Justification: Mediate and Immediate Grace

One could define "mediate grace" as that power of the Holy Spirit that changes our inner man, and thus, also changes our working relationship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One would then orthodoxly say that mediate grace made us new men, and our relationship with our God and Father is placed on a basis which may be thought of as "covenant keeping," or "being and acting like Christians."  Our relationship with our Father in Heaven is relationship with a Person, and we may therefore expect that that relationship of fellowship is moved forward, through thick and thin, based on the spiritual quality of our our personal relationship with one another.  Innumerable Scripture passages may be quoted to support this.

Likewise, one could define "immediate grace" as that grant of the status of sonship to us regardless of our merits, for the sake of Christ, which is communicated to our souls as a gift, through faith only, and not based on our works.  Definitive passages of Scripture from many places can be quoted to support this.  Happy is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (David).

It's clear then, that total free grace operates at the same time as the give and take of personal relationship with God in the ethical and religious sphere which is produced by grace-in-us, mediate grace.  God is sovereign and good to his people.  Yet, men are responsible before God, in the give and take of ethical personal relationship.  There is such a thing as discipline for sin.  There are apostates.  There is forgiveness.  There is reward.  Yet there is also superabounding unearned and unearnable grace enveloping our whole life, because of the work of our Savior.

The argument over justification in Reformation time was about this.  Which grace is supreme?  For Romanism, it is grace operative in me, that is, mediate grace, which will determine my destiny at the judgment.  For the Reformers, it is immediate grace.  Mediate and immediate grace are both operative in us or for us, but immediate grace, free grace, is always sovereign.

Does this mean that mediate and immediate grace can conflict?  Can a man under the influence of immediate and free grace fail to show the evidence of mediate grace?  No.  There is no conflict here.  The manifestation of a Christian life, and the presence of free grace always comport properly with one another, whether it looks that way to us or not.  Free grace is not a license to sin, nor is mediate grace in us the ground of our acceptance with God.

Does this mean that a spiritually poor Christian life ought to make us doubt whether free grace is given on our behalf?  Does a sleazy and sinful Christian life mean that mediate grace is absent, and therefore free grace is absent, too?  Not if repentance toward God and faith in the free grace of our Savior is present.  We remember Luther's first Reformation thesis:  Our entire lives should be lives of repentance -- every day!

Luther on God's Glory, Justification, and the Covenent of Works

I providentially opened one of my books, The Theology of Martin Luther, by Paul Althaus, a “standard” work often referenced by others, to the midst of Chapter 10, “God is God,” and found the following material.

Here are some excerpts, with my comments. Remember that Althaus is a secondary source. All his comments and quotations need to be verified from the readings of Luther that he notices in his footnotes.

Beginning of Quotes from Althaus

The quotes, in alternate typeface, also contain quotes from Luther in quotation marks.

The Creator Works All in All [p 105]

For Luther, being God and creating are identical.  God is God because he and only he creates.

God creates and preserves everything. Nothing is and nothing continues to be without his activity.  “All things must be God’s, since nothing can be or become, if he would not bring it into existence; and when he stops, nothing can continue to exist.”  [p 105]

…

This living omnipresent working of God is the mystery of all reality.  God who causes all things is also the only causal agent.  For the agent who really works in all things is God, and not the personal and impersonal powers of the world which we think of as causes.  God is the first or principal cause; all others are only secondary or instrumental causes.”  [p 107]

…

The knowledge that God and God alone works everything has immediate significance for faith.  The unchangeableness and the constancy of God’s purpose as well as the trustworthiness of his promises (and threats) depends on his being alone the one who works all in all.  Since he determines everything with his almighty working, I know that nothing and nobody can resist his will, change his mind, or restrict his activity.  There is therefore no doubt that God is able to achieve the eternal purposes of his love as they are made known to me in his promises. [p 110]

…

This inescapable living presence of God in all that exists is either the most blessed or the most terrible reality for a man, depending on what he knows God’s relationship to himself to be. It is never neutral but is always either saving or damning.  We are here confronted with the twofold character of God’s dealing with men in the law and the gospel.  The man who has peace with God through believing the gospel can be confident in the midst of the most terrible reality; for God is present even in such a situation and holds it in his omnipotent hand – whether it be death, hell, or hostile earthly powers. … We should therefore fear and trust only in God and most certainly believe that nothing can destroy us; for God is Lord of all the powers that threaten us.  We are in his gracious hand, no matter what happens.  This is the believer’s royal freedom and joy. Ultimately, he is always dealing with God himself and not with the creature: and he knows how he stands with God. [p 111]

Giving Love [p 115]

Viewed in relationship to men, God’s creative activity is pure giving and helping.  He thus demonstrates not only his divine ability but also that he is goodness and love, constantly engaged in giving.  Whoever wishes to describe God as God, in terms of his “nature,” cannot speak of him merely as the only and constant creator, but must also speak of him as love.  God in the depths of his being is nothing else than love; and love is divine, for it is God himself.  “It is God’s nature to do only ‘good.’”  This is his glory: not receiving, but constantly giving, freely without hope of gratitude, independently of man’s attitude toward him, that is, in a completely different way than natural men do good. Thus God’s goodness is “genuinely natural goodness.” It “gladly loses its good deed on the unthankful.”  [p 115]

…

… In addition to all these temporal gifts God gives men eternal goods, his Son, and therewith himself.  “He has poured out upon us both temporal and eternal goods and with them his own being; and he has poured himself out with everything he is and does for us who were sinners, undeserving enemies, and servants of the devil.  He can neither do any more than this for us nor give us anything else.”  Thus Christ and the fact that he is “for us” is the greatest gift of God’s love.  In this gift, God gives himself.  [p 116]

Justification Means that God is God [p 118]

…

At this point two elements of God’s creative activity are to be emphasized.  First, creating means creating out of nothing. … For Luther this is more than an assertion about the origin of the world. It is an all-inclusive characteristic of God’s creating and working. As such, it manifests itself also in the way in which God works men’s salvation.  In this too God creates everything out of nothing.  He takes the man who is nothing before Him and clothes him with the worth of the righteous man. [p 119]

