So what then? Justifying faith is the act of an unsanctified human being without the renewing work of the Spirit?
This man prosecutes others for not being Reformed?
So what then? Justifying faith is the act of an unsanctified human being without the renewing work of the Spirit?
This man prosecutes others for not being Reformed?
If you search for “Spirit-wrought sanctity” (exact term in quotes) on google, Clark is the only one using it.
Clark means that sanctification is not prior to justification. Sanctification being wrought by the Spirit in our hearts. Faith, and consequently justification, is not the result of sanctification. The reason why he says this is that some people mix works into the definition of faith. For example, Norm Shepherd in Call of Grace conflates justifying faith with faithfulness. He literally changes the definition of faith to be faith AND works. Clark is saying that this is absolutely wrong. We are justified by faith alone. We don’t need to prove this faith by works BEFORE God will justify us. He knows its true faith because he’s the one who gave it to us.
Now you want to know if justifying faith is an act done by someone who has not been operated on by the Spirit. No. That’s not the only other option here. Regeneration takes place before justification. Regeneration gives rise to faith. There’s no faith without regeneration. But faith is not the result of sanctification, but regeneration. By this faith alone, apart from works, we are justified before God solely for the merits of Christ. But once this happens, THEN we begin to produce fruit. But notice that the fruit doesn’t come before justification. It comes after.
In justification your salvation is assured, because in justification God declares you to be righteous. It is a legal proclamation. God doesn’t change his mind. Once he proclaims your innocence, it’s once and for all. God proclaims you righteous, that’s it. You’re guaranteed a seat in heaven at the marriage supper of the Lamb. You can’t mess it up and God won’t revoke it.
But given this state of affairs, THEN good works and a heart that is tender and loving toward God is the inevitable result.
Echo
Echo, regeneration is simply the beginning of sanctification and sanctification is the continuation of regeneration.
Norman Shepherd is fully Biblical and fully within the bounds of mainstream Reformed theology.
“…regeneration is simply the beginning of sanctification and sanctification is the continuation of regeneration.”
Mark, the way you’ve phrased this has regeneration being a process instead of a particular, irreversible, point-in-time event wherein those regenerated have “a new heart and a new spirit created in them.” (WS 13.1)
The inference in your statement is that if sanctification fails to continue, then regeneration fails to continue, which means regeneration is dependent upon sanctification.
Is it your belief that regeneration IS a process, or is your statement making an inference you did not intend to make?
“Conception is the beginning of a baby, but that doesn’t stop the baby from being the continued growth from conception.”
I disagree with how you’ve put this, to be honest. No, conception is a point-in-time, specific, irreversible event, when the sperm joins with the egg.
Sperm doesn’t continue to join with the egg, however. This one-time event sets a process in motion, granted, but that process cannot reasonably be said to be the continuation of the event, though it is certainly due to or based upon the event.
Regeneration’s a one-time, irreversible event, which sets in motion the process of sanctification. What’s wrong with this more traditional, usual way of putting it?
As we in Texas like to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” ;^)
Outside of a theological context, the word “regeneration” in most people’s minds denotes a process, just as a matter of English semantics — starfish regenerating severed limbs and the like. Teaching theology classes I’ve had to try to explain that when Reformed folks talk about “regeneration” in the narrow sense, they mean a one-time instantaneous event.
Still, even then, things are not so straightforward.
The biblical witness is that much of the language associated with regeneration has both a “one-time” and an “ongoing” aspect that are intrinsically related to one another. Thus, Paul can speak both of having, once-for-all “put off the old man and put on the new” (which seems to refer to what we call “regeneration”) as well as the ongoing process of “putting of the old man and putting on the new” (which seems to refer to what we call “sanctification”).
Indeed, much of early Reformed theology used the term “regeneration” to refer to this ongoing process as well as its beginnings. Thus, the First Book of Discipline (1560) of the Scottish Kirk says, “this the Scripture calleth our ‘regeneration,’ which standeth chiefly in these two points: in mortification, that is to say, a resisting of the rebellious lusts of the flesh; and in newness of life, whereby we continually strive to walk in…pureness and perfection.”
