The Biggest Lie about Grace .... Law

It appears as though one person in particular believes that total inability continues into the Christian life. I have seen that kind of thinking before. Whether a perversion or not, it is reformedspeak. It makes sense given some of the other things said person has said and the “experts” said person appeals to.

James,

Why do you call that reformed-speak?

Anne, here is a brief outline on sanctification to help you clarify your thoughts:

The Holy Spirit and Sanctification

I. Positional Sanctification

Positional, Perfective, or Punctilliar Sanctification Whereby One Is Considered A True Saint (similar to Justification)

A. 1 Cor 6:11 “washed…sanctified…justified…by the Spirit”

B. 1 Cor 1:2 “to those who have been sanctified…called to be holy”

C. Heb 10:10 “We have been made holy through the sacrifice”

II. Definitive Sanctification

The Death of The Old Man Produces a Definitive Breach of Sin’s Tyranny As A Basis For Enabling God’s Progressive Sanctification.

A. Rom 6:11 “Consider yourselves dead to sin…alive to God”
1. The term logizomai can mean recognizing something to be true because it is true (Rom 8:18; 2 Cor 10:7; 11:5; 10:11; 1 Pet 5:12).
2. The Hebrew term qadash can mean “setting aside for holy use” (regard as holy) or actual holiness.

B. Rom 6:6 “our old self was crucified”
1. Crucifixion here probably means death as opposed to merely a sentence of death (cf. Gal 2:20).
2. We died (Rom 6:2, 7–8), were buried (6:4), once-for-all (6:10–11), and results in the removal of sin’s tyranny (6:7).

C. Col 3:5 “Put to death whatever belongs to your earthly nature”
1. What remains is not the “old self” (totally depraved person “in Adam”), but the “flesh” or “sin nature” or “remnants of sin”.
2. The Christian is a “new creature”; the “old man” is dead (2 Cor 5:17).
3. Sarx (“flesh”) is best translated as “sinful nature”. The human body is not inherently sinful (platonic idea).

D. Rom 6:2, 10 “We died to sin”
1. “Old self” has been set aside; “new self” donned (Col 3:9–10).
2. Totally depraved man is dead; the regenerate man has come.
3. The death of the believer to the dominion and tyranny of the law of sin and death— This death encourages and enables practical sanctification.
4. Since the tyranny of sin has ended, the believer is not obligated to sin. The Spirit-Man can resist sin.

E. Eph 4:20–32

“In Christ” includes a judicial union such as our sin imputed to Christ (v. 32; Rom 8:1; Gal 2:16–17), His righteousness imputed to us (1 Cor 1:30), and placement into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). However, it also includes a “new self” (v. 24) or a “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17) as a basis for practical sanctification. Believers never become perfectly holy in progressive sanctification. Nor is their sanctification the ground for justification. Denying initial holiness via regeneration and the necessity of progressive sanctification, however, is an over-reaction to Romanism and a serious concession to antinomianism.

The putting off of the old self and the addition of the new self supply the basis and means for the believer’s practical sanctification detailed in the rest of the passage (v. 25) and cannot be divorced from the ministry of the Spirit (v. 30). The believer is the Spirit-man (1 Cor 2:14; 6:19; Rom 8:9).

F. 2 Peter 1:3–11

1. The content necessary for godliness is Scripture.
2. The engine necessary for godliness is definitive sanctification via regeneration (“having escaped the corruption” … “you may participate in the divine nature”).
3. “All we need” argues against a two-tier approach to sanctification.
4. Practical virtues evidence regeneration.

G. 1 John 3:2–10

1. Definitive sanctification issues in an experimental, practical sanctification (vv. 3, 7).
2. Perfection is not in view (v. 9). Rather, he cannot keep on acting as he once did, because he no longer is what he once was.

III. Strengths of Definitive Sanctification

A. Supplies Inspirational Value And Enabling Mechanism For Practical Sanctification.

B. Supplies Clear Understanding That Believers Are Truly New Men And Women In Christ.

C. Supplies A Real Foundation For the Certainty Of Progressive Sanctification.

D. Inseparably Unites Christ’s Function As Savior And Lord.

E. Unites The Believer And The Holy Spirit In Compatible Participation Toward Sanctification.

[Aaron Blumer]

[Anne Sokol]

are you rejoicing always? praying without ceasing? Never quenching the Spirit? abstaining from every appearance of evil?

It doesn’t follow that if nobody keeps rules (or the commands of the NT either) perfectly, there is therefore no value to keeping rules at all or striving for more consistent obedience at all.

I’m not sure why you are looking at it in these all-or-nothing terms.

Similarly, you raise the question later as to whether God empowers us to obey what He commands. The NT certainly encourages us to believe He does. But even if we are not fully empowered to obey 100% of the time, it doesn’t follow that we are empowered not at all or 0% of the time.