As a second characteristic of God’s creative activity, Luther emphasizes that God makes what he makes under the veil or form of its opposite, and therefore also out of its opposite.  He creates life under the form of death, yes, by way of death.  When he intends to exalt a man, he first humbles him.  When he intends to give his gifts to us, he first of all destroys us and what we have and thereby creates room for his gift. … “You exalt us when you humble us. You make us righteous when you make us sinners.  You lead us to heaven when you cast us into hell. You grant us the victory when you cause us to be defeated.  You give us life, when you permit us to be killed.” … Thereby God demonstrates that he is God and shows the majesty of his creating activity which cannot be compared with any human work.  [p 119]

Luther’s doctrine of justification must be viewed in the context of these characteristics of God’s creativity. … [p 120]

Why is a man not righteous before God through his “works,” that is, through fulfilling the law of God?  The first answer to that question is certainly this: because no individual from the beginning of the world to its end, and not even a Christian, perfectly fulfills God’s law.  Man’s obedience is always imperfect and blemish.[1]

But this is not Luther’s complete and final answer, as is evident from a whole series of statements, many of which derive from the years 1531 to 1533.[2] … Even though a man had fulfilled the basic commandments of the law by fulfilling the double commandment of love, he still would not thereby be righteous before God. For God simply does not recognize the fulfilling of the law as the way to righteousness.[3]  Whether a man attempts to fulfill God’s law with his own powers or whether he achieves the righteousness of the law with the aid of God’s power is not of decisive significance.  Luther expresses this even more sharply than he did in the Galatians commentary in a conversational comment made about the same time in the fall of 1531.  Here he comes to terms with Augustine’s opinion that although man’s attempt to fulfill the law with his own natural powers would not lead to justification, fulfilling the law with the help of the Holy Spirit would.  Luther explains that what is at issue is really the validity of this latter righteousness.  Luther denies its validity. “If a man were completely and absolutely to fulfill the law through the power of the Holy Spirit, he would still have to appeal for God’s mercy; for God has determined that he will save men through Christ and not through the law.”  Whatever significance the law continues to have, it is not intended to be used as a means to justification and salvation.  This means that God wills that under no circumstances is the relationship between himself and men to be determined by the law but solely and absolutely by his free grace received through faith.  Man is not only unable to gain merit before God in fact, but he is also unable to do so in principle.  In every case, he is dependent on God’s unspeakable mercy for his salvation.

Any doctrine of grace or of the Holy Spirit therefore which sees the meaning of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the fact that it creates a supernatural capability of fulfilling the law and thus of earning merit completely misses the meaning of God’s will. For this doctrine of grace still turns man’s attention to the value of his works and ethical achievement, even though these things are carried out with the help of grace.  The fact that there is justification only through Christ, that is, freely and through faith alone, is true independently of the fact that sinful man cannot fulfill the law.  It is therefore also valid for someone who might be able to fulfill it with supernatural powers of grace, that is, for the Christian.  Fulfilling the law avails as little for justification before God as the failure to fulfill it.  God simply does not wish to deal with men in this way [underline mine, Boyd].

This will of God is rooted in his very nature and in the primal relationship which, as God, he bears to men.  God’s very deity consists in the fact that he is the creator and giver.  The desire to bring “works” as achievements before God is the equivalent of a lie that dishonors God as the giver and creator. …… Whenever man seeks to live before God on some basis other than forgiveness, no true fear of God remains.  God, however, says “I will remain God; I will be loved, honored, and feared!”  And so that he may both remain God and be feared, he forgives man and orders him to live solely by this forgiveness.  For this is what it means to fear God as God: to recognize him as the one who both gives us and wants to give us everything for nothing and who desires nothing else from us than that we allow him to do this giving.  Whoever will not accept the gifts of God’s free grace for nothing takes away the glory of God’s being God.

…

Luther’s criticism of moralism is therefore characterized by its theocentricity.  Its standard is the fact that God is really God.  Moralism is regarded as idolatry and blasphemy.  “Works righteousness is actually and essentially idolatry.” … Moralism and true fear of God thus exclude each other.  “Desire for the righteousness of the law, and having a God, cannot possibly be combined.  There is a greater contradiction between fearing or honoring God and wanting to be righteous according to the law than there is between fire and water or between Satan and God.”

…

As moralism is idolatry, so faith in God’s promise in Jesus Christ is the true worship of God.  Faith is the proper way of relating to God, not simply in the present because man necessarily breaks down along the way of works, but from the very beginning, because of what God is. … We are to believe not only because nothing else remains for sinners but because God is God and man cannot honor him as God in any other way than by believing – because faith is the fulfillment of the First Commandment.[4]  Faith is the only attitude of man which corresponds to God’s nature, God’s deity.  God’s true godliness consists in the fact that he is the creator and that he creates out of nothing and even out of its opposite.[5]  Faith corresponds exactly to this.  Faith expects something from God where nothing can be seen; it waits expectantly against all appearance.

End of Quotations from Althaus

Conclusion

It’s clear that Althaus portrays Luther as having a different doctrine of God and doctrine of Salvation than what we are used to hearing. That is, a doctrine much less “legal” than what we are used to hearing, even in our own evangelical circles. By the way, this, in no way, makes Luther less an advocate of substitutionary atonement (to meet the demands of God’s Law). It is not as if God’s Law doesn’t exist because of God’s Grace, but rather that Free Grace is not a mere instrument to restore the hegemony of the Law, and thus a relationship to God partly based in our own “legality.”  Rather, the Law is the instrument to bring death, against the background of which the grace of Christ brings a whole new life.

I believe that all this is worth investigation in the original Luther materials. The strange thing is that when I familiarize myself with the Lutheran views on things, I begin to see these things in Calvin, too, in a way that most Calvin commentators don’t.

---

[1] I fully recognize here that Luther taught that Adam was created very good (not a sinner at all), and therefore don’t know what to make of Althaus’ allegation about Luther’s teaching, as it would apply to Adam. Perhaps the secondary source (Althaus, a man of the modern era) has unwittingly imported his own idea here, concerning the historicity of the Fall.

[2] This was when Luther was giving his Galatians lecture.

