This should be the last post. It is a recap in-case you missed it.
1)Discussed a little baptist history as continuationists
2)I basically argued that the puritans were continuationists.
3)I argued that the major puritan confessions supported continuationist views.
4)I said that they were not more cautious than charismatics and Pentecostals aught to be in respect to prophecy.
5) Discussed the closed cannon and how prophecy works within it.
6) Related prophecy to scriptural illuminations then both vs. special revelation to a degree.
7)I arrived at a view similar to that Wayne Grudem from the confessions by using the bible as a rule of faith.
8)Showed the bible and the gospel to be of first importance before prophecy.
9)I spoke about the puritan "open but irrelevant" position.
10)Discussed the complementary effect that prophecy may have on sanctification to reject Jonathan Edwards view of its worthlessness to mature Christians.
11)Discussed the ordinary/extraordinary distinctions that the puritans held as being without substance.
In some areas I could have be a bit clearer and concise but hopefully this series conveyed this list.
It shows that cessationism was the aberrant strain that became popular in the rejection of the 'Charismania' of certain pentecostal groups. One can see a bunch of dust fly up when fifty people are walking down a dirt road. While one person with a broom can whip up just as much dust, forgetting the whole idea of our pilgrimage to heaven.
I did not address tongues because that phenomena was never as prevalent in puritan times as it was in the early 1900s. I am not a pentecostal. Praying in the spirit can be certainly done intelligably. It is also more fruitful that way. I shall address this in a post a while from now. I feel as I have side-tracted enough for now into doctrine and natural theology. I am ready for more Christ and him crucified.
One additional thing, Cornerstone did not shape my doctrine on the existance of the spiritual gifts. The doctrine of prophecy was to a degree pre-existent and well established before CCK. I was not weirded out by it despite never having seen it in a church before. I was more weired out once or twice about holy spirit things from an overly enthusiastic person from CCK. Who shall here remain nameless.
Thursday, November 9, 2006
Wednesday, November 1, 2006
The confession's Charismatic Confession part 3
In all of this we should see that the Puritans were more charismatic than we give them credit for. One can read Edwards rebuttal against prophectic visions and walk away with the knowledge that he did not deny them at all but likened these spiritual experiences to utterly worthless in constrast to the fruits of the Spirit. We arrive at a similar impression here when treating prophecy in context to these beliefs in the suffiecency of scripture. The puritans are not denying prophecy. They are putting it in a box. The Westminister and London confession denies that any new revelation can be made. One has to ask, what about old revelations being made in order to bring about a grace?
These are the sections relevant sections again:
I.1"Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."
Now if one is to hold that his will is already revealed collectively for his people. Then prophecy does not reveal it but rather manifest it. This seems like cessationism but again it says nothing against this understanding. Prophecy does not reveal but rather impress true doctrine upon a group or person. Would not illumination of scripture be further revealing of God's will if very same strict standards are used in the interpretation? I have hinted at a tie before between how one treats illumination of scripture and prophecy. The tie is that they have similar indended goals. They are also both actions of grace. Furthermore, there is a fine line between objective truths and subjective truths in each. I maintain that special revelation pertains only to the objective truths as they found completely in the Bible. It is only in the objective parts that new doctrine or heresy has the chance of being found. A Charismatic could agree with this provision.
I.6"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;"
The treatment of new revelations and traditions of men relates to sources of doctrine only. It does not extend any further. This is seen in the statement afterward which allows for inward illumination. This inward illumination contrasts with new revelations, in case they be confused somehow. Now to be perfectly clear, this does not state the primary means of this inward illumination; be it Prophecy, Preaching, or scriptural reading. It does not define such illumination as just upon reading scripture. The primary cause is of course God, the Holy Spirit. This passage has less to do with excluding prophecy than it has to do with declaring a closed cannon. Again a Charismatic can subscribe to this also.
Surprisingly, The westminister and 1689 confessional has one more thing to say.
10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Some take private spirits to mean prophecy. It would fall in line with other potential sources of doctrine. The list is not meant to be an refutation of bad sources of doctrine. It is a merely a list of all probable sources of doctrine. Ancient writers, councils, and doctrines formed by men were not looked down upon entirely. They were to be judge. It is not a list of negative things. Private spirits seems to be synonomous with prophecy here. I cannot see any other interpretation that falls in line here as a source of doctrine that at least has potential to be judged.
We have arived at a continuationist position with respect to prophecy for Puritans. Also, the doctrine laid out in relation to the suffiecency of scripture is complementary and also arrives at the doctrine of prophecy similar to the one promoted by Grudem. I did not try to prove this doctrine from the Bible. I believe Wayne Grudem does this somewhere. I rather interrelated it with the suffiecency of the Bible and special revelation. It returns one to the same conclusion as Grudem's and also justifies the passages about testing prophecy in scripture.
The Puritans held the continued existance of the spiritual gifts to differing degrees. This still does not get over the whole "open but cautious" view. I hope it should make it clear that some Puritans were certainly as open as some modern charismatics. They definitely were not 'cautious' in accepting the occurances as being from God if they fell in line with the Bible. This is to say that they had definite framework in which to deal with the issue. They also had a definite framework that positioned them as close to being irrelevant with respect to the ordinary things that far surpass them. They held "open but close to irrelevant" view with respect to this gift. They positioned prophecy to being behind the scenes. Part 4 is up and coming shall discuss it. It will be a discussion around the usage and the extraordinary / ordinary distinctions among Puritans.
These are the sections relevant sections again:
I.1"Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."
Now if one is to hold that his will is already revealed collectively for his people. Then prophecy does not reveal it but rather manifest it. This seems like cessationism but again it says nothing against this understanding. Prophecy does not reveal but rather impress true doctrine upon a group or person. Would not illumination of scripture be further revealing of God's will if very same strict standards are used in the interpretation? I have hinted at a tie before between how one treats illumination of scripture and prophecy. The tie is that they have similar indended goals. They are also both actions of grace. Furthermore, there is a fine line between objective truths and subjective truths in each. I maintain that special revelation pertains only to the objective truths as they found completely in the Bible. It is only in the objective parts that new doctrine or heresy has the chance of being found. A Charismatic could agree with this provision.
I.6"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;"
The treatment of new revelations and traditions of men relates to sources of doctrine only. It does not extend any further. This is seen in the statement afterward which allows for inward illumination. This inward illumination contrasts with new revelations, in case they be confused somehow. Now to be perfectly clear, this does not state the primary means of this inward illumination; be it Prophecy, Preaching, or scriptural reading. It does not define such illumination as just upon reading scripture. The primary cause is of course God, the Holy Spirit. This passage has less to do with excluding prophecy than it has to do with declaring a closed cannon. Again a Charismatic can subscribe to this also.
Surprisingly, The westminister and 1689 confessional has one more thing to say.
10. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Some take private spirits to mean prophecy. It would fall in line with other potential sources of doctrine. The list is not meant to be an refutation of bad sources of doctrine. It is a merely a list of all probable sources of doctrine. Ancient writers, councils, and doctrines formed by men were not looked down upon entirely. They were to be judge. It is not a list of negative things. Private spirits seems to be synonomous with prophecy here. I cannot see any other interpretation that falls in line here as a source of doctrine that at least has potential to be judged.