Empowered to Obey

NKJV And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work 2 Co 9:8

as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Pe 1:3–4

and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power 20 which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, Eph 1:19–20

To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily. Col 1:29

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. 1 Co 10:13

I think part of the appeal of this new Reformed version of let-go-let-Godism is that if we make obedience into something mystical and complicated, we are more able to excuse our lack of it. So a model of sanctification that blankets the process in fog allows me to not feel responsible for continuing sin, stagnation, etc. I’m waiting for something to happen to me at which point I’ll be changed and live better … without having to work at it.

It’s a wonderfully appealing idea (and I can hardly blame anyone for being drawn to it). It just isn’t the teaching of the NT.

God accepts perfect obedience. That’s the standard. My obedience, even when it appears I obey, doesn’t reach God’s standards.

Sure there is value in obeying, and stuff like that. There is a lot of value in it, especially when it is the result of God’s work in us. I love rules as never before :D I love and want to love even more what I ought to do.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

James,

Why do you call that reformed-speak?

(from Anne)

I don’t think it’s any version of let-go-godism. It’s also the heart of the reformation and what Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and many others recognize and talk about.

I nearly laughed out loud.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

[Anne Sokol]

is that what it meant in the O.T.?

First, you are confusing the lost person’s inability without Christ and the saved person’s complete ability in Christ. Second, you are confusing the OT era, where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was sporadic and temporary, with the NT where the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is universal and life-long.

You still have not dealt with 1 Corinthians 10:13. If I am misstating the meaning of the verse, explain what you think it means. If I am correctly interpreting the verse, explain how it fits with your statements that I have called into question.

What I am saying is that just because God gives us commands He is not obligating Himself to enable us to fulfill them. There can be other purposes for those commands other than God saying “This is what I will enable you to do.” In the OT, the purpose of the commands was, in fact, the exact opposite of what we would expect. God issued the commands to show us that we cannot do them. Rom 3:19-20, Gal. 3.

So, NT: Are you now being sanctified by the works of the law (by this I mean God’s commands)? you would say yes. can obedience to the laws of God give you or increase your righteousness?

Maybe we would better say that your obedience, in the Spirit, rather than a means of increasing your righteousness, is an expression, however faint, of the righteousness you have been given in Christ.

why do you ask me about I Cor 10:13 and not I John 1:7-10?

I think I have heard versions of this many times. I mean, I went to BJ to school, i was even born there ;) (I don’t know if you ever knew Harry and Bea Ward? they are my parents. Dad was Dr. BobIII’s assistant for a while, started Unusual Tours, then worked as the Wilds first traveling rep. Maybe you know them.) I will confess that I don’t really know what “antinomianism” means and I’m not even close to arguing for an absence of rules, if that’s what it means.

I am interested in why you make this section the “strengths of definitive sanctification” and not the “strengths of positional sanctification”? Can you explain that? I’m just wondering. Could it not be labeled that as well?

[Mike Harding]

III. Strengths of Definitive Sanctification

A. Supplies Inspirational Value And Enabling Mechanism For Practical Sanctification.

B. Supplies Clear Understanding That Believers Are Truly New Men And Women In Christ.

C. Supplies A Real Foundation For the Certainty Of Progressive Sanctification.

D. Inseparably Unites Christ’s Function As Savior And Lord.

E. Unites The Believer And The Holy Spirit In Compatible Participation Toward Sanctification.

Anne,

“God accepts perfect obedience. That’s the standard. My obedience, even when it appears I obey, doesn’t reach God’s standards.”

You have just undercut any need to even attempt obedience. Why strive for obedience if it is still sin no matter what? Answer: you do/will not.

And we have seen the full circle of antinomianism from the reformed side. I was always told by the covenantists that it was the noncovenantists who were antinomian.

Rationalism is a sword not to be played with. Wield with skill or be cut deep.

I am going to bookmark this thread. This is classic.

[James K]

Anne,

“God accepts perfect obedience. That’s the standard. My obedience, even when it appears I obey, doesn’t reach God’s standards.”

You have just undercut any need to even attempt obedience. Why strive for obedience if it is still sin no matter what? Answer: you do/will not.

And we have seen the full circle of antinomianism from the reformed side. I was always told by the covenantists that it was the noncovenantists who were antinomian.

Rationalism is a sword not to be played with. Wield with skill or be cut deep.

I am going to bookmark this thread. This is classic.

[Don Johnson]

[Steve Davis]

5) and the acceptance that practical life-style choices others make that differ from ours are not necessarily disobedience to God’s commands but that we may have different lists of rules for ourselves based on our present incomplete understanding, our personal preferences, and the influences apart from Scripture which have shaped us.

Too much agreeing going on out deah!