[3] Though Althaus is not discussing Luther’s doctrine of Eden and the Fall, if his allegation of Luther’s doctrine is correct (one should check his references to Luther’s works), then Luther would be no fan of the “Covenant of Works.”

[4] It was quite noticeable in the early part of Book 3 of Calvin’s Institutes that unbelief was clearly the prototypical sin for Calvin – the “original” sin.  You will see other commentators on Calvin say that Calvin thought pride was the original sin (the traditional view, and about the only other orthodox choice), but it seemed clear to me that Calvin (at least in the part we covered) clearly implied that unfaith was the original sin.

[5] I.e., from sinners creates saints.

Righteous by Forgiveness

When I was in the Plymouth Brethren, one of my fellow church-members said to me that Adam was created "neither good nor evil."  This conclusion was reached because in the text of Genesis, God says that Adam, in his Fall, will become like God, "knowing good and evil."  The implication is that Adam, as created, did not "know good and evil."

This friend's sentiment bothered me a great deal, because it was always my conclusion from the Scripture text that Adam was created good, which implied a created righteousness.  If he were not good (righteous in some sense), then how could he fall?  What would the Fall mean?

I believe that I've now come to realize the source of the sentiment expressed by my friend.  I think it is embedded within the later history of Reformed Theology, with the development of the doctrine of the Covenant of Works.

Before getting into this, however, let me explain concepts about the relationship between righteousness and sin.  There are two paradigms:

1)  Righteousness is a positive good, and sin is a negative evil.  One can have ones sins cancelled, but this leaves him with no positive good.  Something else must happen to create the positive good.  To use a physical analogy, good and evil are separate substances, each handled differently, though they do affect one another.  One can eliminate the evil, but this does not create the good.  Or,

2)  Righteousness is the absence of sin.  To have a sin forgiven is to be put in the position of never having done it.  If that sin is the omission of an act of righteousness, then forgiveness makes it exactly as if that act of righteousness were done.  Therefore, forgiving all a person's sins is exactly the same as reckoning that person to be entirely righteous!  All the positive evil is reckoned as if never done.  All the failed good works are reckoned as if they were done.  The process by which this is done is identically the same in both cases.  The forgiveness of sin is the reckoning of righteousness.  They cannot be separated.

I believe it to be the case that the two paradigms shown above imply major differences in the resulting theologies of salvation.

Now back to Reformed Theology.

It is commonly said that Adam and his elect offspring need both the de-imputation of their sins (forgiveness), and the imputation of righteousness from God.  Simply by its mode of expression, this is based in paradigm #1 above.  The need for forgiveness and the need for righteousness are regarded as separate issues.  These are commonly tied to the passive and active obedience of Christ.  In the passive obedience (the endurance of punishment) Christ bore the punishment of our sin and exhausted that punishment.  Therefore, the liability is removed and the sins are canceled.  Furthermore, the active obedience of his life is a righteousness that is put to our account.  This is a separate issue.  But, in any case, having both forgiveness and a positive righteousness, we have full acceptance before God.

Note, however, according to paradigm #1, Adam, put in the Garden at the beginning of his trial of perseverance, had no sin, but this did not mean that he was as fully developed in righteousness as God required for eternal life (Westminster Confession).  Adam obeys the Covenant of Works by persevering in it.  Similarly, in the analogy between Adam and Christ, this would imply that Christ needs to develop his righteousness, because in his human nature even he would be sinless but without developed righteousness at his human birth.  Therefore, in order to carry out the job that Adam failed at, Christ would need to fully create his active righteousness, and that, first, for himself.  Without this, it could not be imputed to our account.

But, contrarily, we are faced with Calvin's (and Augustine's) conviction that Christ in his human nature was entirely and completely righteous from the first instant of his human conception.  This is based in paradigm #2 above.  Reasoning back to Adam, this would imply that Adam was originally righteous, too.  But, if Adam is originally righteous, in the same way as Christ conceived as a man is originally righteous, then the process of perseverance in the state in which each was made does not create the righteousness that each already has by creation or conception.  Perseverance illustrates and confirms the righteousness, but does not create it.  This view of the relationship between righteousness and sin shows that each is the obverse of the other.  Adam, newly created, and Jesus, newly conceived, are each righteous, though they have done nothing.  In other words, sinlessness equals righteousness.  The absence of sins exactly is the presence of righteousness.  The forgiveness of sins which we receive through Christ exactly is the imputation of righteousness.  The imputation of righteousness is therefore not a separate imputation.  There is no distinction between the de-imputation of sins and the imputation of righteousness.  They are the same thing.

Following out the argument, then, there would be no distinction between the active and passive obedience of Christ.  His life and his death, but principally his death, all have the same effect upon us, taken together.  There are not two separate and independent imputations.  He was made sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.  But the "dual imputation," or two-way imputation is not an imputation of sins separately from an imputation of righteousness.  In the dual imputation, our sins going to Christ and his righteousness coming to us is not merely simultaneous, but two sides of the same coin.

This is why Calvin says somewhere that justfication by faith alone (ie, the imputation of righteousness to us) is defined as the cancellation of our sins.  That is, by cancellation of our sins we are righteous.  Or, he says in another place, that Christ by his righteousness (which he had from conception) caused the cancellation of our sins.  Or, that Christ's "merit" is that he created the Christian life in us.  Calvin vehemently denies that Christ's righteousness was obtained for himself first (as the Covenant of Works requires).  All that Christ did was not at all for himself, but all for us.

This needs a lot of thought.  The proper definition and explanation of the Covenants of Works and Grace, the definition of the purpose of the Creation, the real doctrine of Sanctification, and the real focus of Eschatology are all knotted together here.

I think it likely to be the case that the two paradigms of the relationship between sin and righteousness imply different theologies in all these realms.

Sin and Deliverance

Paul is clear.  The unmitigated ministry of the Moral Law is a ministry of death to sinners.  But, then we should likewise by no means think that the unmitigated ministry of the Moral Law is life to believers.  Paul is clear:

-->

^{Rom 3:19} Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. ²⁰ Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. ²¹ But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, ²² even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.

