Several Quick Arguments that the Covenant of Works Is Not Gracious - Bill Baldwin

Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever (WSC 1). WLC 1 expands '... fully to enjoy him forever.' But if the covenant of works is gracious, then God could theoretically create a man and give him no ability to fulfill his purpose. This would be capricious and unjust. If I said that God created porcupines to fly, it would rightly be pointed out that porcupines have no ability to fly and any reasonable definition of their purpose must take that into account. Assuming porcupines have not forfeited their right to fly, then flying cannot be their created purpose. The abilities of the porcupine determine the way in which it glorifies God. So if man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, he must as originally constituted have had the means to fulfill his purpose. The logical implications of WSC 1 contradict the statement of WCF 7.1.

Ok, so there is a logical contradiction in the confession. Can you have a "system" of doctrine with a contradictory confession?

And wow, Baldwin is not just denying graciousness in the CoW, he's denying condescension.

If God were to give man by nature the ability to attain God by his own efforts, God would not be God and the creator-creature distinction would be denied. The only "ability" or "capacity" man needs to be created with to enjoy God fully is the ability to receive a gift, because God is all in all, and can't be attained by nature by definition.

God made Adam with the ability to reproduce with his wife. But he would be "unable" until he had a wife. But that didn't make a wife something Adam obtained by his efforts, or something he has a legal claim against God to demand.

[update] I had some similar discussion with Klinean J Stellman (in the comments). But it seems to have petered out.

My post below on Jesus warnings to those crowding for the best seats are an attempt at demonstrating how some things, while just, can only be granted as gifts to the recipient. You may deserve the best place at the table, but to demand it is the height of boorishness. And its much better for you to get the honor you deserve to be elevated from a low position you staked out "unjustly" and then be elevated by the host. Justice_1 and Justice_2 and incommensurate, and Justice_2 is to be preferred.

At Tenth this Sunday, Robert Godfrey reflecting on Luther's frustration with Philip Melancthon's worrying and inaction:

One day Luther couldn't stand it any more and Luther said "Philip, do you want to hear the Word of God for yourself, or do you want to hear it from another?"

That was a kind of technical question. Would you prefer just to have your Bible in your lap and read it for yourself or would you prefer to hear the word preached? I'm afraid many of us would get that question wrong, if we were asked it.

The right answer as Philip knew was that I'd rather hear it preached. Because if I just read it for myself I may slip off the hook. I may not hear it speak with all the force that it ought to speak to my life. And so, poor Philip, dutifully said, "I'd rather hear the word from another". And he knew he was going to hear it from another. And Luther said this is the Word of God to you "your sins are forgiven!"

Its what we need to hear, isn't it? Because we're sinners. Because our sins can overwhelm us. Because our sins so often seem just to repeat themselves. And we begin to wonder, can Jesus still love me? Can Jesus still care for me? Can Jesus forgive me one more time?

And in the preaching of the word and in the preaching of the Gospel comes this word to us, to every one who looks to Jesus Christ, the word is

"Your sins are forgiven"

That's the vitality of the word.

Well, this is disconcerting. John Piper, in Tragically Widening the Grounds of Legitimate Divorce tragically misreads an article on divorce and remarriage by David Instone-Brewer. I could speculate that Pipers own extreme position (Divorce only allowed for fornication during engagement, and nor for adultery) colors his ability to consider what Instone-Brewer intends in his article.

One person takes fair issue with Piper's aversion to interpreting the Gospels in their Jewish context.

But beyond that, I don't read Instone-Brewer as claiming that trivial "neglect" and lack of 100% perfect honor (Piper's arguments about righteousness that we need to stand before God's throne seem to have come into this from left field) is grounds for divorce. But Piper gives a case of a suspicious and fearful misreading

3) Worst of all, Instone-Brewer infers three grounds for divorce from Exodus 21:10-11, neglect of “food, clothing, and love.” These correspond to “later Jewish and Christian” marriage vows: “love, honor, and keep.” He then concludes—read and weep—“Thus, the vows we make when we marry correspond directly to the biblical grounds for divorce [namely, ‘emotional and physical neglect’].”

