This Week in Calvinism - January 27, 2012

• Pastor Daniel Ausbun writes, "Calvinism has an appeal because it tends to have an answer for everything -- you can explain everything by saying God predestined it." In his next column, he plans to "have a biblical critique of this trendy theology."
  
  
• Can the roots of animosity toward Calvinism among Southern Baptists be traced back to the Civil War War of Northern Aggression?
  
  
• Paul thinks New Calvinism teaches a false gospel of works-based salvation.
  
  
• "Calvinism is a 'brilliant' counterfeit belief system that is introduced as a 'system' of belief. It mostly attracts people who believe their intellectually superior to others." Apparently this person doesn't... Wait. "Their"?
  
  
• Part 2 of a discussion on Calvinism between Roger Olson and Michael Horton.
  
  
• Eight ways to approach scripture from J. C. Ryle.

A Brief Message to Pro-Choice Women

Pro-lifers are not telling you what you can or can't do with your body.

This Week in Calvinism - January 20, 2012

• Michael Horton and Roger Olson discuss Calvinism.
  
  
• Dan Phillips reviews (and recommends) Thomas R. Schreiner's book 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law.
  
  
• John Piper on Psalm 135 and the pleasure of God in all he does.
  
  
• One reason for the rise of Calvinism, according to The Seeking Disciple, may be the fact that there are so many impressive web sites available. Online resources for Arminians are lacking, but there may be a good reason for that: "It has been said that Arminianism is a moving faith in that Arminians are too busy seeking to evangelize the world to sit down and promote their thoughts in books or on the Internet."

This Week in Calvinism - January 13, 2012

• Jonathan Parnell on Greg Forster's forthcoming book, The Joy of Calvinism.
  
  
• Do you like bad analogies that attempt to illustrate the difference between Calvinists and non-Calvinists? If you do, then you'll like this one from Peter Lumpkins.
  
  
• James White responds to Roger Olson.
  
  
• Calvinism is not enough.
  
  
• What's the problem with Calvinism? All you need to know is that it "contradicts the plain teaching of Scripture." Oh, you were looking for a more in-depth explanation?
  
  
• The Holy Spirit is not a failed Ed McMahon.

Love Jesus, Hate (False) Religion

An Ironic Complaint from an Atheist About Tim Tebow

David Silverman, president of American Atheists, has a problem with Tim Tebow:

Silverman states that Tebow's repeated references to God into his post-game comments after a win is "bad for football."

"(Religion) injects the divisive force into football," Silverman says. "Why in the world are we talking about religion when we are talking about football?"

Good question, Mr. Silverman. Why in the world are we talking about religion when we are talking about football?

You Never Marry the Right Person

Timothy Keller writes:

Any two people who enter into marriage are spiritually broken by sin, which among other things means to be self-centered—living life incurvatus in se. As author Denis de Rougemont said, "Why should neurotic, selfish, immature people suddenly become angels when they fall in love ... ?" That is why a good marriage is more painfully hard to achieve than athletic or artistic prowess. Raw, natural talent does not enable you to play baseball as a pro or write great literature without enduring discipline and enormous work. Why would it be easy to live lovingly and well with another human being in light of what is profoundly wrong within our human nature? Indeed, many people who have mastered athletics and art have failed miserably at marriage. So the biblical doctrine of sin explains why marriage—more than anything else that is good and important in this fallen world—is so painful and hard.

The reason that marriage is so painful and yet wonderful is because it is a reflection of the Gospel, which is painful and wonderful at once. The Gospel is—we are more sinful and flawed in ourselves than we ever dared to believe, and at the very same time we are more loved and accepted in Jesus Christ than we ever dared hope. This is the only kind of relationship that will really transform us. Love without truth is sentimentality; it supports and affirms us but keeps us in denial about our flaws. Truth without love is harshness; it gives us information but in such a way that we cannot really hear it. God's saving love in Christ, however, is marked by both radical truthfulness about who we are and yet also radical, unconditional commitment to us. The merciful commitment strengthens us to see the truth about ourselves and repent. The conviction and repentance moves us to cling to and rest in God's mercy and grace.

The hard times of marriage drive us to experience more of this transforming love of God. But a good marriage will also be a place where we experience more of this kind of transforming love at a human level.

