What is True Piety?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrianBowman

Posting Priviledges Revoked
Friends,

Please help me out here. I'm an ex-Dispie "higher-life" antinomian who has only been seriously in the Reformed Faith as a Presbyterian for 18 months now. I know that the "piety" and "separation from the world" taught in the antinomian lineage of Darby/Scofield/Chafer differs markedly from the piety of the Reformers. Could someone who is so englightened please summarize these differences here? Also, how is the piety of the modern Reformed Baptists different from that of the "higher life" crowd as well as being different from conservative Presbyterians?

For example, I consider myself a reasonably conservative Presbyterian, but I also enjoy very moderate alcohol consumption and occassionally attend musical theater, concerts, etc. (providing the content is reasonably wholesome). I suspect that many of my Baptist Brethren (even of the "Reformed" stripe) would frown on this, at least the drinking part.

Also, to the extent that I understand his theology and morality, I cannot tell much difference between John Piper and my former higher-life associates in the realm of manner of life.

Thoughts on these distinctions? For what it's worth- these questions/concerns came to me while reading the current thread on 'Anabaptists'.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by BrianBowman]
 
Most Reformed Baptist views of sanctification owe much to the Puritans (Particular Baptists came out of English Separatism, as has been noted on another thread), but from my experience they generally would be less tolerant of moderate alcohol consumption, etc, but that's not to say they are monolithic on the issue. Many Reformed Baptists I know have no problem with moderate alcohol consumption but I know few that actually partake!
 
Originally posted by Pilgrim
Most Reformed Baptist views of sanctification owe much to the Puritans (Particular Baptists came out of English Separatism, as has been noted on another thread), but from my experience they generally would be less tolerant of moderate alcohol consumption, etc, but that's not to say they are monolithic on the issue. Many Reformed Baptists I know have no problem with moderate alcohol consumption but I know few that actually partake!
Click to expand...

Thanks Chris!,

BTW - my mention of alcohol consumption is only to cite a well-known behavior that many Christians use as a litmus test for "piety". What I'm really interested in are the finer doctrinal distinctions that account for the different Biblical definitions and standards for piety amoung these various historical Christian groups.

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by BrianBowman]
 
Here is an excellent article "The Disjunction between Justification and Sanctification in Contemporary Evangelical Theology."

http://www.dbts.edu/dbts/journals/2001/Combs.pdf

This article was very helpful in linking the development of the "Carnal Christian" view propounded by Dallas Theological Seminary with Keswick/Higher Life teachings. I was ignorant of this beforehand.

Coming from dispie roots, Brian, I would imagine that you recall the "Lordship Controversy" in the late '80's and early '90's, which was largely an intramural debate among dispensationalists. While Dispensational, MacArthur was basically defending the Reformed view against Ryrie, Hodges & co. It was no accident that The Gospel According to Jesus had forwards by J.I. Packer and James Montgomery Boice. Holiness by J.C. Ryle is also an excellent work on this subject. Although it was published around 1879, Ryle confronts the beginnings of the Higher Life movement and presents the Puritan/Reformed view. This book is available online.
 
I recommend a book by Joel Beeke called Puritan Reformed Spirituality as a good historical and theological overview on this subject.

The Westminster Larger Catechism, the works of Thomas Boston, and other such Puritans are a goldmine for discerning true Biblical piety in contrast with the false piety of men.
 
Brian,

Although it's somewhat rare today, prohibitionism has also been strong within Presbyterianism in the past. The temperance movement of the 19th Century influenced all of society.

When the OPC split from the PCUSA (at that time the Northern Presbyterian church) in 1936, there were essentially two factions that came out. Both were opposed to the liberalism of the Northern church. One was more self consciously Reformed, and had some Dutch influence. The other was more fundamentalist, and advocated the "separated life", political activism, and premillenialism (if not dispensationalism). Examples of the former group included J. Gresham Machen, John Murray, Ned Stonehouse and Cornelius Van Til. Those who were more fundamentalist included Carl McIntire, J. Oliver Buswell, Allan McRae, and a young Francis Schaeffer, who I think may have been a seminary student at the time.

In 1937, shortly after Machen's death, the more fundamentalist faction left to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, which later split a few more times, with one part (the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, which included Schaeffer and Covenant College/Seminary) eventually merging with the PCA in the early 1980's.

The second half this article deals with the OPC/BPC split:

http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=9

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Pilgrim]
 
Originally posted by Pilgrim
Brian,

Although it's somewhat rare today, prohibitionism has also been strong within Presbyterianism in the past. The temperance movement of the 19th Century influenced all of society.