Now Instone-Brewer may not want to say it, but he does say it: We have a ground for divorce if we are not “honored” by our spouse. I don’t know any spouses who are so well honored by the other that they could not make a case that they are insufficiently honored. Instone-Brewer may have safeguards he puts around these sweeping grounds for divorce. But they are not in this article.

So in the meantime, hundreds of wavering spouses may finally feel legitimized in their desire for divorce. “Here, at last, is a scholar who tells me that not only adultery, but neglect of honoring me is enough.” That just about releases all of us from our marriage covenants and puts an end to all church discipline. For there are no spouses who do not regularly dishonor their mate.

I'm sorry. If I neglected to FEED my wife, make sure she had CLOTHES, and give her sex when she desires it, I am abandoning my wife. And Piper had to supply this imagined problem in brackets, because Instone-Brewer doesn't say it.

(UPDATE: and neither did the CT editor intend that by publishing it)

The safeguards are Instone-Brewer's references to Exodus! Love, honor and cherish are specified by the content of Exodus. The three rights within a marriage are to be kept, and not keeping them leads to freedom.

Any Israelite lady who went to a judge and asked for a divorce because she wasn't getting meals as she liked them, or that her closets were not overflowing, or that she was being denied sex four times a day like she wanted it would be ordered to be beaten for wasting the court's time, I'd imagine.

Luke 14:8-10

When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, 'Give your place to this man,' and then in disgrace you proceed to occupy the last place. But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, 'Friend, move up higher'; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you.

When a man takes this lowest place, does he receive the offer of the high place as simple justice by virtue of his very nature as a guest?

Or is it a gift?

Shirtless at A&F

Berkhof goes on to say

The judicial ground for all the special grace which we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.

A. the righteousness of Christ is not a special grace we receive.

B. This sentence is a deliberate paradox.

C. This is an expression that imputation is divine fiat.

D. Imputation of the righteousness of Christ needs no judicial ground.

E. This is a denial of the federal headship of Christ.

F. This is contradiction.

Feel free to submit your answers in the comments.

In some discussion of Mark Horne's excellent essay Justification by Union According to Calvin and Westminster someone noted Berkhof's objections (Systematic Theology, 452) to mystical union as the basis for imputation

The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification.

It struck me that to speak of "legal unity with Christ" as the thing that makes imputation reasonable is to make a tautology. Imputation is legal union, isn't it? If I impute one thing to another, I create legal union between the one that that which I impute to it.

If it's not tautological, what is legal union that is non-imputative?

Jim Weidenaar at the Westminster Bookstore Blog reveiws Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ by Mike Horton

Horton’s thesis in this regard is that “justification is exclusively juridical, yet it is the forensic origin of our union with Christ, from which all of our covenantal blessings flow.” (139) What is perplexing in this is not the forensic nature of justification but his insistence that justification is the ground of union with Christ rather than union with Christ being the ground of both the forensic and renovative benefits of salvation. The motivation for this insistence is laudable – to keep justification from being grounded in any way in ontological or moral changes in us. Horton seems to identify the concept of “union with Christ” solely with these renovative, progressive aspects of our salvation, and thus denies that it can be logically prior to forensic justification.

The Destructive Teaching of Hypothetical Universalism is an argument that not being a hypercalvinist will lead logically to "FV" style claims

If the doctrine of God’s exclusive purpose of atonement toward his elect is in any way compromised, the stage is set to compromise more and more:

1. The blessed assurance of salvation to the individual elect soul will suffer, since God is proposed to exercise a measure of redemptive love and grace to the non-elect also. How does a Christian know that his sense of God’s acceptance is not ‘common assurance’ proceeding from ‘common grace’ purchased by a ‘common atonement’? He doesn’t, if the position is followed through to its logical end. Unless God’s immutable and exclusive grace toward an elect people in Christ is grasped in faith, assurance is watered-down and cannot survive forever.

Reformed Musings (RM) has replied to my defenses of Jordan's statements (see below) about the universal aspects of Christ's work.

I don’t buy the “scare quotes” evasion anymore. After reading thousands of pages of Federal Vision stuff and hearing them use the technique to wriggle out of tight spots in examinations, I’m past the point of being fooled by this ruse.