A Tip for Those Criticizing a Theology

When criticizing a theology, always be prepared before you write or speak. For example, if you consider Calvinism to be a false teaching , you might want to keep your thoughts to yourself until those thoughts can be formulated so that they make some sense. Otherwise, you might end up with something like this:

This Week in Calvinism - January 6, 2012

• John Piper on Christian Hedonist Calvinism.
  
  
• Piper asks, "[H]ow then can Calvinism awaken such joy in me, and such hate in Chesterton?" He answers, "Because they aren't the same Calvinism."
  
  
• Randal Rauser says he isn't antagonistic toward Calvinism. That must be why he attacks it so often.
  
  
• Phil Johnson on what it means to be salt of the earth.
  
  
• Tim Challies with this month's lesson from John Owen.

This Week in Calvinism - December 30, 2011

• Calvinism is on the rise, but so is Buddhism. It seems Americas "cross religious lines much more easily than political ones." And the author thinks that's a good thing.
  
  
• The five conundrums of Calvinism, according to Roger Olson. I would agree. If one insists on holding God to human standards, then, yes, these are conundrums.
  
  
• Thomas Schreiner on Calvinism and the warning passages in Hebrews.
  
  
• Don Bryant accuses John Piper of being "on the wrong side of cruel."
  
  
• One blogger writes, "If election has predetermined every man's fate, nothing anybody can do will change anything, so why try? This is the point of Calvinism, spiritual inactivity." I guess the writer assumes that sinful and rebellious men want to please God.
  
  
• Justin Taylor presents many different ways of reading through the Bible in 2012.

This Week in Calvinism - December 23, 2011

• Justin Taylor on the persecution of Christians in Kim Jong-Il's North Korea.
  
  
• The Society of Evangelical Arminians takes issue with Justin's post:

  It is simply baffling that Calvinists can decry the diabolical, heinous actions of Kim Jong-Il (and others like him), and yet they hold that God first conceived in his own divine heart every one of the man's wicked actions, thought them up without any influence outside of himself, and unconditionally and irresistibly decreed them without any influence outside of himself, resulting in the man doing them all without any chance, power, or ability to do anything else. It's madness I tell you! Madness!!

  What's madness is believing in the alternative: God creating a world in which people suffer the effects of evil without any meaning or purpose.
  
  
• Shocker. An Arminian considers Roger Olson's latest book, Against Calvinism, to be "an accurate assessment and successful critique" of Calvinism.
  
  
• Jeremy Walker explores New Calvinism's caveats and characteristics, notes its commendations, discusses some cautions and concerns, and offers his conclusions and counsels.

This Week in Calvinism - December 16, 2011

• Preacher-teacher Joel Taylor recommends the book The Truth About New Calvinism as a way of combating the false teaching of men like John Piper, Al Mohler, and R. C. Sproul.
  
  
• Arminian Roger Olson recommends the book Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine as an informative look at the debate over the controversial doctrine. He agrees with the author, saying, "[T]he debate over God's sovereignty in salvation cannot be settled merely or simply by collection of biblical evidence."
  
  
• Atheist John Loftus, ever the eloquent wordsmith, calls Calvinism "bull----."
  
  
• Pastor Andrew Davis describes the reform of his Baptist church.
  
  
• John Piper on the origin of Calvinism.
  
  
• Evidences of God's grace in the church today.

This Week in Calvinism - December 9, 2011

• Peter Berger predicts, "If Calvinism is to make further inroads among Southern Baptists or among any other segments of American Evangelicals, it will be in its Arminian form." Huh?
  
  
• How does one strike a balance between Calvinism and Arminianism? Bob Hadley, Pastor of Westside Baptist Church in Daytona Beach, Florida, suggests a new TULIP acrostic: Total Lostness, Unconditional Love, Limiting Atonement, Irrefutable Gospel, Perseverance of the Savior.
  
  
• Beware of self-righteous Calvinism.
  
  
• Charles Spurgeon on evolution.
  
  
• Some book gift ideas from Desiring God.

This Week in Calvinism - December 2, 2011

• Are you recovering from Calvinism? There's help.
  
  
• A list of readings on the subject of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.
  
  
• Brenda Nickel warns of Rick Warren's move toward that "powerful deception" known as Calvinism.
  
  
• England was engulfed in civil war in the 1600s. Was the rise of Puritanism to blame, or could it have been the Arminian plot to overthrow Calvinism?
  