When the OPC split from the PCUSA (at that time the Northern Pres. church) in 1936, there were essentially two factions that came out. Both were opposed to the liberalism of the Northern church. One was more self consciously Reformed, and had some Dutch influence. The other was more fundamentalist, and advocated the "separated life", political activism, and premillenialism (if not dispensationalism). Examples of the former group included J. Gresham Machen, John Murray, Ned Stonehouse and Cornelius Van Til. Those who were more fundamentalist included Carl McIntire, J. Oliver Buswell, Allan McRae, and a young Francis Schaeffer, who I think may have been a seminary student at the time.

In 1937, shortly after Machen's death, the more fundamentalist faction left to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, which later split a few more times, with one part (the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, which included Schaeffer and Covenant College/Seminary) eventually mergingwith the PCA in the early 1980's.

The second half this article deals with the OPC/BPC split:

http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=9
Click to expand...

Well said and concise! The book by Meuther and Hart on the OPC is very good on this topic.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Pilgrim
Brian,

Although it's somewhat rare today, prohibitionism has also been strong within Presbyterianism in the past. The temperance movement of the 19th Century influenced all of society.

When the OPC split from the PCUSA (at that time the Northern Pres. church) in 1936, there were essentially two factions that came out. Both were opposed to the liberalism of the Northern church. One was more self consciously Reformed, and had some Dutch influence. The other was more fundamentalist, and advocated the "separated life", political activism, and premillenialism (if not dispensationalism). Examples of the former group included J. Gresham Machen, John Murray, Ned Stonehouse and Cornelius Van Til. Those who were more fundamentalist included Carl McIntire, J. Oliver Buswell, Allan McRae, and a young Francis Schaeffer, who I think may have been a seminary student at the time.

In 1937, shortly after Machen's death, the more fundamentalist faction left to form the Bible Presbyterian Church, which later split a few more times, with one part (the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod, which included Schaeffer and Covenant College/Seminary) eventually mergingwith the PCA in the early 1980's.

The second half this article deals with the OPC/BPC split:

http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=9
Click to expand...

Well said and concise! The book by Meuther and Hart on the OPC is very good on this topic.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the book but I've read the recent articles by Meuther and Hart in New Horizons which, as Mr. Meuther told us at Pineville a few months ago, will be the basis of a forthcoming book on the history of American Presbyterianism. This issue is also covered well in The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, A Video History, which is now available on DVD.

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Pilgrim]
 
A couple of good passages to keep in mind about true v. false piety wrt things like alcohol are:

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh. Col. 2.18-23
Click to expand...

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man. Matthew 15.1-20
Click to expand...
 
Brian,

What is true piety? I may never know. But coming from a similar background as yourself I would have thought myself apostate had I looked into the future at my Reformed way of life.

My old paradigm of the world was a pie cut in half. Half was God's side and half was Satan's side. Now I see the pie as wholly God's sovereign will.

I don't know if that's helpful, but at least now I am participating in, and enjoying the high points of the culture, not 'opting out' for a separate christian sub-culture complete with the pathetic knock-offs of the originals. :2cents:
 
Originally posted by non dignus
Brian,

What is true piety? I may never know. But coming from a similar background as yourself I would have thought myself apostate had I looked into the future at my Reformed way of life.

My old paradigm of the world was a pie cut in half. Half was God's side and half was Satan's side. Now I see the pie as wholly God's sovereign will.

I don't know if that's helpful, but at least now I am participating in, and enjoying the high points of the culture, not 'opting out' for a separate christian sub-culture complete with the pathetic knock-offs of the originals. :2cents:
Click to expand...

It really is pathetic how lame imitations of the originals, from rock music to romance novels, are concocted to meet the demands of the highly commercialized Christian subculture. Secular companies often play a large part in manufacturing and marketing products for this subculture.
 
Remember my "You might be a Gnostic thread"? One of them was

If you think that you have two men inside you, Mr Carnal and My Spiritual, yo might be a gnostic.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Remember my "You might be a Gnostic thread"? One of them was

If you think that you have two men inside you, Mr Carnal and My Spiritual, yo might be a gnostic.
Click to expand...

That comes straight out of the Scofield Bible, the "old man" and "new man", and I suppose from Keswick/Higher Life, etc. And I recently saw a Calvinistic Baptist woman in a Yahoo group propagating this view of the two natures of the believer. I mention that not to try to smear Baptists, but to say that she probably is from a dispensational background and came to an understanding of the Doctrines of Grace later on. We are products of our experience and many times we are often slow to discard beliefs that we once held inviolable.