Further, Reformed theology has distinguished between the seed and root of regeneration, or regeneration in principle (all of which can be experienced by infants), and the actualization of regeneration. Thus Junius writes, “Regeneration is considered, in one way, as it is in its foundation — that is, in Christ in principle — and, in another way, as it is active in us” (Theses Theologiae, 51.8)
Moreover, even after actual regeneration, Reformed theology — following Scripture — has maintained that there is a progress in regeneration that continues until the final regeneration of all things at the resurrection. Thus, in his Institutes, Turretin says the “Holy Spirit is repeatedly promised and given also to believers” and that this is “the progress and increase of regenerating grace” by which the Spirit acts “to promote and perfect the good work which began in them” (15.5.20). Thus believers experience the ongoing “actual mortification of the old and vivification of the new man” as part and parcel of regeneration itself (15.5.21).
Thus, as Mark rightly notes, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that effectual calling and regeneration are initial sanctification, which continues and is furthered in the ongoing process of regeneration.
This is all standard Reformed dogmatics 101.
It is also historically part of anti-Reformed polemics on the part of Lutherans who routinely accuse us of placing sanctification prior to faith and justification, since we make regeneration prior to faith and define regeneration as the beginnings of sanctification.
Personally, I tend to think that this is a thorny issue within Reformed theology in that it renders problematic the Pauline teaching that God “justifies the ungodly.” But perhaps that’s just my Lutheranizing tendencies coming through.
Considering when the WS was written, I’d think “further” means “also”, as in: “They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are also sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, etc.”
Admittedly it’s been decades (more than I care to count) since I majored in Tudor and Stuart history, but when I read that, “also” is how I automatically understood the Westminster divines to mean “further”.
In any case, is there something amiss with “Regeneration’s a one-time, irreversible event, which sets in motion the process of sanctification”?
Here is more on the issue.
“Mark, the way you’ve phrased this has regeneration being a process instead of a particular, irreversible, point-in-time event wherein those regenerated have “a new heart and a new spirit created in them.” (WS 13.1)”
I don’t see how any of that follows. Conception is the beginning of a baby, but that doesn’t stop the baby from being the continued growth from conception.
In any case, real sanctification never stops and is no more undoable than regeneration.
Nor is there any logic to justify saying that I have made regeneration dependent on sanctification.
On the other hand, I’m glad we do agree that justifying faith is the result of a “new hear and new spirit.” So why not join me in opposing pelagianism?
Again, regarding the point of the post, we agree that justifying faith is an act done by the renewing and sanctifying spirit. That’s calvinism.
Secondly, what’s not traditional?
CHAPTER 10
Of Effectual Calling
1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
CHAPTER 13
Of Sanctification
1. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
No, but is there something amiss with “Regeneration’s a one-time, irreversible event, which is the beginning of the process of sanctification”?
Let’s move beyond the “further” (though I always thought the “also” meaning would require and extra comma) and look at the content of what takes place:
CHAPTER 10
Of Effectual Calling
1. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
CHAPTER 13
Of Sanctification
1. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
Now, here is my question: Is it the body of sin that produces justifying faith. Is it the lusts that believe savingly? Isn’t it the new heart given to us by God?
The bottom line is that in order to escape the concept of “obedient faith” a straightforward Reformed and Biblical tradition if there ever was one, Clark has committed himself to, in the words of G. L. W. Johnson, the sophistry of inventing a non-obedient faith.
The Confession of Faith isn’t ambiguous about this:
“Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”
So there you have it in black and white: justifying faith is an act of Evangelical obedience. So again, it is pelagian to claim that justifying faith is devoid of “Spirit-wrought sanctity or my obedience.” That is not the reason why faith justifies (as the Confession makes a great deal more clear than Clark does), but it remains obviously true that justifying faith is obedient. And thus it is impossible for the natural man.
Calvinism 101; how can Clark not know this? At some level he must but his ranting and raving lacks rigor and throws him into pelagian formulations.