  
• Is Luke 10:13 more problematic for Calvinists or Molinists? Seeing as how God ordains the end and the means, I don't know of any Calvinists who have a problem with it, so I guess it would have to be Molinists.

This Week in Calvinism - November 25, 2011

• If you want to know the significance of Christianity in American history, study the Great Awakening.
  
  
• Joel Taylor recommends an audio series that exposes the false teachings of Mark Driscoll, John Piper, John MacArthur, Alistair Begg, R. C. Sproul, and others.
  
  
• Dan Corner refutes the "Calvinistic doctrine of infant damnation for the non-elect." Funny, I don't even remember being taught that.
  
  
• A "negative" review of God's Wisdom in Proverbs, a book by Pyromaniac Dan Phillips.
  
  
• Tim Challies has some great Black Friday deals for the discerning reader.

Man fired for not accepting the "mark of the beast"

Well...sort of.

Billy E. Hyatt was recently fired from his job at a plastics factory near Dalton, Georgia. He claims it was because he refused to wear a sticker celebrating the factory being accident-free for 666 days.

It isn't clear whether management required the sticker to be worn on the forehead or on the hand, but Hyatt, a devout Christian (and apparently a devout dispensationalist), didn't want to take any chances. He believed that wearing the sticker would have been accepting the "mark of the beast" described in the book of Revelation, condemning him to hell.

Without getting into the serious implications of dispensational theology (though I think we're seeing one of them here), all of this hassle could have been avoided had Mr. Hyatt simply dropped a hammer on his toe. That would have bought him at least another 665 days.

This Week in Calvinism - November 18, 2011

• Randal Rauser's mistake: A defense of the doctrine of election.
  
  
• Bruce Bauer laments "Calvinism's 'god' of limited sovereignty."
  
  
• So...consistent Calvinists must conclude that all babies go to hell?
  
  
• R. C. Sproul Jr. discusses the topic of where babies go when they die.
  
  
• Michael Horton addresses Roger Olson's ridiculous charge that Calvinism makes God a "moral monster."
  
  
• When people attack Calvinists, it isn't just because they fail to understand our doctrine; they may not even understand their own.

Did God Tell Herman Cain to Run for President?

It seems presidential hopeful Herman Cain is a modern Moses:

Herman Cain returned to his home state for a brief campaign stop Saturday, telling a cheering group of young Republicans in Atlanta that God told him to run for president and that he was "in it to win it."

"I prayed and prayed and prayed. I am a man of faith," Cain told the Young Republican National Federation at the Westin Peachtree Plaza. "I had to do a lot of praying for this one, more praying than I have ever done before in my life. And when I finally realized that it was God saying that this is what I needed to do, I was like Moses: 'You have got the wrong man, Lord. Are you sure?' ... Once I made the decision, I did not look back."

So what should I do if God told me not to vote for any candidate who claims to have been told by God to run for president?

This Week in Calvinism - November 11, 2011

• For those wondering why Roger Olson didn't mention J. I. Packer in his book Against Calvinism, don't worry. He's against him, too.
  
  
• Speaking of Roger "I can't distinguish the God of Calvinism from the devil" Olson, James White reviews Against Calvinism (part 1, part 2). It ain't pretty.
  
  
• One pastor's biggest fear about members of his congregation reading The Purpose Driven Life: that they might "become caught up in the Calvinism that undergirds the book's assumptions."
  
  
• The tragic hypocrisy of joyless Calvinism.

Church Sign Seen in Las Vegas

The sign for Valley Bible Fellowship...

This Week in Calvinism - November 4, 2011

• Paul Manata reviews Roger Olson's book Against Calvinism.
  
  
• Who's to blame for the rise of Calvinism? Arminians, says The Seeking Disciple.
  
  
• A Calvinist response to the charge that Calvinism's God is a moral monster.
  
  
• How to call for a Gospel response like a Calvinist.
  
  
• What does the World Series have to do with the Cross?

A New Movie from Rob Bell

From the brilliantly twisted mind of Eddie Eddings...

No Children Allowed?

This was printed in the program at a church I visited in San Diego...

494 Years Ago Today

Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences
Commonly Known as The 95 Theses
by Martin Luther

Out of love and concern for the truth, and with the object of eliciting it, the following heads will be the subject of a public discussion at Wittenberg under the presidency of the reverend father, Martin Luther, Augustinian, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and duly appointed Lecturer on these subjects in that place. He requests that whoever cannot be present personally to debate the matter orally will do so in absence in writing.