On this last point we would probably come to a difference at some point. Joel spoke of “legitimate” rules that God-ordained institutions create. (Going from memory - I know he used the word ‘legitimate’, but don’t remember exact wording of the rest of it.) Would you agree that there is such a thing as legitimate ‘rules’ or ‘standards’ or what-have-you that a church, for example, might set up? If yes, could it be that those standards are applied to practical life-style choices and adherence/non-adherence could say something about spirituality?

You might agree in theory with what I am suggesting here, but I think we might disagree in application.

No surprise that we would not agree on application. What two churches do? I do think that institutions can have rules which help ensure that things are done decently and in order. The observance of these rules might say something about spirituality or just conformity. In our church we have biblical standards for leadership. We don’t have dress standards but would confront immodesty; we don’t require abstinence from alcohol for membership or leadership but we would confront drunkenness. We don’t require non-use of tobacco and treat it as a liberty issue (but no smoking outside the church doors :-). Our church is very diverse and eclectic when it comes to dress, personal separation choices, music, etc. We major on the majors and through the Word look for Holy Spirit growth and unity rather than uniformity,

I looked up some about Edwards, and I may post some more, as he probly explains it a lot better, although i’m sure it’s tombs of info, but one site synthsized it this way:

But he [Edwards] saw integral connections between justification and sanctification, and so enlarged the conception of justification—as had Luther, later Reformed scholastics, and Thomas Aquinas. Justification involves sanctification because they are different aspects of salvation, and the salvation of one believer is only one eternal act in God’s mind. That one act is grounded in Christ’s work outside the believer, but it cannot be disconnected from Christ’s work within the believer. (http://www.oxfordscholarship. com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199791606.001.0001/acprof-9780199791606-chapter-25)

Another guy summarized it this way:

One of the interesting connections Edwards makes on the topic of sanctification is found in his sermon on 2 Corinthians 5:8 delivered at David Brainerd’s funeral on October 12, 1747. There, in one section, Edwards connects sanctification within his broad (and glorious) worldview. Edwards makes the following points:

• Sanctification is the progressive emerging of Christ’s holiness in our lives through (a) our vision of Christ’s glory, and (b) our union with Christ by the Spirit.
• We see Christ’s glory partially now, therefore our transformation can only be incomplete in this life.
• We experience vital union with Christ partially now, therefore our holiness will never fully emerge in this life.
• In death we behold Christ’s full glory (beatific vision), and there our sanctification is complete (glorification).
• In death all hindrances to experiencing vital union with Christ are removed, and there our sanctification is complete (glorification).

It’s interesting how Edwards merges here two key themes of sanctification: (1) vital union with Christ in progressive sanctification, and (2) our sight of Christ’s glory in progressive sanctification. Those two realities are really one reality for Edwards. To see Christ’s glory is to experience unhindered union with Him. The beatific vision of Christ perfects our vital union with Christ. And it’s at that point his holiness will then flow unhindered in our lives, to our delight and to God’s glory. http://spurgeon.wordpress. com/2012/10/01/vital-union-with-christ-and-sanctification-in-jonathan-edwards/

[Anne Sokol]

[James K]

Anne,

“God accepts perfect obedience. That’s the standard. My obedience, even when it appears I obey, doesn’t reach God’s standards.”

You have just undercut any need to even attempt obedience. Why strive for obedience if it is still sin no matter what? Answer: you do/will not.

And we have seen the full circle of antinomianism from the reformed side. I was always told by the covenantists that it was the noncovenantists who were antinomian.

Rationalism is a sword not to be played with. Wield with skill or be cut deep.

I am going to bookmark this thread. This is classic.

You know, James, does your rationalism lead you to that conclusion? it doesn’t lead me or others to that conclusion.

Anne, I just quoted you. Your words say that even your obedience doesn’t meet God’s standard. That would be sin. Hamartiology 101.

i meet God’s standard in Christ. it’s really not that hard to grasp, although i will say that this general topic is not for everyone. it’s a ‘meat’ topic, not a milk one, and some people are not ready to hear it.

Anne, I get your point. You have already admitted to not knowing what antinomianism is. It isn’t a matter of a person not ready to hear it. People hear enough false teaching on critical matters.

James… it’s a little unclear to me if you’re trying to help or just trying to antagonize. Maybe you can clear that up for me?

To get back to Anne’s point, people have long struggled with the relationship between the positional and the actual/experiential.

Anne, I wonder if you’d agree or disagree with these statements?

• Believers are fully credited with the righteousness and obedience of Christ fully when they believe
• God’s plan is to not only credit believers with righteousness but to transform them so that they actually are personally obedient and holy
• That process of transformation begins at conversion and continues throughout the believer’s life
• That process of actually becoming personally obedient and holy reaches completion in glory

We’re doing a lot of back and forth on points of disagreement—or perceived points of disagreement—but it might be less confusing to establish points of agreement and go from there.