We have arived at a continuationist position with respect to prophecy for Puritans. Also, the doctrine laid out in relation to the suffiecency of scripture is complementary and also arrives at the doctrine of prophecy similar to the one promoted by Grudem. I did not try to prove this doctrine from the Bible. I believe Wayne Grudem does this somewhere. I rather interrelated it with the suffiecency of the Bible and special revelation. It returns one to the same conclusion as Grudem's and also justifies the passages about testing prophecy in scripture.
The Puritans held the continued existance of the spiritual gifts to differing degrees. This still does not get over the whole "open but cautious" view. I hope it should make it clear that some Puritans were certainly as open as some modern charismatics. They definitely were not 'cautious' in accepting the occurances as being from God if they fell in line with the Bible. This is to say that they had definite framework in which to deal with the issue. They also had a definite framework that positioned them as close to being irrelevant with respect to the ordinary things that far surpass them. They held "open but close to irrelevant" view with respect to this gift. They positioned prophecy to being behind the scenes. Part 4 is up and coming shall discuss it. It will be a discussion around the usage and the extraordinary / ordinary distinctions among Puritans.
The Confession's Charismatic Confession, part 4
I said that the puritan position was "open but irrelevant" in the last post for prophecy. This is important because it is different than a common middle position today called "open but cautious". The Puritans were not any more cautious than any continuationist or charismatic aught to be today. Some Charismatics and Pentecostals would do well to place the Bible, specifically the gospel first.
To apply this "open, but irrelevant" doctrine from the puritans would not be cessationism as we understand it today. The practice of this doctrine would rather be akin to an all-out frontal assault on the use of any prophetic microphone. It would be a siege against prophecy place in a public church service. It would not attack prophecy itself. It would not attack the content of prophecy either. Prophecy under this assault would be intended for private audiences only and meant for a select few. It would only have a few "extraordinary" exceptions. A common puritan reasoning is found in Jonathan Edwards argument against the importance of extraordinary gifts. (The most prominent being prophecy/visions not tongues in Jonathan Edwards' time.)
The ordinary sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God, are the end of all extraordinary gifts, as the apostle shows, Eph iv. 11,12,13 . . . God communicates his Spirit only in that more excellent way of which the apostle speaks, viz. charity or divine love . . . The apostle speaks of these gifts of inspiration as childish things, in comparison of the influence of the Spirit in divine love.
When the church is in an adult state, Edwards then claims, the church has no need the gifts. He plainly says —
Therefore, I do not expect a restoration of these miraculous gifts in the approaching glorious times of the church, nor do I desire it . . . I had rather enjoy the sweet influences of the Spirit, showing Christ’s spiritual divine beauty, infinite grace, and dying love, drawing forth the holy exercises of faith, divine love, sweet complacence, and humble joy in God, one quarter of an hour, than to have prophetical visions and revelations the whole year (II:275).
One must remember Jonathan Edwards eschatology. He was postmillenial. He thought the church would progressively grow until everything was subject to Christ. With this view of the gifts and the end times, the gifts like prophecy were not desirable but rather a prop until the church was mature. He wished that the end times church would be spiritually mature and by this reasoning he rejects gifts. This is akin to the "liquid food is not needed if one has solid food argument." The fault of this analogy is that 'liquid foods' remain beneficial in smaller portions with solid food. This does not mean they can fulfill the same roll of solid food. The contrast here is to say that we acknowledge the lesser importance of these things and hold fast to that which has a greater or first importance. In a like manner, prophecy of lesser importance can complement the ordinary means of scripture of greater importance. [Remember that Real prophecy is always informed by scripture. It is not scripture informed by prophecy. This certainly means that there can be now interchanging of the two.] Scripture is a primary means. Prophecy must play second fiddle to it.
Edwards even suggests himself that the ends of the gifts are the ordinary sanctifying influences. This is a just fancy word for the normal influences and power of the gospel to sanctify/change a life here on earth toward holiness. To conclude that the prophetic gifts are not needed is, in some cases, almost as if saying that the normal influences God brings to bear in sanctification and conviction are just as worthless as the prophecy that brought them. Edwards was generally carefuly to judge a tree by its fruits in this respect. Now, I cannot look into the providence of God in providing prophecy but it is certainly to his glory. It is certainly not without an effect specifically tailored to its effect.
Now, I feel as if i need to address the purpose of prophecy. In some applications, extraordinary means are beneficial beyond ordinary means. This is because ordinary means cannot reach such a person is lacking them. Many cases the lack of ordinary means is due to the extreme sinfulness of man. He actively supress the truth with unrighteousness. God could bring ordinary means back into someones life but he choose to but this does not show his sovereignty through grace. We can certainly say that this is right for God to do such from time to time.
They have their end and purpose in God. These prophetic gifts highlight and glorify God's providential hand. To learn knowledge from a source without a natural cause, must be seen as the exercise of supreme omnipotence and sovereignty by an active God. It certainly could be found from the bible but the mere fact that it wasn't speaks as much as the message. It is but a reminder that our God dwells among men. It is a reminder that he is not very far away. It is a reminder that he is a good shepherd keeping all of his sheep.
Next, the description of sweet influences of the spirit is close to what we would call today "being filled with the spirit". Jonathan placed this and holiness above the gifts altogether. Furthermore, he also placed these two things as existing outside of the gifts altogether. He would not say they complemented each other in any degree. It is true that may not always be related but a Charismatic would counter that spiritual gifts often attend "being filled with the spirit".
Finally, there is one more contrast that must be brought out in the puritan belief of the prophetic gifts. They held a sharp contrast between what they thought was extraordinary and the ordinary. I cannot reach this injunction without prejudice against the puritans. Extraordinary things are done by God all the time. God regenerates, convicts ones affections, governs all things for good of believers, works in us, and even wills within us. He is entirely separate.
The thing to remember is that the normal means are ordained by God to serve as the primary means of grace. In addition, anything that is an ordinary means is there because God first ordained so. Now because God ordained something, it does not mean that he ordained other things on a particular basis. God occationally uses a secondary means like prophecy to bestow grace.
With this said, I would never consider communication from God in prayer or anything else as an extraordinary thing. I feel the burden is on the cessationists to prove that God is dead. Furthermore, if we saw miracles all day, would we still consider them extraordinary? They are none the less! If we saw statistically random events all the time, would we not want call them ordinary? When they actually are never ordinary, they are the very actions of God.
This carries over into faith. Prophecy breaks any 'ordinary' classification because it cannot fit into a box no matter how much effort is used to shove it in. There are a few things that the puritans are right about when addressing prophecy. The spiritual gift has nothing to do with salvation itself because it speaks nothing of one's trust in Christ. It also has nothing to do with divine love that one is shown from God and is shed abroad in ones heart. Paul agrees in 1 Corinthians 13. (This is the other source of their belief in the irrelevancy.) I have stated early that they are not suplements to faith or divine love. They are merely complements. They cannot replace these things, nor should any one try to replace faith or divine love as being essential.
To apply this "open, but irrelevant" doctrine from the puritans would not be cessationism as we understand it today. The practice of this doctrine would rather be akin to an all-out frontal assault on the use of any prophetic microphone. It would be a siege against prophecy place in a public church service. It would not attack prophecy itself. It would not attack the content of prophecy either. Prophecy under this assault would be intended for private audiences only and meant for a select few. It would only have a few "extraordinary" exceptions. A common puritan reasoning is found in Jonathan Edwards argument against the importance of extraordinary gifts. (The most prominent being prophecy/visions not tongues in Jonathan Edwards' time.)