Christ is in no way “savior of all men.” That’s the very definition of universalism and directly contradicts the doctrine of definite redemption

I think scare quotes are useful, even if RM has been soured on them by some unscrupulous use elsewhere. I think that certain incomprehensible doctrines require them. We need to be able to say that the Son of God "died" on the cross. That God "repented" that he had made man.

The need for them is emphaiszed by RM's own initial strong claim that he qualified later. He starts out saying "in no way" in Jesus the savior of all men. Then he updates his post to deal with the biblical reference I alluded to, where Paul says, literally, 'savior of all men'. So what about "is in no way?". Does RM retract it? It seems like he is or should.

RM cites Calvin to say that well, there is "a way" that he is savior. Calvin does it in terms of common grace, which is true as far as it goes. I'll come back to that.

We also find Calvin using equivalent verbal constructions as Jordan's scare quotes, to say equally provocative things

True it is that God layeth open his heart unto us when his word is preached unto us. There we may be put in mind of his love, and also have full assurance of our salvation. But yet must that word enter in unto our heart, and prevail with us, which thing is not done but through faith. And so let us understand that God's election is as it were defeated by us, unless we be constant and continue steadfastly in it to the end.

Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, p. 317, commenting on Deut. 7:9. Quoted by Sherman Isbell emphasis added.

To my second point, that all are alive in the world today because of the death of Christ, RM considers that an "absurd" claim, based on no scriptural argument.

I can't think of an immediate scriptural prooftext, though this kind of ad-hoc claim about God's wrath against sin has cropped up again and again at least informally. The reasoning goes that God brought about the death of Christ at "just the right time". Had the Sun of Righteousness not arose with healing in his wings when he did, God would smite the whole earth with a curse. We've always claimed that we all deserve destruction for sin, and a sinful earth even more so. So why don't we get it? Well, "the mercy of God" of course, but I'd say also that its the mercy of God in Christ, even to his enemies.

My 'stand in the gap' reference was not an attempt to be Marcionite, but a reflection on my ongoing studies in Ezekiel. The language comes from Ezekiel 22. God is ready to bring his final judgment on Israel. Her life is over. God is going to destroy both wicked and righteous within her. Even the remnant is going to feel miserable. In this context God says that one thing would have saved Israel: someone to stand in gap and build up the wall.

This will likely lead into the ongoing discussion of what constitutes Reformed hermeneutics, but I'd supposed that there was some kind of Christological point God was making. Moses (in a type?) stands between God and the people and argues that God should not destroy them, but him instead. When Jesus comes he is averting the wrath of God at that point in history, which is a point at which they have returned from exile, yet are still in their sins.

Next RM challenges the claim that Israel's rites of atonement were for the whole world.

Not hardly. God chose Israel out of the world as in Dt. 7:6, 7. He told them to either completely destroy or to avoid mixing with the entire rest of the known world. Why, then, would he turn around and command Israel to atone for those very people? This makes no sense. God never mentions atonement in reference to the world in general.

Destroying Canaanites and avoiding "mixing" with gentiles do not exclude offering atonement for those gentiles. Israel had a priestly tribe that did not "mix" with the other tribes, that were set apart and holy, with special rules that applied only to them. But they offered sacrifice on behalf of Israel.

I regard it as fundamental to Israel's identity and calling that they were a "priestly nation," that is, a nation with a call to act as priests for others.

1. Its part of the Abrahamic call. "those who bless you I will bless, and those who curse you I will curse." Abraham tries to intercede for Sodom and Gomorrah, and it his calling as blessing of nations that is in view.
2. It is seen in the way Jesus is the summation and fulfillment of the calling of Israel. If his sacrifice saves gentiles, Israel had a calling to nations too.
3. Converted gentiles have always been involved with the Israelite nation, particularly in her sacrificial worship. Melchizedek receives offerings from Abraham. Jethro advises Moses on the set up of the nation. More significantly, Hiram of Tyre is deeply involved with the building of the temple, giving gifts for its construction, and receiving *food* in return. Why would he want to help Israel build a temple if not to benefit from the atonement procured there.
4. Following Ezekiel and other prophets, judgment begins at the house of God, and God judges Israel for her sins. But subsequently, God brings judgment on the gentiles around Israel. Having lost their mediator, the nations are subject to the full wrath of God. (Tyre is a signal example in Ezekiel)
5. While its true that the Yom Kippur rites are for "the atonement of Israel", Israel's representative status means that she stands as a kind of surety for the whole world. Her sins are sins of a representative. When God accepts atonement for her, he accepts, as it were, atonement for those Israel represents and mediates for (all humanity).
6. The day of Atonement is followed by Succoth/Booths, which is more international in focus. (Gentile sojourners are explicitly called out for inclusion in the feast.) In symbolic terms, bullocks are offered each day of the seven days of succoth (Numbers 29), along with two rams and 14 lambs. But the number of bullocks varies, starting on day one and descending: 13 + 12 + 11 + 10 + 9 + 8 + 7. That's 70 bullocks total.
   