Pingback: Once More With Feeling » Blog Archive » Isn’t this semi (at best) pelagianism? addendum
Well, we certainly agree the WCF isn’t ambiguous, but unfortunately we’re miles apart in what “this” must be, since I have read and reread the bit you cited (and BTW, thanks ever so for that….isn’t it annoying when people just give a dang citation without bothering to include the words?..drives me nuts) and cannot imagine how you arrive at the conclusion “justifying faith is an act of Evangelical obedience.”
It says God justifies not by anything those justified have done nor by imputing “any other evangelical obedience…as their righteousness.”
Well, never mind. We’re going to have to agree to disagree, I suppose. Thanks for the conversation. ;^)
Wow, who said that it was any obedience that was our righteousness? That’s not what I said.
What the WCF says is that justifying faith is an act of obedience but there is nothing about the worthiness or righteousness of faith that God uses to justify us. Rather it is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. That’s exactly right.
What we have is that Clark is making any recognition that belief is obedience of a command (“Believe the gospel”) into a denial that faith is non-meritorious and a denial that we are justified only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. All I’m saying is that 1. this antithesis is false, 2. unrecognized in the WCF, and 3. a classic Pelagian formulation because it says that justifying faith is not the gift of the Spirit renewing one’s nature with a new heart
Hi. I’m a lurker and an occasional poster at Blog and Mablog. I am an outsider in terms of the Reformed World, but I have been interested in the FV debate, or lack of one. I have no dog in this fight, but it appears to me that Prof. Clark has no interest in understanding your position. Nor does he seem to understand that the Bible uses language differently than the WCF. What confuses me is that everyone I read agrees with the fact that justification is God’s work (a gift) and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us but as soon as issues that have to do with sanctification or obedience come along all hell breaks loose. I assume that we can all agree that we (all who claim to be in Christ even if they are not truely elect) believe the elect are CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSES. This would mean that God may actually want us to DO something. Does God call people to himself by giving them non-obedient faith? OF COURSE NOT! I honestly believe that if the AA/FVer’s didn’t do anything and taught what they do now, no one would be offended. No wonder the term ‘frozen chosen’ was coined.
Joel: Perhaps justifying the ungodly is no less problematic than making the blind see.
Patrick, I certainly agree with that. But perhaps we’re not understanding each other. Here’s what I was trying to say.
The Lutheran objection to the Reformed ordo salutis is that, on the Reformed view, God’s doesn’t justify the ungodly, but first makes them godly through regeneration (“enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good”). That, in turn, enables faith and that, in turn, is the instrument of justification.
Even if one does not see that as a temporal sequence, but as a logical sequence, Lutherans find it problematic since it seems to require an inherent change in the godliness of the individual as a necessary condition (though, of course, not a ground or meritorious cause) for justification.
I’m just saying that it seems to me that there is something to that sort of Lutheran objection. That doesn’t mean I have a better alternative for working through the biblical data theologically.
Mr Horne
I believe you have done hermeneutical violence to the WCF section on Effectual calling.
The section you bolded is in direct reference to the Arminian Neo-nomianism controversy and a refutation thereof.
“nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness,”
Clearly this is refuting the Neo-nomianist contention that grace added to works, although the works remain inperfect, God counts the works as “good enough” especially in relation to mans act of faith which itself is considered the “work”.
Mark,
that was not how I understood Clark.
Marking a difference between Justification and Sanctification is what the Reformation hinged upon.
“he has insisted that it also demands allegiance to a novel and fabricated definition of justifying faith as non (dis?) obedient done without the Holy Spirit.”
Mark, with all honesty, I believe this is a disingenuious caricature of Clarks position. You want us to believe that Clark wants no part of the Holy Spirit in the performance of faith while I understand him to be distinguishing differing acts of the Holy Spirit at least in technical theological ways.
“Spirit-wrought sanctity” could be construed in many ways including grace combined with works as the “instrument” of justification as the Neo-nomians did.
Glenn, everything you say is true except that I have done hermeneutical violences to anything. The fact remains that claiming justifying faith is done by a person apart from “Spirit-wrought sanctity or my obedience” is Pelagianism.