The ordinary sanctifying influences of the Spirit of God, are the end of all extraordinary gifts, as the apostle shows, Eph iv. 11,12,13 . . . God communicates his Spirit only in that more excellent way of which the apostle speaks, viz. charity or divine love . . . The apostle speaks of these gifts of inspiration as childish things, in comparison of the influence of the Spirit in divine love.
When the church is in an adult state, Edwards then claims, the church has no need the gifts. He plainly says —
Therefore, I do not expect a restoration of these miraculous gifts in the approaching glorious times of the church, nor do I desire it . . . I had rather enjoy the sweet influences of the Spirit, showing Christ’s spiritual divine beauty, infinite grace, and dying love, drawing forth the holy exercises of faith, divine love, sweet complacence, and humble joy in God, one quarter of an hour, than to have prophetical visions and revelations the whole year (II:275).
One must remember Jonathan Edwards eschatology. He was postmillenial. He thought the church would progressively grow until everything was subject to Christ. With this view of the gifts and the end times, the gifts like prophecy were not desirable but rather a prop until the church was mature. He wished that the end times church would be spiritually mature and by this reasoning he rejects gifts. This is akin to the "liquid food is not needed if one has solid food argument." The fault of this analogy is that 'liquid foods' remain beneficial in smaller portions with solid food. This does not mean they can fulfill the same roll of solid food. The contrast here is to say that we acknowledge the lesser importance of these things and hold fast to that which has a greater or first importance. In a like manner, prophecy of lesser importance can complement the ordinary means of scripture of greater importance. [Remember that Real prophecy is always informed by scripture. It is not scripture informed by prophecy. This certainly means that there can be now interchanging of the two.] Scripture is a primary means. Prophecy must play second fiddle to it.
Edwards even suggests himself that the ends of the gifts are the ordinary sanctifying influences. This is a just fancy word for the normal influences and power of the gospel to sanctify/change a life here on earth toward holiness. To conclude that the prophetic gifts are not needed is, in some cases, almost as if saying that the normal influences God brings to bear in sanctification and conviction are just as worthless as the prophecy that brought them. Edwards was generally carefuly to judge a tree by its fruits in this respect. Now, I cannot look into the providence of God in providing prophecy but it is certainly to his glory. It is certainly not without an effect specifically tailored to its effect.
Now, I feel as if i need to address the purpose of prophecy. In some applications, extraordinary means are beneficial beyond ordinary means. This is because ordinary means cannot reach such a person is lacking them. Many cases the lack of ordinary means is due to the extreme sinfulness of man. He actively supress the truth with unrighteousness. God could bring ordinary means back into someones life but he choose to but this does not show his sovereignty through grace. We can certainly say that this is right for God to do such from time to time.
They have their end and purpose in God. These prophetic gifts highlight and glorify God's providential hand. To learn knowledge from a source without a natural cause, must be seen as the exercise of supreme omnipotence and sovereignty by an active God. It certainly could be found from the bible but the mere fact that it wasn't speaks as much as the message. It is but a reminder that our God dwells among men. It is a reminder that he is not very far away. It is a reminder that he is a good shepherd keeping all of his sheep.
Next, the description of sweet influences of the spirit is close to what we would call today "being filled with the spirit". Jonathan placed this and holiness above the gifts altogether. Furthermore, he also placed these two things as existing outside of the gifts altogether. He would not say they complemented each other in any degree. It is true that may not always be related but a Charismatic would counter that spiritual gifts often attend "being filled with the spirit".
Finally, there is one more contrast that must be brought out in the puritan belief of the prophetic gifts. They held a sharp contrast between what they thought was extraordinary and the ordinary. I cannot reach this injunction without prejudice against the puritans. Extraordinary things are done by God all the time. God regenerates, convicts ones affections, governs all things for good of believers, works in us, and even wills within us. He is entirely separate.
The thing to remember is that the normal means are ordained by God to serve as the primary means of grace. In addition, anything that is an ordinary means is there because God first ordained so. Now because God ordained something, it does not mean that he ordained other things on a particular basis. God occationally uses a secondary means like prophecy to bestow grace.
With this said, I would never consider communication from God in prayer or anything else as an extraordinary thing. I feel the burden is on the cessationists to prove that God is dead. Furthermore, if we saw miracles all day, would we still consider them extraordinary? They are none the less! If we saw statistically random events all the time, would we not want call them ordinary? When they actually are never ordinary, they are the very actions of God.
This carries over into faith. Prophecy breaks any 'ordinary' classification because it cannot fit into a box no matter how much effort is used to shove it in. There are a few things that the puritans are right about when addressing prophecy. The spiritual gift has nothing to do with salvation itself because it speaks nothing of one's trust in Christ. It also has nothing to do with divine love that one is shown from God and is shed abroad in ones heart. Paul agrees in 1 Corinthians 13. (This is the other source of their belief in the irrelevancy.) I have stated early that they are not suplements to faith or divine love. They are merely complements. They cannot replace these things, nor should any one try to replace faith or divine love as being essential.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
The Confession's Charismatic Confession, part 2
Lets return to the broader picture again. Puritanism was the standard of religion. It should also be mentioned that the puritans were well aquainted with Prophetic visions. They could have addressed such visions head on to support cessationism but they did not. One asks why? These visions were a known means of introducting special revelation/heresy among the Quakers. Quakers openly practiced falsehoods because of them. Why is it that they instead addressed special revelation in revealing God's will for his people over a direct cause of (false in the Quaker's case) prophetic visions? Furthermore, this is to say that they only addressed 'new' special revelation. They do not address 'old' special revelation.
Without going much further down a rabbit hole, if special revelation is not new then it is hardly fit to be called a revelation at all. The revelation of opening and understanding one's Bible contrasted against the revelation of new doctrine is entirely distinct. This distinction is entirely able to be carried over into dealing with prophecy.
Revelation in this sense is not a revealing of doctrine but rather bringing old, eternal, and appropriate doctrine to the minds of a particular group. It is from this understanding that we should claim prophecy as being illumination apart from the means of reading the written text of the Bible. The very arguments of a closed cannon and special revelation among cessationists begin to vanish.
Now this distinction in no way signifies that prophecy is beyond or above the Bible. It rather positions prophecy below. The 'revelation' (hardly)/ prophecy that is disclosed is an old doctrine. It is singular and in no way the complete revelation of the Bible. In addition. Its partialness means that it is contained within something complete. We can say with certainty that all the old, eternal, and appropriate doctrines expressed in true prophecy are found in the Bible. All Prophecy must be below the Bible for its suffiecency/completeness deems it to be so. Prophecy must merely be content in revealing a small subset of old but eternal truths. Now checking this subset against the Bible is reasonable and valid of a test for evaluating prophecy arising from this.
One may counter this approach to prophecy by saying that the application of a prophectic word is a new revelation. This is to say that the new part is the application of the doctrine for an intended group. This is cannot be fitted into 'new' revelation either because the doctrine of the prophecy with its counterpart found in the Bible has benefits for all. For all scripture god-breathed and is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and teaching. We agree that the very same truth of scripture applies to all. The biblical truth in prophecy applies to all as well. The distinction is that it is meant to be impressed upon a few.