   Traditionally, based on the table of nations in Genesis 10, the number of gentile nations was counted as 70. So in offering 70 bulls, Israel offers atonement for the whole world. (that numerical symbolism comes up when Israel leaves Egypt, where they stop at a place where there are 70 palm trees watered by 12 springs of water.
7. Jordan's point about the temple furniture still should be addressed. Heaven is the throne room of God. Earth is his footstool. But in tabernacle terms, the Holy Place is the throne room and the Ark and Kipporet/Hilasterion (mercy seat/covering/atonement cover) are his footstool. In the Yom Kippur rite, blood is placed on the footstool, making "atonement" for it (and what it represents). Israel surely.
   
   But God has also repeatedly said that he will make his enemies his footstool. If biblically, his footstool is his personal furniture that represents those he loves, and those for whom he atones, then such declarations take on a character quite at variance with the solely wrath-oriented interpretations commonly understood. But God is a God who loves his enemies and calls us to do likewise. The love of God for all humanity is expressed in his giving of his son.

RM questions my point #5, saying he doesn't see how I move from Israel to the world. Well it's not direct. I just think the form of the argument is like the one Calvin uses. There is a general election of a people. That general election comprehends [all?] the benefits of acceptance with God in it. Calvin then lines out that internal efficacy of grace (for the elect only) allows for the remnant to persevere within it. Those without it fall away from IT (including its comprehension of all the benefits.) If that was true for Israel, whose general election is explicit in scripture, then thats they way I'm assuming it could be pictured for humanity which possesses general union (incarnational) and general representation (Christ rises as king of all nations) that I think is part of the calling of Jesus Christ (fulfilling Israel's calling).

There have to be other kinds of union, because there are real non-salvific benefits possessed and experienced by the non-elect, and they could not have any of those things if Christ didn't procure and distribute such gifts to them.

Lane Keister and and Sam Lammerson and Bob Mattes counseled restraint in internet discussions of the Gage situation.

But some disagree [link to one of the Board members expressing dismay gone]

update: This person still disagrees, though clarifying that the seminary didn't seem to have a Marsh Dictum Rule about only explicit typology, but that the Reformed understanding of typology is that it isn't "revelation" (a new thing I've never heard before in my readings on hermeneutics).

Update 2: now Gregory Miseyko weighs in. They keep talking about what "requirement 1" of some set of requirements Gage was supposed to agree to but allegedly didn't. What we don't see so far is any direct quoting of the text.

Had Dr. Gage spoken with RC instead of assuming the narrowest construction of requirement #1, he would have learned what Dr. Sproul meant. RC says the WCF obviously goes beyond the explicit use of types to include those which can be deduced by good & necessary consequence. However, what RC seeks to prohibit are "speculative, fanciful and bizarre typological interpretations". He notes the distinction between using typology for illustrative purposes and for revelatory purposes. The Bible contains a great deal of helpful parallels between OT events, types & shadows and the NT realities referenced in WCF VII. These are illustrative, and the confession tells us so. RC’s concern is that Dr. Gage must not use unbridled conjecture to arrive at revelation. Dr. Gage is the only one we see engaged in this

I would hope that a requirement someone was being asked to sign as a job condition would be precise, and not require additional verbal clarification.

Of the resigned members of the board want people on the internets to make decisions about what's going on (why else do they keep providing more information?) they really ought to post the text of the requirements in question.

