Might I humbly try to offer a resolution to this issue?

The NT is clear on the indicative and imperative. We are justified children of God (indicative), therefore now go and live as children of God (imperative).

Now, one of 2 possibilities exist if I am not living the imperatives. First, I'm not a child of God (the indicative is not a reality)...or second, I am a child of God and I am living as if I'm not. The antidote for the first instance is to trust Christ. But the example of the second is not any different...it is to trust Christ...that is, to hear the Scriptures say "you were once X, now you are Y". Is this not what every applicable epistle in the NT does when it admonishes its audience whether the Corinthians, Galatians, etc?

Now that being said, there are many reasons why a person would need to be reminded they are a child of God. Sometimes, it is because they are arrogant and need to be pulled back to understand their sin and the cost of their salvation. Other times, a person may indeed feel like they are not measuring up and they need to be reminded the Father's wrath has been exhausted on Christ (that is, they are a son...able to call on Him as their 'Abba'). Dr. Miller was merely trying to give pastoral counsel for the latter...taken to an extreme by applying Miller's sonship a priori to every case of forgetting the indicative....not wise....but applying it in cases where that is indeed the root issue of one's heart...is wise.

The problem with this thread, IMHO, is that it is discussing a doctrine outside of its application, to the extent that its extremes are taking a frontseat. And these extremes can only be agreed upon when applied to a certain circumstances (ie, within the context of the community of believers). It's like the worn-out unbelieving polemic against the Proverbs' use of extremes that you can see on many a bible-bashing site...for example, when the Proverbs say to "answer a fool according to his folly" and "do not answer a fool according to his folly". We could set up a thread to debate which one is correct only to find out that both are correct in certain life circumstances (which is the point of the Proverbs as wisdom literature).

I don't see this as relativism...rather it is inherent to incarnational living that is part and parcel of the NT Christian life.

__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN

"Why wasn't God watching? Why wasn't God listening? Why wasn't God there for Georgia Lee?"
- Tom Waits
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. - Psalm 10:14

Since Miller at his best is confusing and simplistic, shouldn't pastoral counseling use something else? (That "something else" is not a reference to the Jay Adams model, BTW.)

Uh, oh. "Incarnational living" is no better. It's a phrase that can mean all sorts of things. Only Christ is incarnate and our lives should look to the Cross, the means of grace, and the hope of glory. Please don't hate me. :-(

Also, on a fundamental level, there are problems with seeing one's emotional state (i.e., brokenness, frustration, identity conflicts) as a reflection of one's spirituality. Religious affections are certainly a big part of the human psyche, but not every personal problem can be reduced to spiritual categories.

__________________
Chris Stamper
Park Cities PCA
(Dallas, TX)

Spoken by one who is both rude and incredibly simplistic in his approach.

Your problem, Chris, is not that you possess a grain of truth in what you say but it is just that: a grain. Your posts lack any mature discernment of the larger issue.

I'm finished warning you about it. Please see my post in the thread about the PB in this thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/oh-...anboard-26093/

I'm not sure I have time for your method of "drive by" posting that is molesting many threads. You jump in, make terse statements that lack nuance while simultaneously casting ideas beyond the pale without justification.

Your posts indicate to me that you've studied much but comprehend in a very shallow way. Where you should be learning you presume to teach. I won't provide that venue for you for much longer.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

This is at best ad hominem. No problem with it being your opinion, but I'm inferring from this post (and your others) you intend for your opinion to be a norm.

No hate here. I think this discussion is great. Yes, the phrase "incarnational living" can mean anything, but let's not chalk up a term you may shun to deconstructionist nothingness. By it I mean, living out a doctrine within the community of believers...how Christ's incarnation means we cannot live incarnationally escapes me. I sure ain't gonna send a cup of cold water in Christ's name through cyberspace...must be done life on life.

You have a tendency here to assign certain terms to definitions that automatically disqualify them. Why is that? When I hear, "I got saved" that sometimes conjures up images of my Arminian upbringing and I tend to chalk it up to bad theology. Surely, there is a good and right use of the term "I got saved" that is outside of the categories of my narrow mindedness. Can we not do the same here?

__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN

"Why wasn't God watching? Why wasn't God listening? Why wasn't God there for Georgia Lee?"
- Tom Waits
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. - Psalm 10:14

I take the classical categories, even with Luther for support, rather than accept contemporary constructs. I don't think calling me shallow for it is helpful.

__________________
Chris Stamper
Park Cities PCA
(Dallas, TX)

Really? Labels are not helpful? Maybe you ought to heed your own advice then. It stings, does it not, when men incosiderately jump into something and malign you without seeking to understand your position?

I've seen at least 4 posts just this AM where you have labelled men in a shallow fashion. Indeed it is NOT helpful to label men. Hence, you are on notice that you will desist.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
OPC

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Let's talk about labeling. I have been defamed, called shallow, had my education insulted, my maturity mocked, and told I am everything but a nice guy, all in the name of Christian spirituality. Often people become emotionally upset about ideas that contradict their established notions, so they seek to shoot the messenger. Please understand the difference between clarity and tactlessness.

Rev. McMahon wrote:
"All this comes down to debate. Luther posted the 95 Theses on the door of Wittenberg hoping to DEBATE. His Theses were less than "kind" in many ways. His objective was to set forth solid biblical material (in his mind) and debate other to see where he may be right and where he may be wrong."


Instead of being shown how I'm wrong, I get vague accusations of incivility which have no basis in fact. If Rev. McMahon has a problem with me, he may call me direct. I'll give him my phone number.

__________________
Chris Stamper
Park Cities PCA
(Dallas, TX)

As I explained, Sonship posits orphan Christians on one side (bad) and adopted Christians on another (good). Calling that simplistic, as I did, is a fair conclusion. This is how the discussion started.