This aim differs very little from the other actions of grace. Illumination likewise impresses truth upon a few, not all. The gospel impresses the truth upon many, but not all. The very intent of any special grace is always particular. This aim cannot be said to be new. It is within the special providence of God to dole out His grace, unmerited favor, as he wishes.
You may see hints of a Charismatic theology taking root. It seems that Puritans intentionally left exceptions to prophecy while excluding is as a potential source of heresy.
See part 3 for this to be worked out further with respect to showing it in the confessions. It shall prove the exceptions clearly.
Without going much further down a rabbit hole, if special revelation is not new then it is hardly fit to be called a revelation at all. The revelation of opening and understanding one's Bible contrasted against the revelation of new doctrine is entirely distinct. This distinction is entirely able to be carried over into dealing with prophecy.
Revelation in this sense is not a revealing of doctrine but rather bringing old, eternal, and appropriate doctrine to the minds of a particular group. It is from this understanding that we should claim prophecy as being illumination apart from the means of reading the written text of the Bible. The very arguments of a closed cannon and special revelation among cessationists begin to vanish.
Now this distinction in no way signifies that prophecy is beyond or above the Bible. It rather positions prophecy below. The 'revelation' (hardly)/ prophecy that is disclosed is an old doctrine. It is singular and in no way the complete revelation of the Bible. In addition. Its partialness means that it is contained within something complete. We can say with certainty that all the old, eternal, and appropriate doctrines expressed in true prophecy are found in the Bible. All Prophecy must be below the Bible for its suffiecency/completeness deems it to be so. Prophecy must merely be content in revealing a small subset of old but eternal truths. Now checking this subset against the Bible is reasonable and valid of a test for evaluating prophecy arising from this.
One may counter this approach to prophecy by saying that the application of a prophectic word is a new revelation. This is to say that the new part is the application of the doctrine for an intended group. This is cannot be fitted into 'new' revelation either because the doctrine of the prophecy with its counterpart found in the Bible has benefits for all. For all scripture god-breathed and is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and teaching. We agree that the very same truth of scripture applies to all. The biblical truth in prophecy applies to all as well. The distinction is that it is meant to be impressed upon a few.
This aim differs very little from the other actions of grace. Illumination likewise impresses truth upon a few, not all. The gospel impresses the truth upon many, but not all. The very intent of any special grace is always particular. This aim cannot be said to be new. It is within the special providence of God to dole out His grace, unmerited favor, as he wishes.
You may see hints of a Charismatic theology taking root. It seems that Puritans intentionally left exceptions to prophecy while excluding is as a potential source of heresy.
See part 3 for this to be worked out further with respect to showing it in the confessions. It shall prove the exceptions clearly.
Monday, October 30, 2006
The Confession's Charismatic Confession part 1
The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689..
This is a link to the Baptist confession of 1689. It is also a good educational tool. Feel free to read it. It is doctrinally sound. There are many equivalent passages that are taken directly from the Westminister confessional. (The sectons in the BCL are strictly plagerized everywhere but in a few places.)
When I read through it, I noted two things very carefully in the first section.
If we take this as a microcosm of Puritan belief. [These sections read identical in the Westminister Confessional.] It seems that this declaration affirms cessationism. This is hardly the case. Some may have embraced cessationism but this was not the order of business for all the signers back then.
I.1"Therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in divers manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterward for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan, and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the Holy Scriptures to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."
I.6"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word;"
For the small group of puritans known as baptists at the time to take up cessationism would be very odd. The churches that signed this confession did not believe this as I shall show. It would be odd because many baptists like Bunyan accepted spiritual gifts like prophecy. Bunyans autobiography makes it blatantly clear! Bunyan would have certainly been the most memorable baptist to date. Many of the earliest baptists were somewhat Charismatic. This is a throw back to their fading Anabaptist roots. Furthermore, Later baptists like Spurgeon did not go out of their way to deny that these things happened. Spurgeon even had instances of calling people out based on a prophetic revelation. He did not attribute them to the devil like some of his age. Although it was not a common practice as we understand it. Most occurances were behind the scenes. It may not have been a common practice solely because the puritans sought the greater spiritual gifts first. Conversion and piety. There was little room for seeking anything else. They sought the ordinary means that were far surpassing the extraordinary gifts. There is certainly something amiss here to allow cessationism a foothold. The puritans were not close to believeing it.
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Postmodern churches
The problem I see with postmodern churches is their readiness to develop new means. They do not hold tight to any previous means or previous belief. They are more open. They are also more skeptical. This is good if the previous things were in error. It is bad if they were correct and biblical or have no substitutes for the true doctrine that they are forgetting. Traditionalism says that certain (older/timeless) means and beliefs are in fact better than new means or beliefs that are not approved by God. Postmoderns may live the way God has called them to but they would do better to live it by truth not just spirit. A believer WILL worship God in both these things. God aught to be glorified in everything and clearly some means are not as glorious.
This argument against postmodernism is a strikingly similar frame as the argument between the Lutheran and Calvinists. The difference in the Protestants is that they opted for less Tradition so the Bible could become the rule of faith. It was so that what was unnecessary was not the main attraction. It differs because Postmoderns opt for no Tradition,(even biblical traditions) but by nature of the uncertainty of postmodernism they have no rule of faith to supercede it. Not evil the Bible anymore.
This similarity fits with idea of postmodernism because Protestants sought a different set of witnesses, or chosen associates, other than just catholic tradition. Namely, the Bible, at the top of those witnesses. Protestants wished to move sideways. Postmoderns have no where to go but downwards since they do not claim any existing rule of faith like Protestants do. There is no new Bible that they can hold as truly inspired. They say it is only about relationship to Jesus Christ. The problem, which Christ? Unfortunately, faith is now only subjective. This new rule of faith will always fall back onto natural (subjective) desires. The progress is also hindered in such a community because uncertainty of truth in any degree is the antithesis of a trusting belief in a truth, faith itself.
First In the "man-centered" world, the exercise of faith is superceded by ineffective excess to do that which seems good (ie entertaining to man) but this is in a medium that is low in content. It has too little words for a too little gospel.
Next, In the "community-centered" postmodern world, the exercise of faith will make some progress together, but not beyond that of the community. When assimilated into that group, there is less novelty in complete skepticism but there is still the equal uncertainty. I venture to say that many of the better Postmodern churches intuitively stress community since they recognize that it is binding on a true Christian. It aught to be truth that binds them. Non-Christians can have such fellowships without meaning. They are called knitting circles. In the "culture-centered" world, the (emerging church) EC creates their own subculture. It is similar to the community centered idea. It links postmodernism to house churches since they both act as a subculture which rethinks everything they do especially the means.
Now lets get into something that the EC needs to pick up, some Confessionalism. They need a belief and doctine. Anything that spreads and propagates without a purpose is a virus. The idea of confessionalism vs evangelical vs liberal is strange thing that has arisen. Some people place confessionalism into its own camp of Christians. I disagree, Confessionalism has benefits in evangelical circles. (Liberal circles are too far gone to mention anything about their confessions. They deal little with faith and too much with social action.) Confessionals are best considered to be premodern balance put in place by churches to fight postmodernism and liberalism. It places a testimony of the beliefs of their shared faith into a believer's hands. I see it as more of a method that would help fight decay than a separate camp. Bible illiteracy is at a all-time-high. At least in a confession, besides the Bible, you know that it is also heavy in content and truth. (Yet not inerrant). Perhaps this is putting too much in the hands of fallible christian men, but at least I trust them more than the Devil's. There are plenty of churches that have not moved despite a lack of a confession. A church should know exactly where to look to refute errors. A confession can be a reference.