And left out of the question are things in the bible that are 1) revelation 2) typological or symbolic 3) not explicit 4) not derivable by strict "good and necessary consequence 5) also not mandatory for faith or practice. The WCF is largely silent on such matters, as it should be. Many things are in revelation that are not plain, but those things that are plain are the things necessary. Being unnecessary to faith doesn't make them not revelation.

Update 3: Gladys Israeles quotes the sessions response to Gage's

On Tuesday evening you voted that

"Neither Dr. Gage nor any other faculty members are required to meet Condition #1 of the Restoration Procedure; "Must agree not to set forth any typology except that which is explicit in the Scriptures."

Did you understand you were voting to change the doctrinal position that Knox Seminary has held since it was founded in 1989?

So it would seem the specific text of the condition is very limited. Miseyko claims that R C Sproul could have confirmed to Gage verbally that it was not as limited in scope as the text actually states.

But then why is it written, textually, in a way that seems fundamentally identical with the dictum of Bishop Marsh to requires express identification of a type in scripture?

Reformed Musings takes issue with explanatory comments on Jesus as mediator between heaven and earth. Jordan had said

I can say that Jesus died “for” everyone alive in the world at present, for He is the Hilasterion, the Ark-Cover, which is the Firmament between heaven and earth. He is the New Sky. God sees all the world through Him and His blood/death. I can freely say to any person, “God loves you and Jesus died for you.” That’s 100% true. It’s clearly taught in Lev. 16, for anyone acquainted with the Levitical imagery (which I freely admit takes some time to learn; at least it’s taken me many years!). And it’s in Romans 3. Of course, if a person dies without faith, then he moves out from this world, out from under the New Sky, and is lost. But as long as he’s here, he benefits from Jesus’ death, which took place up in the air between heaven and earth and put blood on the four corners of the earth, covering it.

and RM responds, accusing Jordan of universalism:

Up until now, Federal Vision credited the non-regenerate in the visible church with full but temporary union with Christ. Now they’ve granted Christ’s saving benefits to everyone alive, not just the visible church. What’s that called, “covenantal universalism”? ... Leviticus 16, of course, lays out the rituals for the Day of Atonement, rituals finally and forever fulfilled by Jesus. Is Jordan suggesting that Aaron atoned for the sins of the Canaanites, Hittites, and all the rest of the ‘-ites’ on the Day of Atonement? Gosh, I thought that God ordered Israel to utterly destroy them all. This is worse than utter nonsense from the one whose friends call him the godfather of Federal Vision.

Some comments

1. I think Jordan's "scare quotes" around "for" serve to qualify his point about Jesus and Jesus death having universal impact. It's not FOR all in same sense as it is for say the elect. Its "after a manner of speaking"; its "as it were"; its "covenantally speaking". Its "savior of all men, but especially those that believe" and NO, the anti-free-offer/hypercalvinist readings of that verse are not usable as quick and dirty proof of why that can't work. Because the refutation of hypercalvinism means you need to reinvestigate those passages. Bring D. A. Carson back to the Westminster Assembly and tell Gillespie and Rutherford to give it up about John 3:16 meaning "world of the elect".

2. Everyone alive is alive today because of the death of Christ. God would have had to destroy the world had not Jesus been the man to stand in the gap and build up the wall. Israel had received the new covenant after the return from exile, but had turned it into pharisaism and worse.

3. Israel's rituals on the day of atonement were for Israel, but also the entire world. They were the priests for the nations. Jordan's point is that the cover of the ark (the place where blood was put) represents the firmament between heaven and earth. Blood on it turns aside God's wrath to the extent of what that cover represents. And it represents everything under it.

4. What about Canaanites? No, I don't think Jordan would argue that Canaanites were atoned for on the day of atonement. Because God bringing in Israel against them was already a sign than they were considered out from under the atoning blood.

5. I see this as a species of Calvin's argumentation regarding general and specific election. Calvin argues that "general adoption [election] of the seed of Abraham was a visible representation of a greater blessing, which God conferred on the few out of the multitude." The visible details of the historical atonement:

a) its public nature b) the involvement of the world authority in causing it c) the nature of the cross between heaven and earth d) the shape of the cross and the blood on its 4 corners

point to a universal quality of it, but that 'visible representation" is of one of greater blessing (by way of eminence, not readable off of the event itself) that applies only to the smaller multitude of the elect.