The phrase I bring out in significance is the comment "apart from the Law."  What Paul is saying is not that the Incarnation, Ministry, Death, Resurrection, Ascension and Session of Christ at the Right Hand of God has made the Moral Law "keepable."  What Paul reveals is that the Way of Life is the path to fellowship with God apart from all Law.  Yes, the gospel must be received, but the gospel is not Law.  It is a free gift.  The Gospel may be called the "law of faith" by Paul, but this is to distinguish the way of faith from the way of works which belongs to the Moral Law.  The "Law" of faith is not another name for the Moral Law.  The way of faith is the only way to fellowship with God in Christ, and this way is apart from the Moral Law.

Now, Paul goes on to teach that our deliverance from the bondage of sin is part and parcel of the way of faith, because it is connected with our union with Christ, which comes about inwardly through faith by the Spirit and is reckoned outwardly in baptism.  He speaks of the contrast between Letter and Spirit, meaning the contrast between the word of the Moral Law and the Spirit of Holiness who comes upon us in Christ.  There is no divorce here between forgiveness (justification) and holiness (sanctification).  The way to forgiveness is the way of the gospel apart from any stricture of the Moral Law whatsoever.  So is the way to holiness.  Not that we aren't instructed by the Moral Law.  The Moral Law, as descriptive of the ways of God, is beautiful.  In Christ, it does not curse, but it nevertheless always accuses.  One would have to be dead in conscience not to feel the accusation, even as a true believer.  Therefore, as Paul teaches, the law is not the medium of our deliverance from sin.  We are delivered in the way of the free grace of the gospel, a way that does not burden us with accusation, but invites us into fellowship with Christ freely.  Do we then not care whether we are delivered from our besetting sins or not?  Surely not.  We must repent.  We certainly must fight against our sin.  But, we can only be delivered from it by our death and resurrection in Christ.  We can only be delivered by the way of free grace.  We can only be delivered by fellowship with Christ, and he only receives sinners.

Are you seeking deliverance from besetting sin?  Give up all your attempts at obedience for acceptance with God.  You are not acceptable to God that way.  The harder you try, the worse it will be.  The Letter of the Moral Law will stimulate more sin, as you strive for acceptance.  Stop that process.  Truthfully accept your state of moral poverty.  Rest in Christ the Savior.  Rest in him whether your friends, your spouse, or your church accept you.  See Christ's deliverance!  You will still have to fight sin, but Christ in his grace will begin to take it away.

This is the way of deliverance.

It is not our victory.

Gospel, Gospel! And there is no Gospel

Life under the Gospel is just not at all easy.

Talk of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is easy, but enjoying the peaceful and nonthreatening environment of gospel talk is not the same as exercising faith in the Christ of the Gospel.

Believing in the Christ of the Gospel delivers from all condemnation only those who are, and who continue to be, abased by their sins before God.  But, sadly, we're more ashamed if men see our sins, than we are if God sees them.

This feeling of abasement and shame before God, so seldom felt (and a product of his grace), is also a strange feeling because it is simply so wonderful.  It moves a person powerfully toward humility.  It is inevitably sanctifying.

The justification of the shamed and their sanctification cannot be parted.

Voluntarism and Irresistible Grace

To my readers: Pardon me for this somewhat technical post.  For context, see a previous post at URL:  http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/10/justification-and-sanctification.html

Define "voluntarism" as the doctrine that our wills are the controlling factor in the progress of our sanctification.  Voluntarism does not necessarily deny free and sovereign grace, because God can freely and sovereignly ordain the movements of our will and spirit, while those movements appear to us to be initiated and carried forward by our own volition (with God's help in power).  In other words, free and sovereign grace can theoretically coexist in the same theological system with a strong doctrine of the human will, voluntarism.  Things can be all of sovereign grace (in the hidden background), while they simultaneously appear to us to be ultimately dependent on our positive volition, though that volition is helped forward in execution by the power and grace of God.

Giving other names to this conception, we could say that "calvinism" can contain within it a bubble in which our consciousness lives and moves, and in that bubble, all our progress can appear to be regulated on "arminian" principles.  This is the nature of the strongest accusation that can be made against the nature of the spiritual piety characteristic of much Puritanism.

But, I assert that if it walks and talks like "arminianism," then that is what it is.  For it not to be "arminianism," in our subjective experience, we have to deny the voluntarism in some degree.  That is, it must not be the case that our sanctification is subjectively totally regulated by our own volition.  Put simply, we are made better by Christ through the Spirit even when we do not want to be.  Though we are reconstructed as new men by Christ, and we ought to begin to act like it and to fight the spiritual warfare, it is an absolute fact, and must be an experiential fact, that our sanctification is not in our own hands, but is in Christ's hands.  To make ourselves implicitly the "lords" of our own progress is the path of despair, not victory, and is even a kind of blasphemy.

Justification and Sanctification (revised 11.02.2010)

We believe in justification by faith only, and therefore distinguish the judicial process of being declared righteous in the Court of God (justification) from that process by which we begin to be made righteous (sanctification).  This is different from the medieval and pre-Reformational conception that justification is sanctification.  In that medieval concept, justification and sanctification could never be separated, but the assurance of final justification was not possible, because sanctification appears to be so variable and imperfect.

Now, the danger for those making a distinction between justification and sanctification is that the two ideas may "wander off from one another," so that justification and sanctification are achieved by radically different methods, with radically different philosophies of life lying behind them.  To put it crassly, one can begin to think that justification is achieved by faith only in the Gospel -- not by doing anything at all --  but that sanctification is achieved by an arduous process of self-improvement under the Law.  I express this crassly because one will hardly ever see it put so blatantly.  I say it in this extreme fashion, in order to show what I mean by saying that justification -- resting in Christ -- can be made to differ so much from sanctification -- a life of labor, that theological and practical confusion is brought into the Christian life.  How can you rest and labor at the same time?  These things must be reconciled.

Advocating a reconciliation is not a new idea.  The history of theology since the Reformation is littered with attempts to do this, but no consensus has been achieved.  As a starting point, however, it's clear that we need to keep justification and sanctification in union with one another, but distinguished.  As a familiar example, we speak of the union of the two natures of Christ in one Person, the divine Second Person who has taken on the attributes of manhood.  As such, the two natures are tightly unified under a single Person, but at the same time the natures (not the Person) are distinguished, so that Christ remains a single Person, yet fully God and fully Man.  So, in our doctrine of justification and sanctification, we need to keep these two elements tightly unified under the heading of salvation by grace, even though we continue to distinguish the judicial acceptation of our persons from the infusion of grace into our persons.