The SBC seems to be doing a little better with their recent stress on the BMF and particularly biblical inerrancy at the seminaries. It is still nowhere near a true confessional for them. Some confessionalism is suited for dealing with postmodernist decay. The church's claim can stand solid before any skepticism by a postmodern. The problem with postmodernism is that everything is equally uncertain. With no adversary in writing, anything can be subjective and made to succumb to postmodernism.
The truth proclaimed in writing is also a very good tool to educate. Their is plenty of importance for this even if the confession is not considered binding. The church I attend is nonconfessional but strong in its beliefs with its polity and theology in order. In this they might get some benefit from the 1689 London confession by the Baptists because it is more condensed. They have drawn up documents that complement what is out there but they could do with some more. Part of the Westminister confessional/catechism with scripture references could fill such a gap. I should inqure about this in the Children's ministry.
In additon, A postmodern would need a little more earnestness. It has many implications to postmodernism. I tend to agree with Spurgeon on the necessity of earnestness in a preacher. You can't preach truth to a postmodern if you don't earnestly believe it to be true. You must be so earnest that they know that you do believe it is. You can't preach well if you don't earnestly feel for them, especially in their situation of boundage in sin. Nor can you preach well if you will not go as far as to plead for them to be reconcilled with God. Counterfeits are spotted. There needs to be some more plain speaking in churches today. Less oratory more conviction. This would do the most to impress truth upon people.
Let a preacher when he says that God became man say it with the full conviction as he would have with seeing Jesus himself. Let a preacher when he says Jesus died to save sinners say it with the full force of the angelic hosts. Let a preacher when he says that God poured out his wrath on our sins say it as if it happened yesterday. Let a peacher when he says that God's arm is not so short that it cannot save mean that for even the most vile sinner, even a mass murder!!! Was not the great Apostle Paul such. The wonderful deeds and doings of God cannot be forgotten in Evangelism. Yes, the glory and the power of God himself must be envoked. It cannot be something that is left to mold on rye toast. It cannot be something that is rejected just because it is but another shade of the rainbow of religion.
This argument against postmodernism is a strikingly similar frame as the argument between the Lutheran and Calvinists. The difference in the Protestants is that they opted for less Tradition so the Bible could become the rule of faith. It was so that what was unnecessary was not the main attraction. It differs because Postmoderns opt for no Tradition,(even biblical traditions) but by nature of the uncertainty of postmodernism they have no rule of faith to supercede it. Not evil the Bible anymore.
This similarity fits with idea of postmodernism because Protestants sought a different set of witnesses, or chosen associates, other than just catholic tradition. Namely, the Bible, at the top of those witnesses. Protestants wished to move sideways. Postmoderns have no where to go but downwards since they do not claim any existing rule of faith like Protestants do. There is no new Bible that they can hold as truly inspired. They say it is only about relationship to Jesus Christ. The problem, which Christ? Unfortunately, faith is now only subjective. This new rule of faith will always fall back onto natural (subjective) desires. The progress is also hindered in such a community because uncertainty of truth in any degree is the antithesis of a trusting belief in a truth, faith itself.
First In the "man-centered" world, the exercise of faith is superceded by ineffective excess to do that which seems good (ie entertaining to man) but this is in a medium that is low in content. It has too little words for a too little gospel.
Next, In the "community-centered" postmodern world, the exercise of faith will make some progress together, but not beyond that of the community. When assimilated into that group, there is less novelty in complete skepticism but there is still the equal uncertainty. I venture to say that many of the better Postmodern churches intuitively stress community since they recognize that it is binding on a true Christian. It aught to be truth that binds them. Non-Christians can have such fellowships without meaning. They are called knitting circles. In the "culture-centered" world, the (emerging church) EC creates their own subculture. It is similar to the community centered idea. It links postmodernism to house churches since they both act as a subculture which rethinks everything they do especially the means.
Now lets get into something that the EC needs to pick up, some Confessionalism. They need a belief and doctine. Anything that spreads and propagates without a purpose is a virus. The idea of confessionalism vs evangelical vs liberal is strange thing that has arisen. Some people place confessionalism into its own camp of Christians. I disagree, Confessionalism has benefits in evangelical circles. (Liberal circles are too far gone to mention anything about their confessions. They deal little with faith and too much with social action.) Confessionals are best considered to be premodern balance put in place by churches to fight postmodernism and liberalism. It places a testimony of the beliefs of their shared faith into a believer's hands. I see it as more of a method that would help fight decay than a separate camp. Bible illiteracy is at a all-time-high. At least in a confession, besides the Bible, you know that it is also heavy in content and truth. (Yet not inerrant). Perhaps this is putting too much in the hands of fallible christian men, but at least I trust them more than the Devil's. There are plenty of churches that have not moved despite a lack of a confession. A church should know exactly where to look to refute errors. A confession can be a reference.
The SBC seems to be doing a little better with their recent stress on the BMF and particularly biblical inerrancy at the seminaries. It is still nowhere near a true confessional for them. Some confessionalism is suited for dealing with postmodernist decay. The church's claim can stand solid before any skepticism by a postmodern. The problem with postmodernism is that everything is equally uncertain. With no adversary in writing, anything can be subjective and made to succumb to postmodernism.
The truth proclaimed in writing is also a very good tool to educate. Their is plenty of importance for this even if the confession is not considered binding. The church I attend is nonconfessional but strong in its beliefs with its polity and theology in order. In this they might get some benefit from the 1689 London confession by the Baptists because it is more condensed. They have drawn up documents that complement what is out there but they could do with some more. Part of the Westminister confessional/catechism with scripture references could fill such a gap. I should inqure about this in the Children's ministry.
In additon, A postmodern would need a little more earnestness. It has many implications to postmodernism. I tend to agree with Spurgeon on the necessity of earnestness in a preacher. You can't preach truth to a postmodern if you don't earnestly believe it to be true. You must be so earnest that they know that you do believe it is. You can't preach well if you don't earnestly feel for them, especially in their situation of boundage in sin. Nor can you preach well if you will not go as far as to plead for them to be reconcilled with God. Counterfeits are spotted. There needs to be some more plain speaking in churches today. Less oratory more conviction. This would do the most to impress truth upon people.
Let a preacher when he says that God became man say it with the full conviction as he would have with seeing Jesus himself. Let a preacher when he says Jesus died to save sinners say it with the full force of the angelic hosts. Let a preacher when he says that God poured out his wrath on our sins say it as if it happened yesterday. Let a peacher when he says that God's arm is not so short that it cannot save mean that for even the most vile sinner, even a mass murder!!! Was not the great Apostle Paul such. The wonderful deeds and doings of God cannot be forgotten in Evangelism. Yes, the glory and the power of God himself must be envoked. It cannot be something that is left to mold on rye toast. It cannot be something that is rejected just because it is but another shade of the rainbow of religion.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
part 2 catholicism
Read Romans 5,6,7 they are primarly the focus of this topic.
Sin is that it is used to represent both the acts and the state of rebellion itself toward God.