1. When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent", He called for the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.

2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.

3. Yet its meaning is not restricted to repentance in one's heart; for such repentance is null unless it produces outward signs in various mortifications of the flesh.

4. As long as hatred of self abides (i.e. true inward repentance) the penalty of sin abides, viz., until we enter the kingdom of heaven.

5. The pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties beyond those imposed either at his own discretion or by canon law.

6. The pope himself cannot remit guilt, but only declare and confirm that it has been remitted by God; or, at most, he can remit it in cases reserved to his discretion. Except for these cases, the guilt remains untouched.

7. God never remits guilt to anyone without, at the same time, making him humbly submissive to the priest, His representative.

8. The penitential canons apply only to men who are still alive, and, according to the canons themselves, none applies to the dead.

9. Accordingly, the Holy Spirit, acting in the person of the pope, manifests grace to us, by the fact that the papal regulations always cease to apply at death, or in any hard case.

10. It is a wrongful act, due to ignorance, when priests retain the canonical penalties on the dead in purgatory.

11. When canonical penalties were changed and made to apply to purgatory, surely it would seem that tares were sown while the bishops were asleep.

12. In former days, the canonical penalties were imposed, not after, but before absolution was pronounced; and were intended to be tests of true contrition.

13. Death puts an end to all the claims of the Church; even the dying are already dead to the canon laws, and are no longer bound by them.

14. Defective piety or love in a dying person is necessarily accompanied by great fear, which is greatest where the piety or love is least.

15. This fear or horror is sufficient in itself, whatever else might be said, to constitute the pain of purgatory, since it approaches very closely to the horror of despair.

16. There seems to be the same difference between hell, purgatory, and heaven as between despair, uncertainty, and assurance.

17. Of a truth, the pains of souls in purgatory ought to be abated, and charity ought to be proportionately increased.

18. Moreover, it does not seem proved, on any grounds of reason or Scripture, that these souls are outside the state of merit, or unable to grow in grace.

19. Nor does it seem proved to be always the case that they are certain and assured of salvation, even if we are very certain ourselves.

20. Therefore the pope, in speaking of the plenary remission of all penalties, does not mean "all" in the strict sense, but only those imposed by himself.

21. Hence those who preach indulgences are in error when they say that a man is absolved and saved from every penalty by the pope's indulgences.

22. Indeed, he cannot remit to souls in purgatory any penalty which canon law declares should be suffered in the present life.

23. If plenary remission could be granted to anyone at all, it would be only in the cases of the most perfect, i.e. to very few.

24. It must therefore be the case that the major part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of relief from penalty.

25. The same power as the pope exercises in general over purgatory is exercised in particular by every single bishop in his bishopric and priest in his parish.

26. The pope does excellently when he grants remission to the souls in purgatory on account of intercessions made on their behalf, and not by the power of the keys (which he cannot exercise for them).

27. There is no divine authority for preaching that the soul flies out of the purgatory immediately the money clinks in the bottom of the chest.

28. It is certainly possible that when the money clinks in the bottom of the chest avarice and greed increase; but when the church offers intercession, all depends in the will of God.

29. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed in view of what is said of St. Severinus and St. Pascal? (Note: Paschal I, pope 817-24. The legend is that he and Severinus were willing to endure the pains of purgatory for the benefit of the faithful).

30. No one is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of receiving plenary forgiveness.

31. One who bona fide buys indulgence is a rare as a bona fide penitent man, i.e. very rare indeed.

32. All those who believe themselves certain of their own salvation by means of letters of indulgence, will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

33. We should be most carefully on our guard against those who say that the papal indulgences are an inestimable divine gift, and that a man is reconciled to God by them.

34. For the grace conveyed by these indulgences relates simply to the penalties of the sacramental "satisfactions" decreed merely by man.

35. It is not in accordance with Christian doctrines to preach and teach that those who buy off souls, or purchase confessional licenses, have no need to repent of their own sins.

36. Any Christian whatsoever, who is truly repentant, enjoys plenary remission from penalty and guilt, and this is given him without letters of indulgence.

37. Any true Christian whatsoever, living or dead, participates in all the benefits of Christ and the Church; and this participation is granted to him by God without letters of indulgence.