------------------- EXAMPLE ---------------------

Why is it that in the medieval scheme the variability and poverty of our faith and works implies that we cannot have assurance in this life concerning our justification or final perseverance unto acceptance by God, whereas in some Reformed (actually, Puritan) versions of the doctrine of assurance our mortification of sin and our good works are precisely supposed to be the major evidence to us that our position in Christ is secure, and that we have been truly justified (by faith only)?

Put another way, how could it ever be that those who believe sin indwells believers ineradicably in this life (Protestants) could ever receive assurance of justification from the quality of their combined faith and works, when those who believe in perfectibility in this life (Romanists) cannot have any assurance on the same basis?  How can those who see themselves as "worse" believers than Romanists have any assurance based on performance, when even Romanists confess that they cannot?

I'm reading the great Puritan theologian John Owen's treatise On the Mortification of Sin in Believers.1  The treatise is full of many valuable bits of teaching concerning sin and repentance.  However, these bits are gerrymandered together with other material to enforce a virtually unendurable demand for perfection in repentance and holy walking.  It is "spiritually" Arminian,* triumphalistic and perfectionistic.  As a result I cannot tell that anyone who takes really, really seriously what Owen describes as the truly sanctified life could ever consider himself to be anything but a "second class" Christian at best, if indeed he considered himself to be a Christian at all.  Owen's perfectionism is often fit only to produce despair in poor saints.

Then, shall it be well with men, when they have an equal respect to all God's commandments.  God will justify us from our sins, but he will not justify the least sin in us (p. 125).

I can't fathom what Owen thinks of himself.  He never speaks in the first person about his own depravity.

On the other hand, I see John Calvin speaking quite otherwise in the Institutes 2:

Therefore, God does not, as many stupidly believe, once for all reckon to us as righteousness that forgiveness of sins concerning which we have spoken, in order that, having obtained pardon for our past life, we may afterward seek righteousness in the law;  this would be only to lead us into false hope, to laugh at us, and mock us.  For since no perfection can come to us so long as we are clothed in this flesh, and the law moreover announces death and judgment to all who do not maintain perfect righteousness in the works, it will always have grounds for accusing and condemning us unless, on the contrary, God's mercy counters it, and by continual forgiveness of sins repeatedly acquits us (Vol 1, p 777).

Calvin also somewhere says that when a believer compares the righteousness he thinks he has to the ungodliness he knows he has, that he cannot gain any assurance from his works that he knows the Lord at all.  He must only rely on acceptance with God by faith alone, and can only gain his assurance from that knowledge of his acceptance which he has apart from his works.  Seeing God work in our lives, and having assurance from that, says Calvin, is something that we might see in retrospect, and will know it to be something we ourselves are not the cause of.  But, this assurance of God's intervention in our lives to produce righteousness is not the primary evidence of our justification and assurance today.

The spiritual "smell" and teaching of Owen and Calvin could not be further apart.

Here is a quote from the mystical (contemplative, medieval, Romanist) standpoint that is relevant to this:   
My comments in [square brackets] and my underlines

At this point I would return to the reason for the close correspondences between these traditions [he means the Contemplative and the Puritan].  Insofar as I can see, they are due to something deliberate in the Reformed (especially the Puritan) tradition's efforts to reform the church more fully; namely, a return to the medieval contemplative mainstream to recover insight concerning sanctification.  The Puritans differed from the medieval contemplatives chiefly in the ambitiousness of their plans.  Where contemplatives tried to make saints of those in monasteries, the Puritans tried to make saints of everybody.  Here the Puritans forgot one of their basic tenets -- the fallenness of humanity -- which precludes such optimism.  The contemplatives were more realistic.  Only those who really want to and are willing to surrender themselves fully can become saints.  Coercion will never produce the kind of holy obedience God requires.3

It is interesting, in view of the supposed allegiance of the Puritans to a thoroughgoing doctrine of human depravity, that the contemplative in this quotation can accuse the Puritans (so ironically) of not taking the depth of human depravity among the believers very seriously.4

Any believer seriously troubled by sin must have had his very faith called into question by Owen's doctrine, or any like it.  Owen regards most so-called Christians with a jaundiced and disrespectful eye.  Since any mature believer sees his ingrained depravity even more deeply than an immature believer, it is hard to understand how even a mature believer could feel right.  This doctrine of sanctification would likely (and probably has historically) created churches full of sorrowing and doubting believers -- not what is seen in the New Testament.

Owen's doctrine of sanctification strangely overshadows the doctrine of justification, assurance and free unmerited grace found in the Gospel.  It is as if justification and sanctification have separate trajectories, and operate on separate principles:  That is, the work of the Holy Spirit which produces regeneration, repentance, faith and real union with Christ, fully by grace through faith alone, will not sanctify a believer according to substantially these same principles.  It truly must be the case that the work of the Spirit in the Gospel is the foundation of sanctification!  But, to Owen this is not subjectively the case in a believer's life.  The believer must operate by substantially different spiritual principles for justification than he does for sanctification.  This indicates theological and spiritual poverty in Owen's doctrine of justification and its consequences.  He thinks that justification "fixes" your legal problem with God, but does not begin to produce sanctification on the same gracious principles.  Justification and sanctification thus have wandered off on separate courses.  The objective and felt grace of the gospel, producing the love of God (and thereby the hatred of sin), has vanished away as the engine of the spiritual life.

1 This public domain text may be found in Kapic and Taylor, ed., Overcoming Sin and Temptation, Crossway Books, 2006, pp. 41-139.

2 McNeil, ed., Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Westminster John Knox Press, 1960.

3 Donald Alexander, ed., Christian Spirituality -- Five Views of Sanctification, article by: E. Glenn Hinson, A Contemplative Response to the Reformed View, p. 93.