This distinction is brought over toward its anti-type. It shows the same confusion. Obediance is both: of the acts (faithfulness) and of the state of trust and loyalty (faith).
The protestant idea of saving faith says that the faithfulness comes from the former (faith). In the same way the act of sin comes from reign of rebellion. It isn't a strectch from scripture. It is right there. This is the causal difference. This supports the statements of sin before the flood as well as about federal headship. This is how also how all die through one sin, and many are made righteous through one act of one man. The passage primarily deals with rebellion/power of sin in Romans 5. And most of Romans 6 does too.
Romans 7 deals almost solely with the acts of sin or things done "in sin". This is a subtle distiction from sin itself since rebellion most assuringly leads to the action in due time. They are both aptly called "sin". Romans 7 shows a constrast because there are two things at work in the members of the body. The spirit and the flesh. It also does not negate Romans six about being slaves of righteousness since it makes a distinction between inner and outer body. The protestant understanding of faith and faithfulness applies.
This means that the state of faith is before and contributing to faithfulness. This state of faith is suffiecent to save since it is the cause of the other. Saved by faith alone, not faith plus faithfulness (which is evaluated with acts done over time). This is why faith is the instrumental cause not faithfulness too. This is shown in how Abraham was accounted righteous before he was circumcised.
Yet, faith is more than assensus. It is shown true (and faithful) when it is of the "saving" variety. With this variety, God is effectual in bringing about faithfulness. Faith is the source, faithfulness the result.
This is because of God's faithfulness, not man's own. It is based upon the promises of new covenant life put forth in scripture. These promises are all based upon trust and faith, not on our faithfulness. It is apart from any law.
Lets look at Romans 3:3. The faithlessness of the jews does not nullify the faithfulness of God. Then, 2 Timothy 2:13. It is clearly not a question of man's faithfulness in these promises. It is a question of God's faithfulness. This does not reject any need for holiness or sanctification. (which consists primarily of faithfulness) It is not at all denying that God WILL in due time work and will that "faithfulness" into a person who is saved by faith alone through grace alone.
Sin is that it is used to represent both the acts and the state of rebellion itself toward God.
This distinction is brought over toward its anti-type. It shows the same confusion. Obediance is both: of the acts (faithfulness) and of the state of trust and loyalty (faith).
The protestant idea of saving faith says that the faithfulness comes from the former (faith). In the same way the act of sin comes from reign of rebellion. It isn't a strectch from scripture. It is right there. This is the causal difference. This supports the statements of sin before the flood as well as about federal headship. This is how also how all die through one sin, and many are made righteous through one act of one man. The passage primarily deals with rebellion/power of sin in Romans 5. And most of Romans 6 does too.
Romans 7 deals almost solely with the acts of sin or things done "in sin". This is a subtle distiction from sin itself since rebellion most assuringly leads to the action in due time. They are both aptly called "sin". Romans 7 shows a constrast because there are two things at work in the members of the body. The spirit and the flesh. It also does not negate Romans six about being slaves of righteousness since it makes a distinction between inner and outer body. The protestant understanding of faith and faithfulness applies.
This means that the state of faith is before and contributing to faithfulness. This state of faith is suffiecent to save since it is the cause of the other. Saved by faith alone, not faith plus faithfulness (which is evaluated with acts done over time). This is why faith is the instrumental cause not faithfulness too. This is shown in how Abraham was accounted righteous before he was circumcised.
Yet, faith is more than assensus. It is shown true (and faithful) when it is of the "saving" variety. With this variety, God is effectual in bringing about faithfulness. Faith is the source, faithfulness the result.
This is because of God's faithfulness, not man's own. It is based upon the promises of new covenant life put forth in scripture. These promises are all based upon trust and faith, not on our faithfulness. It is apart from any law.
Lets look at Romans 3:3. The faithlessness of the jews does not nullify the faithfulness of God. Then, 2 Timothy 2:13. It is clearly not a question of man's faithfulness in these promises. It is a question of God's faithfulness. This does not reject any need for holiness or sanctification. (which consists primarily of faithfulness) It is not at all denying that God WILL in due time work and will that "faithfulness" into a person who is saved by faith alone through grace alone.
Saturday, April 8, 2006
My Catholicism
We shall leave any caricatures at the door. There are some things that I am more Augustinian than most of the reformed, but I am definitely not Lutheran.
Martin Luther had an issue with the relation of traditional (catholic) views of grace with his own. He formed the argument narrowly to exclude established catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine has things that are considered unbiblical but it would be easier to place the burden upon them by their own beliefs. I say this because I believe in infused grace to a certain extent. A saving faith will show itself by this infusion of grace which works.
I also believe that any grace given is a real grace. My theology would be accurately described as infused grace itself is result of the actions from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit interacts with one's intermost being. This itself is the real grace from God, bought by the blood of christ.
Infused grace by this definition is potentially grace in the sense that it is the means in which God is pleased to use to bring real grace to bare. It is also real grace only in the sense that it was bought and undeserved as well. God wills and works when he sanctifies. He will also effectively do it. It is not fictitious, it is not potential alone, for it is real alone. There is no cooperation in the Catholic or Lutheran sense either for me. I believe that any distinction between the indwelling of the spirit and with Catholicism's infused (potential) grace is false. This breakdown is only a way to give a step for man for an action. Man cannot contribute or he is liable to be taking God's glory. God is more pleased to work through a person than just by them. God shall not share his glory with another. From first to last, it is all of grace, or what is left is all of heresy.
Infused grace (catholic sense) rather than relying upon God, the spirit, says that God has acted, so you must now act. This is rarely seen as the biblical version of God acting through a person. There is no shift between the phases. God who began a good work will surely bring it to completion. Including the good work of sanctification. God acts in it all. It is this kind of instrumentality which is biblical. Infused grace is not this model. In contrast real grace is direct and can be accounted. Any indirect grace with man's required help only serves to place a barrier to this biblical instrumentality. God with the catholic's infused grace does not use his chosen instruments to achieve, rather it relies some other merit or work brought by a person or saint. God merely stands to the side in the glorious acts of holiness and goodness that go on in the church . God is robbed of his glory for working his actions through man. God no longer has done it with his own hand. He has also not contributed anything significant to show if it be not real. This is inconsistent with revealed revelation of scripture. God delights in using men for his goals but not without himself being intimitely involved.
Next, Lets discuss the state of grace in people and what it means to be full of grace. It is infused grace to its fullest, with sanctifying actions of the Spirit to show. It is constantly active faith without the withdrawal into a dry but minimal existence. Sanctifying grace is shed abroad in out hearts for God's glory. Yet, this quantity of the Spirit is still Infused grace with many real actions toward godliness being actual grace. These real actions are nothing less than God's work through us. The Virgin Mary by this definition is in fact very godly. She should be seen as among the holiest and most chaste of women. Blessed indeed. It does not however require a crazy idea of immaculate conception for Mary. It requires only her conversion by the Grace of God and God's continual worked actions in her. It only requires God's continual unmerited favor. This in and of itself is because of god's eternal dealings with man.
The main difference from real and infused grace must therefore lie in the fact that God also cannot be glorified for doing nothing alone. Nothing can't be bought by the blood of Christ. Grace is entirely real and effectual or it lives an imaginary life. Grace cannot have any result but praise and glory by unmerited favor for God himself. Grace cannot have any source for merit if God's work in it is not the only commendable merit in it.