38. Yet the pope's remission and dispensation are in no way to be despised, for, as already said, they proclaim the divine remission.

39. It is very difficult, even for the most learned theologians, to extol to the people the great bounty contained in the indulgences, while, at the same time, praising contrition as a virtue.

40. A truly contrite sinner seeks out, and loves to pay, the penalties of his sins; whereas the very multitude of indulgences dulls men's consciences, and tends to make them hate the penalties.

41. Papal indulgences should only be preached with caution, lest people gain a wrong understanding, and think that they are preferable to other good works: those of love.

42. Christians should be taught that the pope does not at all intend that the purchase of indulgences should be understood as at all comparable with the works of mercy.

43. Christians should be taught that one who gives to the poor, or lends to the needy, does a better action than if he purchases indulgences.

44. Because, by works of love, love grows and a man becomes a better man; whereas, by indulgences, he does not become a better man, but only escapes certain penalties.

45. Christians should be taught that he who sees a needy person, but passes him by although he gives money for indulgences, gains no benefit from the pope's pardon, but only incurs the wrath of God.

46. Christians should be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they are bound to retain what is only necessary for the upkeep of their home, and should in no way squander it on indulgences.

47. Christians should be taught that they purchase indulgences voluntarily, and are not under obligation to do so.

48. Christians should be taught that, in granting indulgences, the pope has more need, and more desire, for devout prayer on his own behalf than for ready money.

49. Christians should be taught that the pope's indulgences are useful only if one does not rely on them, but most harmful if one loses the fear of God through them.

50. Christians should be taught that, if the pope knew the exactions of the indulgence-preachers, he would rather the church of St. Peter were reduced to ashes than be built with the skin, flesh, and bones of the sheep.

51. Christians should be taught that the pope would be willing, as he ought if necessity should arise, to sell the church of St. Peter, and give, too, his own money to many of those from whom the pardon-merchants conjure money.

52. It is vain to rely on salvation by letters of indulgence, even if the commissary, or indeed the pope himself, were to pledge his own soul for their validity.

53. Those are enemies of Christ and the pope who forbid the word of God to be preached at all in some churches, in order that indulgences may be preached in others.

54. The word of God suffers injury if, in the same sermon, an equal or longer time is devoted to indulgences than to that word.

55. The pope cannot help taking the view that if indulgences (very small matters) are celebrated by one bell, one pageant, or one ceremony, the gospel (a very great matter) should be preached to the accompaniment of a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The treasures of the church, out of which the pope dispenses indulgences, are not sufficiently spoken of or known among the people of Christ.

57. That these treasures are not temporal are clear from the fact that many of the merchants do not grant them freely, but only collect them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, because, even apart from the pope, these merits are always working grace in the inner man, and working the cross, death, and hell in the outer man.

59. St. Laurence said that the poor were the treasures of the church, but he used the term in accordance with the custom of his own time.

60. We do not speak rashly in saying that the treasures of the church are the keys of the church, and are bestowed by the merits of Christ.

61. For it is clear that the power of the pope suffices, by itself, for the remission of penalties and reserved cases.

62. The true treasure of the church is the Holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

63. It is right to regard this treasure as most odious, for it makes the first to be the last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is most acceptable, for it makes the last to be the first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets which, in former times, they used to fish for men of wealth.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are the nets to-day which they use to fish for men of wealth.

67. The indulgences, which the merchants extol as the greatest of favours, are seen to be, in fact, a favourite means for money-getting.

68. Nevertheless, they are not to be compared with the grace of God and the compassion shown in the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.

70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.

71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.

72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant's words.

73. In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.

74. It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.

75. It is foolish to think that papal indulgences have so much power that they can absolve a man even if he has done the impossible and violated the mother of God.

76. We assert the contrary, and say that the pope's pardons are not able to remove the least venial of sins as far as their guilt is concerned.

77. When it is said that not even St. Peter, if he were now pope, could grant a greater grace, it is blasphemy against St. Peter and the pope.

78. We assert the contrary, and say that he, and any pope whatever, possesses greater graces, viz., the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as is declared in I Corinthians 12 [:28].

79. It is blasphemy to say that the insignia of the cross with the papal arms are of equal value to the cross on which Christ died.

80. The bishops, curates, and theologians, who permit assertions of that kind to be made to the people without let or hindrance, will have to answer for it.

81. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult for learned men to guard the respect due to the pope against false accusations, or at least from the keen criticisms of the laity.

