, reading our Bibles more, fasting more, etc., for we are fully loved forever.
Stephen? What works are required of us that you speak of? What do's and dont's are we required to follow that Paul condemns in Col 2? Again I am not speaking of obvious commands of God. But a believer does not need the 10 words in stone constantly presented to him in order for him to not murder or covet. Michael and Bert Mulder have even gone beyond this and followed the traditions of the mishna and have lists of things that only burden others to even read about. This is my biggest gripe with this flavor of legalism. Do you find a roman catholic who prays the rosary foolish? Even when she says she is doing it to please God? Do you find an Amish person a false witness when they scream about not having their picture taken? Or what about the catholic who goes to novena? Is he not praying? Or the one who does not eat meat on wednesdays or fridays during lent? They all say they are doing it to please God, yet you call them heretics, believing a lie. Well I do not care if Ryle, WLC, Calvin, Michael, You, or anyone says that a list of required works has a part in our sanctification, it is against the Gospel. Especially when the list is a bunch of peccadillo things that do not matter at all. | Robert,
I am incredibly concerned about this statement above in reaction to a prima facia, Reformed understanding of the nature of sanctification. I am actually considering issuing an infraction for your Strawman attack on Reformed sanctification as outlined by WLC 77. For you to characterize Stephen's synopsis that sanctification flows out of our justification and to compare the third use of the Law to an "on again/off again" view of God's favor or to "good performance" is either a sign of profound ignorance as to what every Reformed thinker taught about the third use of the Law or a purposeful mischaracterization of it. Either way, you have no business trying to teach here with such a profound misapprehension of what the third use is.
Consider carefully how you proceed. I like you Robert but what you think is wise above or accurately represents Paul's presentation of Galatians 2 is completely faulty as you attempt to pit our "reasonable service" against God's forensic justification.
You need to completely divorce this discussion from any discussion about how a scruple might have missed the nature of the third use and focus upon what the actual Reformed view is.
I do care what our Reformed confessions teach on this because I'm convinced they are Biblical regarding how God saves us by declaring us righteousness but His act and purpose are singular in electing us to newness of life and giving us hearts that desire to live unto Him. If we do not bear fruit then we are dead. We are not saved by the fruit but the fruit is a sign of life and you are pitting the fruit against the fountainhead of life. Both are borne of God and Paul's polemic against the Judaizers is not aimed at an idea of sanctification that seeks to please God but is aimed at those that believe that effort began in the Spirit and is perfected by our effort.
Finally, whether you like the term "infuseth" or not, it is the term chosen by the Reformers. They did not have a Roman Catholic understanding of the term but adopted and adapted the term to their own use. Rather than dumping all over men who you ought to respect enough to understand, you need to ask for clarification.  You are warned Robert. Proceed with caution. |
Rich:, My point was I do not care if these men or documents teach that peccadillo rules that some obey and try to earn God's blessing make one more Holy or sanctified. These are not the fruits of the Spirit which is the only fruit a believer must be concerned about. Is it not true that an unbeliever can do many of the works a believer can according to Law? The true and only distinction is Faith. I also am not trying to pit anything against anyone or anything. Paul is speaking about living a blood bought life, which entails more than forensic justification. It disheartens me that as a believer my last revelation of His word is the Law for my life. This just cannot be. AS I mentioned the book that was penned in 1692 by Marshall explains, the Gospel of grace is the fountain of the believers life and that and only that will bring true obedience.
As for my understanding of Paul in Galatians, I do believe Paul is talking about a sanctified life IN Christ alone. Let me ask you this, if I get a good stretch of obedience, let's say 30 years of perfection, does God look at me as more holy? Then what if I commit adultery, how many more 'good works' must I do in order ot regain His favor? This is what plagues me Rich. To me it is one good work, repent in faith. Not follow rules for a while to ease my guilt. I find a parallel between good performance to earn God's favor as the penetential system of the rcc. IF I am wrong about Michaels and Stephens thought, then Ill repent of my accusation.
20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
what does Paul mean by LIVE in the above? This is His life after being declared justified through faith by grace. He says he lives by faith. Walks by faith, which means sanctified by faith.
You stated:
For you to characterize Stephen's synopsis that sanctification flows out of our justification and to compare the third use of the Law to an "on again/off again" view of God's favor or to "good performance" is either a sign of profound ignorance as to what every Reformed thinker taught about the third use of the Law or a purposeful mischaracterization of it.
Ok, then I need clarification. Bt I am CERTAIN i am not profoundly ignorant or purpsefully mischaracterizing it. Yet I know you used such characterizations of me in love.
If our sanctification is only progressive, which I believe Stephen confesses, then he is in error. So I ask him to clarify.
Regarding WLC 77, I did not even touch on this, what I focus on is 78, perhaps that is left out of Stephen's copy.
Question 78: Whence arises the imperfection of sanctification in believers?
Answer: The imperfection of sanctification in believers arises from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services,
and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.
now am I profoundly ignorant to read these words plainly? if my best works are defiled and filthy rags in the site of God, then how could I ever imagine that perversions of modesty or any other peccadillo rule is not filthy? Can these defiled good works earn His blessing? Not for one second.
For now, I stand by my convictions stronger than ever, and echo the words regarding Marhsall's truth in his book:
The message of the gospel is that we do not become holy by doing, but by not doing – we do not work so that we may become holy, but we become holy by faith, with the result that we begin to work naturally, from our heart. Sadly, many who recognize this truth in the matter of justification forget it when it comes to sanctification. But we are no more able for the latter than we are for the former, apart from the work of Christ in us.
It may be objected that such a teaching must result in license and lawlessness. But as Marshall demonstrates,
it is actually the teaching of a works-based sanctification that issues in lawlessness, for it throws the pursuit of holiness on the abilities of the flesh, which can do nothing according to God’s law. The pursuit of sanctification by the gospel-truth of faith in Christ is the only means that can ever be successful.
This truth, when apprehended, produces some marvelous results: first, it gives all glory to God alone, for the whole process of salvation – without him, none of it is possible. Second, it serves to alleviate the tormented conscience, and makes the yoke of Christ’s law easy and refreshing indeed –
for it turns our eyes to him, when before they were fixed on the impossible weight of the law hanging over our weak resolve. And finally, it actually produces true and acceptable holiness, where years of ardent efforts had left only failure and defeat – for it is only through gospel faith that Christ’s power flows through us because of our vital union with him.
The above is all I can say on the matter and give a heart Amen to it. If it denies the so called predominent view of the 3rd use, then so be it. I will not live the rest of my saved life under the burden of Law keeping in some synergistic thought of sanctification. I will not have my Lord die in vain. I will only have my savior carry me through the Law on His back, through faith and faith alone. Now I am assured that my works are not defiled becasue of Him, not because of my own efforts cooperating. I am monergistic all the way from beginning to end.