6. At the worst, all I could say is that this is oddly similar to the Lutheran doctrine of objective universal justification, which is then brought down in particular subjective justification to those who believe. I guess RM can call orthodox Lutheran believers in something "worse than utter nonsense" but I think thats rather harsh.

7. I think RM should study more on various kinds of union with Christ. Jesus wears more than a single "federal head of the elect" hat in his calling and work.

William Hundley has a cool photographic technique. No Photoshop required.

Webster Dictionary, 1913 defines "obtain"

It seems to be usable with a shade of meaning that isn't fully synonymous with "acquire". Milton says that the Father "obtains" the monarchy of heaven.

This might explain Turretin's statement

although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of our salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them

which I think many, taking "acquire" and "obtain" as synonymous would read as a contradiction.

Caleb Stegall's post on Re-Paganizing the Church at DRC, and Carl "Marx" Trueman's post on how p*rn is just a symptom of late capitalism go together in my mind somehow. I think for the better.

You have to ignore that Marxist critiques like Trueman's offer no positive program.

It seems to me that Leithart's thoughts about how a kind of "definitive sanctification" of deliverance from the power of sin seems to have far less of the characteristics that traditionally identify sanctification as something that needs to be kept distinct from justification.

Since Paul seems to say that "those who are dead have been justified from sin", Leithart says, hey, lets call deliverance from sin justification too.

The argument that seems most forceful to me is

1. Romans 1 says that God has wrath against sin, and brings condemnation.
2. The judicial condemnation of sin takes the form of being put under the dominion of sin ("God gave them over") as a just penalty.
3. Justification is the opposite of condemnation, and in justification we have peace with God and are no longer under his wrath.
4. Taking us out from under his wrath to peace would have the form of deliverance from the penalty of sin.
5. How can someone acquitted from the guilt of sin not in the same legal proceeding not be at the same time (in the same act?) out from under the penalty.
6. We have "no condemnation" Romans 8 because of Romans 3 AND 6.

Fisher's catechism lines out lots of specific differences between justification and traditional, process sanctification. What about definitive sanctification and deliverance from sins realm? Quotes below, followed by my comments indented.

"The matter of justification is the righteousness of Christ; but the matter of sanctification is the fullness of Christ communicated, or grace imparted from him, out of whose fullness we receive, "and grace for grace," John 1:16.

We have deliverance from sins dominion merely by the "matter" of the death of Christ for our sins on the cross. We have died on the cross in Christ, and thus are no longer in sin's realm. This isn't the "fullness". His "wisdom and riches" don't come to free us from sin's realm

Justification makes a relative, sanctification a real change: the first changes a man's state, the other changes his heart and life, Ezek. 36:26.

The deliverance from sin's realm is a relative status change. Out from one master, now under another

Justification is effected by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us; sanctification, by the implantation of his grace in us.

Likewise, sin's power is defeated by the accounting of us as dead in Christ. Its imputative, not implantative or infusive.

Justification is complete and perfect at first; but sanctification is carried on gradually, from less to more, until the soul be ripe for glory; the righteousness of justification is strictly and properly meritorious, being the righteousness of God, by which the law is not only fulfilled, but magnified; but the righteousness of sanctification is not so, being only the righteousness of a sinful creature, imperfect in degrees: justification is equal in all believers, but they are not all equally sanctified: hence, in God's family, there are little children, 1 John 2:12:and in his garden, trees of different tallness, or height, Psalm 92:12, compared with Zech. 1:8.

This was Lane's primary objection to Leithart's proposal, that if we include any "sanctification" we make justification incomplete. But we are completely out of our bondage to sin. This is a great and true complete and perfect indicative about us. Granted, we will still war with the lusts of the flesh and the pride of life, but it seems to me the import of Romans 6 (and 7 and 8) is that we have switched sides definitively. We have "flesh", but with out "minds" we serve the Law of Christ. No condemnation means no wrath, completely.

Its also the case that this definitive delivery from the power of sin is equal in all believers.