82. They ask, e.g.: Why does not the pope liberate everyone from purgatory for the sake of love (a most holy thing) and because of the supreme necessity of their souls? This would be morally the best of all reasons. Meanwhile he redeems innumerable souls for money, a most perishable thing, with which to build St. Peter's church, a very minor purpose.

83. Again: Why should funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continue to be said? And why does not the pope repay, or permit to be repaid, the benefactions instituted for these purposes, since it is wrong to pray for those souls who are now redeemed?

84. Again: Surely this is a new sort of compassion, on the part of God and the pope, when an impious man, an enemy of God, is allowed to pay money to redeem a devout soul, a friend of God; while yet that devout and beloved soul is not allowed to be redeemed without payment, for love's sake, and just because of its need of redemption.

85. Again: Why are the penitential canon laws, which in fact, if not in practice, have long been obsolete and dead in themselves,—why are they, to-day, still used in imposing fines in money, through the granting of indulgences, as if all the penitential canons were fully operative?

86. Again: since the pope's income to-day is larger than that of the wealthiest of wealthy men, why does he not build this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of indigent believers?

87. Again: What does the pope remit or dispense to people who, by their perfect repentance, have a right to plenary remission or dispensation?

88. Again: Surely a greater good could be done to the church if the pope were to bestow these remissions and dispensations, not once, as now, but a hundred times a day, for the benefit of any believer whatever.

89. What the pope seeks by indulgences is not money, but rather the salvation of souls; why then does he suspend the letters and indulgences formerly conceded, and still as efficacious as ever?

90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.

91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.

92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ's people, "Peace, peace," where in there is no peace.

93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ's people, "The cross, the cross," where there is no cross.

94. Christians should be exhorted to be zealous to follow Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hells.

95. And let them thus be more confident of entering heaven through many tribulations rather than through a false assurance of peace.

The Law Does Not Sanctify

While I'm on vacation, please enjoy some old posts from the Contemporary Calvinist.

The Law Does Not Sanctify
(originally posted 04/18/2007)

When we received the gift of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, were we set free from the curse of the law only to be commanded to return to the law in order to be sanctified? Some seem to think so.

I recall a blog post by Chris Ortiz at Chalcedon.edu bemoaning the fact that "[s]anctification by the law of God is not likely to be heard within the padded sanctuaries of the mega-church." Well, I would hope that sanctification by the law of God is never heard in any church.

"Sanctification by the law" presents a huge problem for believers. It creates a conflicting message. It makes no sense to condemn justification by works and then turn around and promote sanctification by works. That which is powerless to justify is just as powerless to sanctify. Sanctification comes by grace through faith (Acts 26:18, Hebrews 10:10) and is the ongoing work of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2).

This is not antinomianism by any stretch of the imagination. I believe the law serves the same purpose it always did: it reveals sin. It exposes to the light of truth that which we seek to keep hidden. It shows us just how powerless we are to save ourselves. It also condemns us. As Paul writes in Galatians 3:10, "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.'"

Sin and the law go hand in hand. Indeed, "sin is not counted where there is no law" (Romans 5:13). But Paul reminds us that sin no longer has any dominion over us, since we are "not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14).

Thanks to the cross, we have "died to the law through the body of Christ" (Romans 7:4). More to the point, Christ, the only one capable of satisfying the requirements of the law, "redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13).

So, how then are we to live? We are told to "serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:6). In short, it is the Spirit that sanctifies (2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2). The fruit of the Spirit "leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life" (Romans 6:22).

It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that the law is fulfilled. Paul explains in Romans 13:8-10: "Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,' and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." He reminds us again in Galatians 6:2 when he says, "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ."

Note the emphasis Paul places on love. With Christ as our focus, we cannot help but love. But if we believe that sanctification come through obedience to the law, then the law becomes our focus, and it is impossible for us to love our neighbor and bear one another's burdens if our attention is on living up to the law and meeting its requirements. That's an impossible task. However, if we rest in what Christ has already accomplished for us, then we are free to live a life of love as ones who have truly been redeemed from the curse of the law.

What this means is that we will not be able to boast except in the Lord Jesus Christ, "who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption" (1 Corinthians 1:30-31). The result is that God alone receives the glory.

I don't know about you, but I find that to be one of the most blessed truths in all of scripture. Soli Deo Gloria!