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Pilgrim]
 
Mark,

In very general terms, the context I'm speaking of is the Dispensational "Higher-Life" thinking rooted in English Keswick movement (late 19th century) and further codified by Lewis Sperry Chafer (early-to-mid 20th century Dispensational theologian and founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary) and other American Dispensational leaders.

Basically "Higher Life" (HL) teaching is centered in Rom 6:4-5, Eph 2:4-6 and Col 3:1-3. HL focuses much on the believer's "position in Christ" and the necessity of exercising confession of sin and faith so this position will progresively become the believer's experience, leading to a realization of "a higher Christian life". Intrinsic to HL is the dichotomy between the "Carnal Christian" (CC) and the "Spiritual Christian" (SC). This is based on an incorrect interpretation of 1 Cor 2:12-16 (especially verses 14-15) which are summarized in 1 Cor 3:1 regarding attitudes and practices that Paul was observing in the lives of many believers in Corinth.

The "The Little Blue Booklet on the Holy Spirit" put out by Campus Crusade for Christ, is one of the most notable modern representations of basic HL teaching you'll find. You can read it on-line here:

http://www.greatcom.org/spirit/english/


I could write much more on this and I'm certainly willing to in the future as time permits. However, HL has been critiqued by some great Reformed Theologians already.

Here are a couple of good links to learn more it's varied aspects:

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwchafer.htm
http://www.modernreformation.org/mh95summit.htm

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by BrianBowman]
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
I recommend a book by Joel Beeke called Puritan Reformed Spirituality as a good historical and theological overview on this subject.
Click to expand...

Excellent book!
 
Brian,

thanks for the info. I don't have time to read though the links fully now, but i will try to do so. I did look though that CCC tract, and realized i had actually heard about this stuff before. The pictures certainly jogged some memories.

I am a little interested in this carnal/spiritual christian distinction. I can see flaws in the distinction as portrayed in that tract you linked. But it does seem to me that even amongst the regenerated elect there are carnal and spiritual christians, to borrow their terminology.

How else do we account for the vastly different characters of men like Samson and Lot, as compared with Paul and David?

It is true (as one of the articles said which i skimmed though) that all christians are progressing in santification, but the bible does seem to give examples of those who fell short significantly, as compared to others in the faith.
 
Mark,

You're asking some very pertinent and succinct questions. At this point in my "Reformed journey of faith", I have basically the same questions, but not the robust, clear-cut answers formed from a comprehensive Biblical Theology. Perhaps some of the more mature and studied Puritian Board members could comment on the clear distinctions betweens "levels and qualities of sanctification" that all of us see and experience in our Christian lives and those of others. In fact, I don't think it an exaggeration to say that growing in understanding this process of sanctification is one of most profound and at times difficult things for us to grasp.

I also trust that Andrew's recommendation of Joel Beeke's book: Puritan Reformed Spirituality will help unfold the Scriptures on this critical subject. Here's a link to it: http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookid=2387

Here is Chapter 13 from the Westminster Confession of Faith.


Chapter XIII: Of Sanctification

13.1. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ´s death and resurrection,1 by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:2 the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,3 and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;4 and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,5 to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.6

13.2. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;7 yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;8 whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.9

13.3. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;10 yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;11 and so, the saints grow in grace,12 perfecting holiness in the fear of God.13

1 1 Corinthians 6:11; Acts 20:32; Philippians 3:10; Romans 6:5-6

2 John 17:17; Ephesians 5:26; 2 Thessalonians 2:13

3 Romans 6:6, 14

4 Galatians 5:24; Romans 8:13

5 Colossians 1:11; Ephesians 3:16-19

6 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 12:14

7 1 Thessalonians 5:23

8 1 John 1:10; Romans 7:18, 23; Philippians 3:12

9 Galatians 5:17; 1 Peter 2:11

10 Romans 7:23

11 Romans 6:14; 1 John 5:4; Ephesians 4:15-16

12 2 Peter 3:18; 2 Corinthians 3:18

13 2 Corinthians 7:1

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by BrianBowman]
 
Originally posted by Pilgrim
Here is an excellent article "The Disjunction between Justification and Sanctification in Contemporary Evangelical Theology."

http://www.dbts.edu/dbts/journals/2001/Combs.pdf

This article was very helpful in linking the development of the "Carnal Christian" view propounded by Dallas Theological Seminary with Keswick/Higher Life teachings. I was ignorant of this beforehand.
Click to expand...