R. Scott Clark has made an incoherent move. Instead of explaining justification and faith in terms of the ground of our justification (the person and work of Jesus) he has insisted that it also demands allegiance to a novel and fabricated definition of justifying faith as non (dis?) obedient done without the Holy Spirit.
That is Pelagian. Clark should stick with the traditional formulations rather than inventing new doctrines by which to measure other people as falling short of his own glory.
Glenn, the difference between justification (a legal forensic declarative act of God) and sanctification (a work of God’s Spirit) is not in question and was much better articulated by the Westminster divines than it is by Clark.
Clark is claiming that the only way to preserve justification is to claim that there is no sanctification present in justifying faith. The only way to do that it to embrace Pelagianism. Either justifying faith can be produced by the flesh or Clark is in error in his claims.
I am going to resist the temptation to elaborately describe the irony of seeing Clark defended by the accusation that one of his victims is guilty of “disingenuous charicature.” I thought that was an actual degree specialty offered at Westminster West.
Mark, is it your contention that the Effectual Call is sanctification since it is Spirit-wrought?
I will agree with yours that the anti-transformational rhetoric coming from your antagonist’s side does sound much like the positional sanctification heresy.
I think it is pretty well established that Calvin used the term “Regeneration” as both the calling and sanctification with their differing aspects.
The real difference lies in the efficacy of the graces associated with calling and sanctification.
In the calling the graces causes faith as the means to justification.
In sanctification the graces causes lawfulness as a sign of gratitude.
My contention is that one’s effectual call effects change in a person so that he who was formerly an unbeliever resisting God begins to trust in him due to God’s renewing of him in the image of and in union with Christ. Now, we can stipulate that “sanctification” only refers to the ongoing process after the initial work–which is more or less what the differing chapter heads in the Westminster Confession have done. But the fact remains that justifying faith is produced by the one renewed, not by the flesh or the “old man.”
Basic reformed dogma: regeneration precedes faith.
I don’t remember enough about “positional sanctification” to make an intelligent comment right now.
But I do think Clark is going to lengths to separate justification and sanctification which lead him into Pelagian formulations. He’s not the only one to do this, though, since my knowledge was second-hand I kept a name out of this piece.
Joel: Yes I understood what you were saying. In addressing that Lutheran objection Thomas Bell uses the analogy of making the blind see, which I thought was somewhat helpful.
Ok. Could you explain the analogy for me?
Thomas Bell: “We read indeed, that God justifies the ungodly, Rom. 4:5; but this cannot, in fair construction, imply that the man when justified, is ungodly, still holding fast his sins, and refusing to return. For his being justified by God, is as a thousand arguments that he has returned to God…He who exercises [faith], cannot be called ungodly, in the usual sense of the word. He is radically holy, having holy faith. The true sense therefore of these words, that God justifies the ungodly, I conceive to be the same, as when our Lord said, the blind see, and the deaf hear, Luke 7:2. It cannot be that these persons were actually blind, when they saw; or deaf, when they heard: but that being once so, they now both saw and heard. In like manner, God is said to justify the ungodly, i.e. him who had hitherto been so.”
Thanks, that’s helpful.
Still, it seems to me that it doesn’t really respond to the Lutheran point very effectively.
God makes the blind see by granting them sight and makes the deaf hear by granting them hearing. By analogy, it would seem that God justifies the ungodly by declaring them righteous — that’s to say, their godliness consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness.
But any Lutheran would agree with that and it doesn’t seem to do much to blunt the force of the Lutheran objection about placing “regeneration” prior to faith. This is why the Lutheran confessional symbols seem to equate initial “regeneration” with the forgiveness of sins received by and given along with the gift of faith.
Again, I don’t necessarily buy into this sort of Lutheran objection, but I’m not sure the Bell quotation provides an entirely satisfying response.
Pingback: Once More With Feeling » Blog Archive » Justifying faith: is it disobedient?
Pingback: Once More With Feeling » Blog Archive » Is Christ divided?
Pingback: A mute declaration? (John Piper, the PCA Federal Vision Study Committee, etc) at once more with feeling