He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Is Jesus describing the conversion of the Tax Collector? Or is he saying something about how his followers should act regularly?
Converted. Has to be.
Once again, Calvin is indicted. Here’s what Calvin says:
“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 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” (John Calvin, Institutes, 3.14.10).
I wonder how may Presbyterians would choke on this one?
Maybe I am just a little (or a lot) dense, but I’m having trouble seeing what exactly it is that Presbyterians would “choke on”.
That we need “continual forgiveness of sins” whereby God “repeatedly acquits us.” Such a need is regularly ridiculed and opposed in PCA circles. It comes up regularly in my discussions with friends and acquaintances.
There are at least two schools of thought on this within the Reformed tradition:
[1] Some Reformed theologians distinguish between “judicial forgiveness” and “fatherly forgiveness.” The idea here is that the eternal condemnation of death that the guilt of our (past, present, and future) sins deserves is definitively and comprehensively accomplished in justification through the imputation of Christ’s righteouness.
Nonetheless, though guilt is no longer imputed, we can still fall under God’s fatherly displeasure and, through sin, lose an awareness of God’s judicial forgiveness. By repentance and faith, we can once again enjoy the light of God’s countenance and once again enjoy a lively awareness of the judicial forgiveness that is ours in Christ. This is God’s “fatherly forgiveness.”
On this view, when the Westminster Confession of Faith 11.5 says that “God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified,” the term “forgive” is not being used in the exact same sense as “pardon” in 11.1 (though compare WLC 194).
[2] Other Reformed theologians, following Calvin, hold that our status as justified in Christ remitts the guilt of all past and present sin, both original and actual. Nonetheless, God cannot forgive sin that has not yet been committed, though he purposes to forgive such sin in Christ. Moreover, he uses the means of grace to effectively bring sinning believers to repentance and renewal of faith in order that they may continue in their status as forgiven and may never fall from that state.
I certainly think these are both acceptable views and both were held among those who wrote the Westminster Standards. While [1] eventually came to be the more widely held view within Reformed theology, neither view was the only view represented at the Westminster Assembly and the Standards are written in such a way as to allow for the kind of view we find in Calvin, some scholastics, and various English divinity.
So, for instance, the Puritan Thomas Watson (1620-1686) writes in his Body of Divinity:
Such as view is fully compatible with (and seems to me the more natural reading of) both the Westminster Confession of Faith 11.5 (again, compare WLC 194) and Canons of Dort, 5th Head, Articles 4-7.
Joel, I don’t see anything in WLC 194 that would indicate that “forgive” in WCF 11.5 is not synonymous with “pardon” in 11.1. I don’t dispute the tradition, but I don’t see it embodied in the WCF in any distinctive way.
Yeah, that was kinda my point in citing it — “forgive” and “pardon” are used interchangeably. So to make the distinction between “judicial” and “fatherly” forgiveness you have to read differing senses into the WCF that aren’t there on the surface of the text.
Oh, Joel, I’m sorry. I completely misread you.
Joel, your discussion is quite helpful. Thank you. But it is five or six stories above the discussion I get into at street level with other PCA ministers (and professors). Perhaps this just a local phenomenon. The friendly debates I get into around here have to do with the appropriateness of confessing one’s sins at all (privately or publicly in the liturgy). There are two ways they argue this: 1) Our once for all justification, and 2) our regeneration and “new man” status. The idea that there’s an ongoing need for “forgiveness and acquittal” is a denial of justification by faith alone. And the other argument, which still baffles me, claims that we are not sinners in the same sense that we were before we were justified. It denies there is an “old man” or “sin nature” anymore. Don’t ask me to flesh that out. I’m still confused.
I have heard this latter argument, though not so far from Presbyterians. As far as I can tell, it’s the idea that we’re back to the “posse peccare, posse non peccare” state of prelapsarian Adam and Eve, so that we can sin by being deceived, despite lacking an actual sin nature. I don’t think I’ve heard it used to argue that we don’t need to confess and repent when we do sin, though…
Really, Jeff? Wow. That’s way outside of my experience.
I can’t say that I’ve ever heard a Presybterian or Reformed person argue against confessing one’s sins and, indeed, I’ve heard quite the opposite from teaching I’ve received about Christian piety and worship from a variety of sources within our tradition.
Indeed, confession of sin (both private and public) has always been a normal part of the piety and worship in all the churches I’ve been a part of or attended regularly. Sometimes, liturgically, the pastor confessed in a general way on behalf of the congregation, though in other cases the congregation prayed together a prayer of confession. Sometimes that was followed by a formal assurance of pardon, but also often enough just a more general thanksgiving for forgiveness as part of the prayer of confession itself. But, either way, confession was not neglected.
Both perspectives, [1] and [2], that I outlined above regarding forgiveness simply assume the need for some kind of continued forgiveness and pardon, and for the role of confession, repentance, and faith in that. I’m pretty flabbergasted anyone would question that.