4 I suggest that Owen's doctrine of the anthropology of believers includes a redefinition of sin to be only those heart or external actions to which the will does not assent.  This would reinterpret his writing on mortification in order to put it into more practical terms.  But, this more "practical" doctrine is just the doctrine of the hated "Papists."  Concupiscence is not sin, etc.  Virtual perfectionism is possible.  This, in turn, could point in the direction of some flavor of Arminianism, or more likely, the Neonomianism of Richard Baxter or the doctrine of Bp. Jeremy Taylor.

* The reason for using the term "armininian" is explained in the post at the following URL: 
http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/11/voluntarism-and-irresistible-grace.html.  There is a well-known Arminianism concerning the doctrine of predestination.  But, here I refer to parallels in the doctrine of faith, and of volitional sanctification.

Luther, and Justification by Faith Alone

Revised 10/13/2010

Luther's spiritual state, and his spiritual evolution and ultimate conversion to new views of justification, are commonly separated from the doctrine itself in our understanding.  This is because we approach the Scripture seeking the Scripturally objective sense of it, concerning this doctrine.  It matters not what we or (or Luther) think, or what our spiritual state is.  What matters is what the Scripture teaches.

But there needs to be a wrinkle here.  Yes, it is true that the Scripture teaches "justification by faith alone."  But, we need to consider how to use and apply this doctrine.  We are helped toward this goal if we really do closely consider the relationship between Luther's spiritual turmoil and his "re-discovery" of this apostolic doctrine.

Luther originally accepted and labored under a doctrine of repentance which was usually stated like this:  "To those who do what is in them, God will not deny grace."  The question for Luther was whether or not he actually, honestly did "what was in him," that is, whether he ever did what he was really capable of doing for God.  In the end, he thought not.  All his works, he saw, were contaminated by sin.  The result was that the "system" of repentance and Christian assurance broke down and failed.  Now, if Luther isn't just out of his mind (an untenable position), then this means that Luther finally cared about the experiential truthfulness of this plan of salvation, and he found that the plan was a failure.

One might ask why other serious Christians did not discover this.  It's a mystery.  Perhaps they just did not put as much faith in that plan of repentance, or perhaps they did not worry about the sin which remained in their works.  If they were serious Christians, they must have thought, just as Johann Staupitz, Luther's confessor said to Luther, that one must at some point just stop being angry at God and confessing sins all day, and trust in the God who grants grace.  (This, of course, is implicitly to trust in justification by faith, while denying the doctrine).  Luther, however, tested the medieval church doctrine to the bitter end and found it wanting.  Because he strove for The Truth in this respect, he came to see The Truth on this point in the Scripture.  Consequently, there was a Reformation, which was provoked in largest measure by this doctrine of free justification.

This is all highly instructive.  We have to conclude then that justification by faith alone is only understood from the heart and relied upon by believers who truly see, mourn and hate their own ineradicable depravity.  Only those who have despaired in their striving for sanctification can know the glory of free grace.  Believers who have not reached the end of themselves cannot have heartfelt faith in Christ's free justification.  For them, "Justification by Faith Alone" may be a battle cry of their religious party, but spiritually, it is just words.  Such believers are open to false gospels.  They are open to the use of legal methods for sanctification -- if they are interested in sanctification.  Some may think in their hearts, "I'm justified, so I don't need to repent," thus implicitly denying their professed religion.  Therefore, we must conclude that misbehavior by Christians, truly converted or not, is not a denial of the truthfulness or usefulness of the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  When repentance comes alive, and sensitivity to sin constantly increases, and personal depravity becomes an ineradicable object of mourning and hatred in our souls, then salvation as a free gift (justification by faith alone) opens the doors of paradise to believers such as these.  The joy and love imparted by this experience is truly sanctifying.  It is spiritual deliverance.  It is a power-relationship to the Spirit and to grace, instead of a power-relationship to law.  It is the only truly sanctifying doctrine, and therefore is ultimately the doctrine of a standing or falling church.  The whole Christian life is the continual re-discovery of free grace, as we struggle against our remaining depravity and sin.

How should we ever think, then, that "Justification by Faith Alone" is simply an easily accepted initial doctrine of the faith, and that once this "believing" is done and we are justified, then, as a separate activity, we take up the serious business of "working on our sanctification."  It is only in the midst of the struggle of sanctification that the inbreaking of the divine peace continually delivers us!  In the end, in the day of final deliverance, the free justification and unmerited reward of God will be all there is, in glory, forever and ever.

More on Sanctification

One might ask a fundamental Protestant question about justification and sanctification:  How do the two concepts of "rest" and "war" comport with one another?  "Rest," of course, refers to the "rest" of faith on the justifying work of Christ's cross.  "War" refers to the active fight between flesh and spirit inside ourselves as believers.

Those who emphasize "rest," spanning the spectrum from orthodox Lutheranism through "deeper-life/higher-life/let-go-and-let-God" spirituality expect to prosecute the war within by spiritual rest.  Will they not always be suspected of harboring antinomianism?  Likewise, the fighting side will always be suspected by the others of having a commitment to legalism.  War periodically breaks out between various proponents of these two camps. 

The most significant engagement is that between orthodox Lutheranism and the orthodox Reformed.  The Reformed always doubt the ability of the Lutheran way to really come to grips with sin and sanctification.  The Lutherans are certain that the Reformed only have a half-way commitment to grace.  This war has not yet been brought to an end through a common understanding, and therefore, the Lutheran/Reformed schism remains unhealed.

Sanctification (revised)

The original badly written article has been revised to improve the sentence structure.

If sanctification were a process of becoming better and better by striving against sin by the Spirit (which, of course, we must do), and if we measured our progress by comparing ourselves against the standard of the Law, how would this comport with the doctrine of justification by faith alone?  Likely this way:  We would have to separate the process of justification from that of sanctification, because justification and sanctification were carried out by different methods.  Justification would be carried out through faith only in the gospel apart from Law, and sanctification would be carried out by laboring at holiness (which, of course, we must do) while using the Law as our guide.  This results in a common doctrinal dualism found in the churches.  The consequence among the insensitive Christians is perhaps legalism, as they practice a socially acceptable Christianity.  The consequence among the sensitive Christians is despair, through their (correct) perception of their constant sinning.