Let me go Eastern Orthodox on you for a sec. Their definition is that grace is God's uncreated energies. This would fit with infused grace to a degree. If this definition were allowed for grace, it fits closely to the issue with infused grace. Yet, I reject that grace is potential alone. This is in error because it has no notion of God acting. God is passive. Man is passive. Like the rays of the sun striking something. The sun doesn't cause the event (knowingly). This analogy at least recognizes the object doesn't really cause the event either. The object can only alter its position to be in its path. This is not the instrumentality of God with which he compels men effectively in a way that is not against their will.
I would disagree and say that grace is rather God's newly created energies/mercies in people by unmerited favor. Granted by the indwelt Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of grace. It is not uncreated but rather fully created energies which actively stream from God and passive fall on man. It is not passive passive or passive active. Man cannot even receive a thing unless it is given to him from above.
Now that I have laid the ground work you will see that the reformation of grace in Protestantism is not necessarily at odds with Catholic Teachings or traditions any more than Catholics are at odds with themselves. It is not the matter of terms but the meaning behind the terms. It is also a matter of giving God the glory of which he is due. It is not tacking on the idea that He is beside or behind us in an action of ours but rather it is his action to begin with in which he is sovereign.
Next, I shall fight for fides formata shortly. Faith formed by love. I shall again side with the Catholics to an extent. This doctrine actually is less of an issue because regeneration could be said to plant a forensic love into someone's heart absolving the issue completely. We love because he first loved us. The heart is no longer cold stone but alive to God. If the seed was planted already, real faith is inevitable. The heart is able to love God but not by its own tries but only by the power of God in response. The question is from what and why does love spring forth?
I know not with any certainty about the above reasoning. It is of natural theolgy. But I believe God has his hand in creating love. It is also a matter of covenantal trust and faith in the promises of Jeremiah 32. This means Faith, trust, and grace must precede for this reason as starting points for love.
I am merely concerned with the beginning of faith, regeneration and new hearts. I see that love is a result caused by true faith and the holy spirit when i read my bible. (It is in fact one of the fruits of the spirit.) Now if you look at the two sides. I seldom see that trusting obedience is made by just good acts of love. Yet I do see good acts of love are made by trusting obediece. Faith alone is the cause but that does not mean the faith is alone. Now who can fault a well if it is drilled and ready to be pumped for little of water output. It is thus with men who have faith yet have not practiced love as much as they aught. As long as it is increasing I cannot find fault. Yet if it is constant, I cannot comment either way. God himself and the motives themselves will have to.
Next, if a good work is to be of any value it will be done in love. Now lets consider love. Catholics have define narrowly love as just doing good works in sanctification. I tell you that Love has many forms. Concern for God's Holiness, Concern for God's Glory, Concern for proclaiming a savior, Concern for truth in God, Concern for God himself. These all promote actions but they first spring from benign forms of love. Saving Faith has no issues with a faith that has these. These lesser forms of love make themself know in acts but one cannot say that the acts are required when it is the source that is required.
A faithless man is not even compelled by God hismelf to be concerned with love anyway. If he is, I venture to say it is for the wrong motives (selfish ones). The reason I still fight what has been turned into an infernal doctrine is that Reciprical Love is a proposed mechanism for the working of irresistible grace at conversion. We are drawn by cords of love. Faith can be formed by love in this sense. It is not our love but God's being worked out in us. We love because he first loved us.
This should not be forgotten either when talking of fides formata. The substance behind fides formata has changed once again. It is no longer protestant terms and catholic terms but rather the things of what constitutes real conversion and how/if it is acheived through love. It is no longer works needed but faith needed first and foremost.
Finally, since fides formata was brought up. I have succeded in making faith a nebuluous concepted. This is because I have included ideas like regeneration and saving faith. I have also run into an issue of broadening its definition. I shall tie of the loose ends by saying I agree with Luther (and the Greeks) that faith is primarily trusting. It is by this trusting that the promises of God are accessible to the redeemed.
This establishes faith, not the love, for salvation. Love is responsive not causal. It is to be done in faith. How can one be drawn by love if the act of love is not trusted? How can one love God without believing that he first loved us. If we do not believe it? Who will. How can faith even with love hold to any anchor if there is no steadfast trusting and the graces of a new birth first. Trusting God and the promises of his Word are the only anchors. Faith must consist of these first and foremost. We do not trust a decision. We do not trust our works. We do not trust our lives. We do not trust of ourselves or the church's goodness for holiness. We trust God's decision. We trust Christs work's. We trust Christ's life. We trust in the Holy spirit's, the spirit of grace, goodness for holiness. In God we trust. (In everything even our money).
There is no middle step of infused grace to cooperate with since this persepctive has cut off any middle view. Finally to be clear again, there is no grace that is infused but rather a spirit of grace that is infused (or rather indwelt in believers). It is of God from beginning to last. It is all of grace. I diverge with any catholic here beyond reconciliation. I also diverge with anyone promoting a fictictious or potential grace. God is real, so is his actions, so is his unmerited grace. Grace is not in the power and ability to do God's will. It is the unmerited favor to actually do God's will. Grace is in fact a part of God's will itself to his glory, bought at the cross by christ. It is unmerited by us, but fully merited by Christ. The actions of Grace are done by working and willing from within us by the Holy spirit alone. The results are aptly called graces too because they are undeserved. So much is undeserved. So much is grace.
The barriers put up on grace only serve to rob God of his glory and Man of his hope of a victorious savior. To offer another grace is to offer another gospel. Man has tried to save himself for ages. He has failed every time. It is really not another gospel for it is not any news at all. To offer another potential grace is to offer something intangible and still bound by sin. To offer real grace is to offer something concrete and unconquerable. Grace is as true and real as the promises from God. In christ everything is yes and amen. See Part 2
Martin Luther had an issue with the relation of traditional (catholic) views of grace with his own. He formed the argument narrowly to exclude established catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine has things that are considered unbiblical but it would be easier to place the burden upon them by their own beliefs. I say this because I believe in infused grace to a certain extent. A saving faith will show itself by this infusion of grace which works.
I also believe that any grace given is a real grace. My theology would be accurately described as infused grace itself is result of the actions from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit interacts with one's intermost being. This itself is the real grace from God, bought by the blood of christ.
Infused grace by this definition is potentially grace in the sense that it is the means in which God is pleased to use to bring real grace to bare. It is also real grace only in the sense that it was bought and undeserved as well. God wills and works when he sanctifies. He will also effectively do it. It is not fictitious, it is not potential alone, for it is real alone. There is no cooperation in the Catholic or Lutheran sense either for me. I believe that any distinction between the indwelling of the spirit and with Catholicism's infused (potential) grace is false. This breakdown is only a way to give a step for man for an action. Man cannot contribute or he is liable to be taking God's glory. God is more pleased to work through a person than just by them. God shall not share his glory with another. From first to last, it is all of grace, or what is left is all of heresy.