__________________
Chris Stamper
Park Cities PCA
(Dallas, TX)

I understand, but even if one were to grant you the point that the Sonship material is simplistic, you are still equating "simplistic" with "untrue"...the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Unified in the risen Jesus, let's go in peace.

BTW, my pastor back home (Lakeland, FL) taught systematics at WTS in Dallas and attended Park Cities Pres. Sounded like some great work Park Cities was doing...also, Julian Russell was senior minister at a congregation here in Memphis and is now at Park Cities...he has a heart for urban ministry that is quite compelling and (more importantly) Christocentric.

Peace brother.

__________________
Joel Batts
Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA) - Memphis, TN

"Why wasn't God watching? Why wasn't God listening? Why wasn't God there for Georgia Lee?"
- Tom Waits
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief;you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless. - Psalm 10:14

Steve, I may be "all wet" here, but I'm wondering, might you be confusing election with adoption? I shoudn't be arguing theology with you, for the reasons which Archlute suggested before his departure, but I can safely say I have no trouble affirming that justification is a component of election, the election from eternity past. I'm not exactly clear on what adoption is, but I think it comes after justification, at a later point in time.

I'm sorry Chris called you a Wesleyan - the Wesleyans did talk about "sanctification by faith" but they meant something quite different than you do, I think.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Hello Meg,

Please, you are most welcome to discuss -- and argue -- theology with me. This is an open discussion forum, both genders accorded exactly the same rights to participate and benefit from vigorous, gracious, debate. This is not a church situation where our respective roles might modify our conduct. I have found your remarks on various topics to be well considered and often edifying. Please don't hold back the intelligence you have by virtue of the Spirit of Christ indwelling you, and Christ's word in your mind and heart! It is "with all the saints [male and female]" that we "comprehend...the love of Christ" (Eph 3:18, 19), and the truths of His gospel.

To the point: Yes, you are right, election is the first all-inclusive category, of which justification is a component. Yet I venture to say that adoption is the primary purpose -- after God's glory -- of that election: "predestinated...unto the adoption of children" (Eph 1:5), and all the redemptive work of our Savior was done to merit for us what was required for that adoption to be realized. Thus the work by which we are justified is a component -- a part of the whole -- of the larger end, which is adoption. When all of faith is passed away as being of the age prior to Glory, adoption shall remain, our unending joy, and God's delight.


Chris,

I would think "sanctification by faith" the Biblical view of all theological paradigms, as it is the Scriptural view. That it was part of the Wesleyan is no condemnation of it (even as the EO and RC holding to the Trinity is no condemnation of that).

I was actually in the thrall of the Wesleyan perfectionism and Finney's Pelagian doctrine of self-effort and the will of man for too long (as a young Christian). So please don't assume I would have any friendship with Wesleyan doctrine, or even terminology. Sanctification by faith is to me a no-brainer, for we can receive nothing from God except it be by faith. As Paul says, "Are you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Gal 3:3) And in 1 Cor 1:30, it is Christ who "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption", and it is by faith alone we receive Him and His glorious benefits us-ward.

So sanctification by faith is a Biblically respectable doctrine, given its presence in the Reformed panoply of truth.

__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus

"I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)

"Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)

CL,
Thanks for supplying the sin boldly quote. I had not read that material before. When I looked at the section discussing the context of the two quotes you offered, I found a helpful explanation offered in the article
explaining that these quotes were not worded in the clearest way.
The idea trying to be expressed was that Jesus saves to the uttermost those that will come to God by Him.
Here is the part of the article that clarify's this;

For Luther, the remnants of sin were not a license to “sin boldly”. Commenting on Romans 7:17, the sins that remain in a believer’s life are there to be fought:

“Sin remains in the spiritual man for the exercise of grace, the humbling of pride, and the repression of presumption. For he who is not busily at work driving out sin without a doubt has sin by the very fact of this neglect, even though he has committed no further sin for which he may be damned. For we are not called to idleness; we are called to labor against our passions. These would not be without guilt—for they are truly sins, indeed damnable ones — if the mercy of God did not forego imputing them to us. But He does not impute them to those only who manfully undertake the struggle with their failings and, calling upon the grace of God, fight it through. Therefore he who goes to confession should not fancy that he is laying down burdens in order to live a life of ease. On the contrary, he should know that by laying down the burden he is undertaking to serve as a soldier of God and is taking a different burden upon himself, the burden of battling for God against the devil and his own failings. The man who does not know this will suffer a quick relapse. Therefore he who does not intend henceforth to fight—why does he ask to be absolved and to be enrolled in the army of Christ?”[32]

“No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

Luther’s critics often quote this statement. The Catholic scholar Jared Wicks has correctly pointed out, “One needs to be on the lookout for Luther's rhetorical flights, and to be judicious in discriminating between the substance of his message and the linguistic extremes with which he sometimes made his points.”[33] The above statement is a perfect example. The point Luther is making is not to go out and murder or fornicate as much as possible, but rather to point out the infinite sacrifice of Christ’s atonement. There is no sin that Christ cannot cover. His atonement was of an infinite value. That this statement was not to be considered literally is apparent by Luther’s use of argumentum ad absurdum: do people really commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day? No. Not even the most heinous God-hating sinner is able to carry out such a daily lifestyle.

Clearly then Luther was not speaking against the idea of mortification of sin, or of the dominion of sin being broken in a child of God. No one advocates sinless perfection here. No one advocates a believer living a life of self condemning ,and morbid introspection leading to bondage. Chris let me ask you how you understand keeping a balance in these area's. Take some time to explain if possible how we are to follow peace with all men and holiness.
Or how we are to examine ourselves. I am thinking of the practical implications of almost every epistle that instructs us how we should live in light of the doctrine we are given by our Lord.

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.