This kind of distinction between justification and sanctification does not do justice to the fundamental principle of grace inherent in the doctrine of justification by faith alone.  It reduces the relevance of this doctrine to the process of sanctification, and to the whole Christian life.  This is wrong.  We need a doctrinal formulation which makes justification and sanctification work together in a holistic doctrine of the Christian life that actually works.

Now, if justification by faith alone be the key doctrine for sanctification, it is obvious that real sanctification comes about by moving away from striving for personal self-improvement (before the Law) and toward Spiritual reliance on free grace in Christ.  Sanctification is measured less by accomplishment, as we perceive it, and more by repentance, humility, the sense of forgiveness, and the empowering vision of free grace in Christ, producing the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience ... .

This does not mean that we need not strive against sin when it threatens.  Because we are still in flesh, we have to fight and hopefully defeat sins at least some of the time.  But, real victory comes by deliverance from the power of sin by the grace of God.  It is not a product of human effort.  We may not see holiness coming over us as we persevere in repentance, and in humility, and in our joy and peace in Christ -- but others do.  The most self-forgetful, who are least fond of measuring their spiritual accomplishments, and who meekly boast in the merits of Christ will be the sanctified.

And vice versa.

Neonomianism and the "New Perspective on Paul"

This post is a continuation of a previous post, containing a review of the book:

C. Fitzsimons Allison, The Rise of Moralism -- The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter, Regent College Publishing, 2003 (originally 1966).

This book details the rise of Neonomianism in Anglican Theology in the 17th century. The previous post may be found at the following link (ignore the absurd wording of the link, over which I appear to have no control):

http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/06/test-ignore-this-post.html

My purpose in this succeeding post is to evaluate the potential connection between Neonomianism and the doctrine of justification seen in the "New Perspective on Paul," as propounded by N T Wright.

The "New Perspective on Paul" vis-a-vis Neonomianism

Allison's book is a good historical and doctrinal introduction to an era in the theological history of the Church of England, whose theology is still said by Allison to be dominant in that body today.  For this reason and others, I believe that this book provides a useful introduction which may help discern the roots of the doctrine of justification often seen in the "New Perspective on Paul," especially as it is propounded by N T Wright.

Allison's book was originally written before the ministry of N T Wright, even before many of the other academic originators of the New Perspective.  However, what this book details when describing the doctrine of Jeremy Taylor and the other most influential "revisionist" Anglican divines in the Church of England seems similar to the doctrine of justification that Wright teaches (insofar as I understand it).

The aberrant doctrine of the era reported on by Allison holds the following points:

1)  Faith is implicitly a work, not an instrument
     (even though we are moved to it by the Spirit);

2)  There is no imputation of the righteousness of Christ
     to sinners;

3)  Justification (not justification by works, or the second justification,
     but simply final justification, and so, eternal destiny)
     is fully contingent, in the Last Judgment, on our total
     personal history in faith and evangelical obedience.

This is usually called "neonomianism," and is most prominently in our circles associated with the name Richard Baxter.

Simply put, Christ's work "lowered the bar" in the covenant, so that it becomes possible (instead of impossible) for sinners (in the power of the Spirit) to keep the stipulations (works) of the covenant.  The distinction between faith and evangelical obedience is needless, and is done away.  We are simply justified by obedience to an "easier" covenant, the first "work" of which is to believe the gospel by which we are initially justified.  But, that justification is not final.  Your justification will be revisited at the Last Judgment, where your life history of faith and works will be reviewed.

One distinction I am able to recognize between Wright's doctrine and Neonomianism is that the latter can tend toward pessimism in its preaching, but Wright appears to me to be optimistic about the Judgment.  Therefore, when Neonomianism preaches on the final judgment, it's typically to bring warning or even terror.  But, I can't tell that Wright takes this approach.

Regardless of the difference in tone, however, it is clear why Wright insists that Christians should not be worrying about their final destinies in this life:  By his doctrine you cannot know your destiny for sure until the Last Judgment.  The thing to do now is to get busy.  He does appear (in tone) to be saying that you can be assured of acceptance at the Judgment if you persevere in faith and works, that is, you will be accepted based on the covenantal validity of your faith and works (not simply based on what Christ did for you, applied to you through faith as an instrument).

As Wright himself insists (references are needed here, but are easily found in his relevant writings), he does not teach the Reformation imputational doctrine on justification, but opposes it.

The Rise of Moralism (v4)

As a student of soteriology (the doctrine of salvation), I'm constantly on the watch for books on the subject of justification, and the relationship between faith and works.

For the benefit of others who are attracted to this subject, I recommend:

C. Fitzsimons Allison, The Rise of Moralism -- The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter, Regent College Publishing, 2003 (originally 1966).

In this interesting history Allison details the gradual evolution of teaching in the Church of England of the late 16th and 17th centuries, as certain influential bishops "moderated" the Reformational doctrine of total depravity and imputation, and removed the basis and sense of need for justification by faith alone -- and sometimes even denied this doctrine. 

The motivation behind this doctrinal evolution was to improve the morality of Christians, who, they felt, were hiding behind "justification by faith alone" in order to avoid true repentance.  The answer, as these bishops saw it, was to tilt their public doctrine in the direction of the demand for obedience, and to connect Christian assurance (and even justification) to obedience, at the expense of speaking freely about "free grace."

Allison argues strongly for the Reformational emphasis on justification by faith alone, since he sees that the Scripture and Christian experience support the need for spiritual freedom, doctrinally and pastorally.

Theologians who read this book will be interested in how Allison uses the scholastic (Aristotelian) descriptions of the various modes of causation, in order to describe the real difference between Trent and the Reformation.  This is something you may not have seen described exactly this way before.  I have not fully penetrated the depths of Allison's argument, but I'm reasonably certain that he is right.  The argument between the Reformation and Trent is an argument about how to order and label the causes of justification.  It is not an argument over the list of causes.  The list enumerated by the two sides is the same.  The doctrinal difference lies in how the causes imply and affect one another.