Infused grace (catholic sense) rather than relying upon God, the spirit, says that God has acted, so you must now act. This is rarely seen as the biblical version of God acting through a person. There is no shift between the phases. God who began a good work will surely bring it to completion. Including the good work of sanctification. God acts in it all. It is this kind of instrumentality which is biblical. Infused grace is not this model. In contrast real grace is direct and can be accounted. Any indirect grace with man's required help only serves to place a barrier to this biblical instrumentality. God with the catholic's infused grace does not use his chosen instruments to achieve, rather it relies some other merit or work brought by a person or saint. God merely stands to the side in the glorious acts of holiness and goodness that go on in the church . God is robbed of his glory for working his actions through man. God no longer has done it with his own hand. He has also not contributed anything significant to show if it be not real. This is inconsistent with revealed revelation of scripture. God delights in using men for his goals but not without himself being intimitely involved.
Next, Lets discuss the state of grace in people and what it means to be full of grace. It is infused grace to its fullest, with sanctifying actions of the Spirit to show. It is constantly active faith without the withdrawal into a dry but minimal existence. Sanctifying grace is shed abroad in out hearts for God's glory. Yet, this quantity of the Spirit is still Infused grace with many real actions toward godliness being actual grace. These real actions are nothing less than God's work through us. The Virgin Mary by this definition is in fact very godly. She should be seen as among the holiest and most chaste of women. Blessed indeed. It does not however require a crazy idea of immaculate conception for Mary. It requires only her conversion by the Grace of God and God's continual worked actions in her. It only requires God's continual unmerited favor. This in and of itself is because of god's eternal dealings with man.
The main difference from real and infused grace must therefore lie in the fact that God also cannot be glorified for doing nothing alone. Nothing can't be bought by the blood of Christ. Grace is entirely real and effectual or it lives an imaginary life. Grace cannot have any result but praise and glory by unmerited favor for God himself. Grace cannot have any source for merit if God's work in it is not the only commendable merit in it.
Let me go Eastern Orthodox on you for a sec. Their definition is that grace is God's uncreated energies. This would fit with infused grace to a degree. If this definition were allowed for grace, it fits closely to the issue with infused grace. Yet, I reject that grace is potential alone. This is in error because it has no notion of God acting. God is passive. Man is passive. Like the rays of the sun striking something. The sun doesn't cause the event (knowingly). This analogy at least recognizes the object doesn't really cause the event either. The object can only alter its position to be in its path. This is not the instrumentality of God with which he compels men effectively in a way that is not against their will.
I would disagree and say that grace is rather God's newly created energies/mercies in people by unmerited favor. Granted by the indwelt Holy Ghost who is the Spirit of grace. It is not uncreated but rather fully created energies which actively stream from God and passive fall on man. It is not passive passive or passive active. Man cannot even receive a thing unless it is given to him from above.
Now that I have laid the ground work you will see that the reformation of grace in Protestantism is not necessarily at odds with Catholic Teachings or traditions any more than Catholics are at odds with themselves. It is not the matter of terms but the meaning behind the terms. It is also a matter of giving God the glory of which he is due. It is not tacking on the idea that He is beside or behind us in an action of ours but rather it is his action to begin with in which he is sovereign.
Next, I shall fight for fides formata shortly. Faith formed by love. I shall again side with the Catholics to an extent. This doctrine actually is less of an issue because regeneration could be said to plant a forensic love into someone's heart absolving the issue completely. We love because he first loved us. The heart is no longer cold stone but alive to God. If the seed was planted already, real faith is inevitable. The heart is able to love God but not by its own tries but only by the power of God in response. The question is from what and why does love spring forth?
I know not with any certainty about the above reasoning. It is of natural theolgy. But I believe God has his hand in creating love. It is also a matter of covenantal trust and faith in the promises of Jeremiah 32. This means Faith, trust, and grace must precede for this reason as starting points for love.
I am merely concerned with the beginning of faith, regeneration and new hearts. I see that love is a result caused by true faith and the holy spirit when i read my bible. (It is in fact one of the fruits of the spirit.) Now if you look at the two sides. I seldom see that trusting obedience is made by just good acts of love. Yet I do see good acts of love are made by trusting obediece. Faith alone is the cause but that does not mean the faith is alone. Now who can fault a well if it is drilled and ready to be pumped for little of water output. It is thus with men who have faith yet have not practiced love as much as they aught. As long as it is increasing I cannot find fault. Yet if it is constant, I cannot comment either way. God himself and the motives themselves will have to.
Next, if a good work is to be of any value it will be done in love. Now lets consider love. Catholics have define narrowly love as just doing good works in sanctification. I tell you that Love has many forms. Concern for God's Holiness, Concern for God's Glory, Concern for proclaiming a savior, Concern for truth in God, Concern for God himself. These all promote actions but they first spring from benign forms of love. Saving Faith has no issues with a faith that has these. These lesser forms of love make themself know in acts but one cannot say that the acts are required when it is the source that is required.
A faithless man is not even compelled by God hismelf to be concerned with love anyway. If he is, I venture to say it is for the wrong motives (selfish ones). The reason I still fight what has been turned into an infernal doctrine is that Reciprical Love is a proposed mechanism for the working of irresistible grace at conversion. We are drawn by cords of love. Faith can be formed by love in this sense. It is not our love but God's being worked out in us. We love because he first loved us.
This should not be forgotten either when talking of fides formata. The substance behind fides formata has changed once again. It is no longer protestant terms and catholic terms but rather the things of what constitutes real conversion and how/if it is acheived through love. It is no longer works needed but faith needed first and foremost.
Finally, since fides formata was brought up. I have succeded in making faith a nebuluous concepted. This is because I have included ideas like regeneration and saving faith. I have also run into an issue of broadening its definition. I shall tie of the loose ends by saying I agree with Luther (and the Greeks) that faith is primarily trusting. It is by this trusting that the promises of God are accessible to the redeemed.
This establishes faith, not the love, for salvation. Love is responsive not causal. It is to be done in faith. How can one be drawn by love if the act of love is not trusted? How can one love God without believing that he first loved us. If we do not believe it? Who will. How can faith even with love hold to any anchor if there is no steadfast trusting and the graces of a new birth first. Trusting God and the promises of his Word are the only anchors. Faith must consist of these first and foremost. We do not trust a decision. We do not trust our works. We do not trust our lives. We do not trust of ourselves or the church's goodness for holiness. We trust God's decision. We trust Christs work's. We trust Christ's life. We trust in the Holy spirit's, the spirit of grace, goodness for holiness. In God we trust. (In everything even our money).
There is no middle step of infused grace to cooperate with since this persepctive has cut off any middle view. Finally to be clear again, there is no grace that is infused but rather a spirit of grace that is infused (or rather indwelt in believers). It is of God from beginning to last. It is all of grace. I diverge with any catholic here beyond reconciliation. I also diverge with anyone promoting a fictictious or potential grace. God is real, so is his actions, so is his unmerited grace. Grace is not in the power and ability to do God's will. It is the unmerited favor to actually do God's will. Grace is in fact a part of God's will itself to his glory, bought at the cross by christ. It is unmerited by us, but fully merited by Christ. The actions of Grace are done by working and willing from within us by the Holy spirit alone. The results are aptly called graces too because they are undeserved. So much is undeserved. So much is grace.
The barriers put up on grace only serve to rob God of his glory and Man of his hope of a victorious savior. To offer another grace is to offer another gospel. Man has tried to save himself for ages. He has failed every time. It is really not another gospel for it is not any news at all. To offer another potential grace is to offer something intangible and still bound by sin. To offer real grace is to offer something concrete and unconquerable. Grace is as true and real as the promises from God. In christ everything is yes and amen. See Part 2
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)