Christ himself, and not the believer, is the subject of our justifying righteousness; it is inherently in him who wrought it out perfectly for us; but the believer himself is the subject of the righteousness of sanctification; it is implanted in him as a new nature; whereas his justifying righteousness is not in him as a nature, but on him as a robe; and hence it is said to be UPON all them that believe, Rom. 3:22.

Assuming I understand this, since it is from our being accounted dead (and delivered from the penalty for sin: death) in Jesus that we are delivered the subject is not so much us as us in Christ.

Although, as to time, they are simultaneous; yet, as to the order of nature, justification goes BEFORE sanctification, as the cause before the effect, or as fire is before light and heat.

This is the rub. Personally, I think we have one cause, the imputative forensic union of us in Christ's death and resurrection, and two simultaneous effects, which are justification_wcf and sanctification_definitive.

Although justification respects the whole person, yet, it immediately terminates upon conscience, God's deputy, purging it from dead works, and pacifying it with the sprinkling of the blood of Christ; nothing giving true peace to conscience, but that which gave full satisfaction to justice: but by sanctification we are renewed in the whole man, Eph. 4:23, 24.

I think the same could be said of definitive sanctification here as is said of justification. I'm not sure about fisher's division, again. It respects the whole (a whole person is delivered from slavery to sin) but doesn't "renew" the whole man morally. Purging from dead works is the kind of thing I'd think definitive sanctification can cover.

The main ingredient in justification is the grace and love of God towards us, manifested in pardoning and accepting us in Christ; whereas the main ingredient in sanctification is our gratitude and love to God, flowing from his love to us, and appearing in our obedience and keeping his commandments, by virtue of his "Spirit put within us, and causing us to walk in his statutes," Ezek. 36:27.

Definitive sanctification's main ingredient would be the former, not the latter.

Justification is evidenced by our sanctification; for none can warrantably conclude they are justified by the righteousness of Christ, if not students of true holiness, and groaning under a body of sin and death: but sanctification cannot be evidenced by our justification; which being the hidden root of holiness under ground, does not appear, except in lively actings of justifying faith, and other graces, which are internal branches of sanctification; sometimes inwardly discerned by the believer, and sometimes outwardly discovered to others by works, James 2:18.

I think what I'm considering is also a "hidden root of holiness". Its an indicative about us, evidenced by our following the imperative to live the life to which we were set free.

Justification has relation to the law, as a covenant, and frees the soul from it, Rom. 7:4; sanctification respects the law as a rule, and makes the soul breathe after conformity to it, and to delight in it after the inward man, Rom. 7:22; hence justification is a judicial sentence, absolving us from law-debt; sanctification, a spiritual change, fitting us for law-duty.

And definitive sanctification frees us from law-penalty.

Justification springs from, and is grounded upon the priestly office of Christ, by which he satisfied law and justice, as our surety; but sanctification proceeds from his kingly office, by which he subdues us to his obedience, and writes his law in our hearts, Jer. 31:33.

This might be a difference. Do we need to be so strict about separating office? The King dies for his people more than the Priest ever does.

Justification gives us a title to heaven and eternal life; sanctification gives a meetness for it: justification is God's act, pronouncing our persons righteous in Christ, and taking away the guilt of sin; sanctification is the Spirit's work, cleansing our nature, and taking away the filth of sin: by the former, we are instated into the favour of God; by the latter, adorned with the image of God.

And definitive sanctification is likewise a forensic act. We are taken OUT of the law-realm of sin. The handwriting of ordinances which were against us is taken away, having been nailed to the cross. That delivers us from the penalty of sin.

So there it is. Thoughts?

NPR : Robert Alter Explores the Psalms, Sans Soul

Darryl Hart says

I know of no question and answer in either the WSC or Heidelberg, in fact, that would substantiate your idea of the gospel that all nations are to be baptized and discipled.

Ok, maybe not the WSC, but that's for kids and the mentally infirm. The WCL says

Question 42: Why was our Mediator called Christ?

Answer: Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure; and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability, to execute the offices of prophet, priest, and king of his church, in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.

Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king?

Answer: Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.

The "gospel" is not about Christ ONLY executing the office of priest.