Allison's observation is that Reformation and Rome (Bellarmine) agree that the difference (on the doctrine of justification) lies only in the identification of the formal cause.  For the Reformation the formal cause of justification is the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to sinners through faith, which is trust in Christ clothed in the gospel, and apart from their works.  This, in turn, by their union with Christ, must and does eventuate in evangelical obedience.  For Rome, the formal cause of justification is the sinner's own faith and evangelical obedience, or actual covenantal righteousness, which is in him by grace.  Both sides thus grant the need for faith and evangelical obedience, or covenantal righteousness, but in different ways.

For the Reformation:

grace -> faith

faith  -> union with Christ

union with Christ -> justification now, evangelical obedience begins

This is also the order of the Reformation preaching of this doctrine.  Christian assurance of salvation can be given, subject only to perseverance in faith.

For Rome:

grace -> faith and evangelical obedience
faith and evangelical obedience, if present -> final justification

This is also the order of the Roman preaching of this doctrine.  Christian assurance of salvation cannot be given, because no one knows whether his faith and evangelical obedience have "kept covenant" until the final judgment.

This book is likely to be helpful for those who may be struggling with understanding the relationship between faith and works for any reason -- especially those with doctrinal questions whether the Reformation doctrine of justification is exactly right or not.

My comments

Properly describing the relationship between faith and works remains something hard for men.  This subject, which also involves the vital doctrine of Christian assurance, remains a perennial subject of investigation. Luther was certain that after his day, the doctrine of free justification would again be eclipsed.  He was right.  However, it has never been eclipsed throughout the whole church as badly as it seems to have been within the pre-Reformation medieval inheritance.

I think that the reason that Luther's dictum (that justification by faith alone is the mark of a standing or falling church) is accurate and true is that this doctrine is a sentinel which describes the spiritual health of the church.  Justification by faith alone is only understood by those who take their morality seriously, who truly mourn over their sins, and who, filled with gratitude, pant to receive this free salvation as a gift. 

The "New Perspective on Paul"

The material which originally appeared here concerning relevance to the "New Perspective on Paul" has been expanded and put into a new post, which may be found here:

http://christocentry.blogspot.com/2010/07/neonomianism-and-new-perspective-on.html

The Gospel of Abraham

In Genesis 12, it is recorded that God called Abram out of Ur, promising to make him into a great nation.  God said to him, "In you shall all the families of the earth be blessed."  Paul, in Galatians 3, implies strongly that Abraham was believing at this point.  

In Genesis 15, it is explicitly recorded that the Messianic Promise of the Seed was made to Abram, which he believed.  His continuing and increasing faith was put to his account as if it were righteousness -- not because of the merit of believing, but because of the power and authority of the one believed.

The curious thing about all this is that Abram is not believing an offer of the promise, but believing a promise.  An "offer" is contingent on fulfillment of the condition (faith).  But, Abram is believing a promise which is not said to be contingent.  In effect, Abraham believed the promise of his own election!  Humanly speaking, of course, his receiving the gift of salvation is contingent on his faith, as it is for all of us.  But, this instance in the history of Abraham shows that God can speak the gospel (from the standpoint of his election to salvation) apart from any contingency.  God said to Abraham (the father of the faithful) that he would be saved through his Seed.  It was a statement of "free grace" (no conditions).  Abraham believed it.  It was put to his account as righteousness.

Since we are not privy to the name list of God's elect, our methods of gospel preaching must somewhat differ.  However, the "free grace" method of preaching the gospel is demonstrated in Scripture in a manner that may be used by us:

2 Corinthians 5:18-21 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

The work of reconciling the world to God has been finished "in Christ." There is no contingency whether or not this work is finished, or whether the provision of salvation has been completed.

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God. 

The pleading of God is that men be reconciled in their own hearts to him.  They should drop their enmity, because he has already dropped his, in Christ.  He is not saying that he will drop his enmity, if you will drop yours (first).  He is saying that he has dropped all his enmity, in Christ, and therefore you may drop your enmity against him and have your sins canceled now!  All contingency about the provision of salvation is done away, and it need only be received.

For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Christ has taken our sin, that we might receive his righteousness.

Just believe it!

Objective Justification

We're not commonly exposed to the doctrine of "objective justification."  An example of this way of preaching the gospel is found in 2 Cor 5:18-21:

18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,  19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 

This refers to the accomplished and finished reconciliation of the world to God through the finished work of Christ on the cross.  God is judicially reconciled with the world.  God is not potentially reconciled, but is actually reconciled. There is all encouragement that God receives us for Christ's sake, and there is nothing left for anyone to do but to receive this.  There is no "work" left to be done by man.  The objective, finished justification is received by faith.

The gospel is then preached not as if God were imperiously demanding our submission, but rather that he is pleading for men to rest in the finished work of his son:

20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.  21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

On the basis of Paul's teaching here, one can teach that the reconciliation of the world is accomplished, and not tentatively, but finally.  The word of the gospel is the word of the finished reconciliation.  God is not angry with sinners any more, but sinners are angry with God.  Hearing that God is no longer angry, they should be reconciled to God and accept the objective justification that Jesus Christ has earned for them.  They should believe the gospel.  Faith is not a work.  The truth is simply received. 

Objections:

It is not as if God were content with persons in their natural state, regardless of whether or not they believe.  He is not.  But, he is reconciled with all men in the preaching of the gospel.  There is nothing one can do to ingratiate oneself with God or to earn the application of the merits of Christ.  Just believe the truth.

Nor does this doctrine of objective justification imply that God in Christ is frustrated by those who never receive his atonement.  The death of Christ does not go for nought, but fully reconciles those whom he has predestined to glory.

Conclusions:

There are many theological mysteries which cannot be answered, but this passage shows how the gospel is preached.  God is already reconciled to sinners in the gospel.  Sinners need to hear that Christ's work is finished, and that God is no longer angry, in Christ.  They should freely receive it!

One should also carefully inspect the context of this passage in Chapter 5 and 6 of the epistle.  It's not only about calling outsiders into the faith, but is also, even mainly, about calling people to rest in Christ who are in the church and who already profess his Lordship!  The context is dealing with unbelief!  It's not only the outsiders and "sinners" who need to hear this gospel and effectively rest on the rock Christ.  It is us.