Thank you Chris. This article is indeed very helpful. I also can see how it illustrates the "femine roots" of the early Pentecostals and indeed the modern Charismatic movements as well. I spent 8 years or so amoung the Pentecostal/Charismatics followed by 9 years in the dispensation sect Greater Grace World Outreach - which is founded upon Chafer and other Higher Life teachers. I have seen first hand the mysticism and highly "feminized" cultures in these movements. It is often women that are looked to as having attained the highest degrees of the "spiritual life". In these movements, many men sadly wind up either being bullies or "panty waists" which in either case is incongruent with Biblical Piety.


Coming from dispie roots, Brian, I would imagine that you recall the "Lordship Controversy" in the late '80's and early '90's, which was largely an intramural debate among dispensationalists. While Dispensational, MacArthur was basically defending the Reformed view against Ryrie, Hodges & co. It was no accident that The Gospel According to Jesus had forwards by J.I. Packer and James Montgomery Boice. Holiness by J.C. Ryle is also an excellent work on this subject. Although it was published around 1879, Ryle confronts the beginnings of the Higher Life movement and presents the Puritan/Reformed view. This book is available online.
Click to expand...

Yes, the so-called "Lordship Salvation" controversy was raging during my involvement in Greater Grace World Outreach (see www.carlstevens.org for more on the huckster, Carl Stevens, who started this outfit). Carl Stevens used to rail at MacArthur on a regular basis and accused Mac of departing from sound doctrine with regard to the eternal security that is the believer's from the point of salvation foward. Carl taught the carnal man/spritual man dichotomy, but he also had an incorrect understanding (Carl is basically a "secure Arminian") of Soteriology because he based salvation upon man's free will to respond to the Gospel prior to regeneration, and not wholly of God's sovereign grace which regenerates as the initial step in the saving act itself.

Carl also himself claimed a "liquid waves of love" experience that basically mirrors the one reported by Finney. This experience, Carl's 1000's of hours of personal study (which included memorizing the New Testment and much of the Old), and the supposed revival that occurred in New England during the 1960's to early 70's under his ministry (then called "The Bible Speaks") are all cited as the foundation for Carl H. Steven's unique authority as a Pastor/Teacher and Christian leader. In reality Carl is a complete antinomian, is ignorant of a great deal of Church History, misrepresents the Historic Evangelical (Reformed) Faith, engaged in multiple acts of adultery/fornication during his tenure as a Pastor, and refused personal accoutability in his Church polity. www.carlstevens.org gives very accurate testimony to his chicanery.

I've read the book by Horton, et al. Christ the Lord, The Reformation and Lordship Salvation. Ryle is on my list to read.

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by BrianBowman]
 
Originally posted by BrianBowman
Mark,

In very general terms, the context I'm speaking of is the Dispensational "Higher-Life" thinking rooted in English Keswick movement (late 19th century) and further codified by Lewis Sperry Chafer (early-to-mid 20th century Dispensational theologian and founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary) and other American Dispensational leaders.

Basically "Higher Life" (HL) teaching is centered in Rom 6:4-5, Eph 2:4-6 and Col 3:1-3. HL focuses much on the believer's "position in Christ" and the necessity of exercising confession of sin and faith so this position will progresively become the believer's experience, leading to a realization of "a higher Christian life". Intrinsic to HL is the dichotomy between the "Carnal Christian" (CC) and the "Spiritual Christian" (SC). This is based on an incorrect interpretation of 1 Cor 2:12-16 (especially verses 14-15) which are summarized in 1 Cor 3:1 regarding attitudes and practices that Paul was observing in the lives of many believers in Corinth.

The "The Little Blue Booklet on the Holy Spirit" put out by Campus Crusade for Christ, is one of the most notable modern representations of basic HL teaching you'll find. You can read it on-line here:

http://www.greatcom.org/spirit/english/


I could write much more on this and I'm certainly willing to in the future as time permits. However, HL has been critiqued by some great Reformed Theologians already.

Here are a couple of good links to learn more it's varied aspects:

http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwchafer.htm
http://www.modernreformation.org/mh95summit.htm

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by BrianBowman]
Click to expand...

Brian,

Thanks for posting these links. I had read Horton's article some time ago, and wasn't aware that Warfield's review of Chafer's He That Is Spiritual was available online.
 
"Pietas is one of the major themes of Calvin's theology. His theolgy is, as John T McNiell says, "his piety described at length." He was determined to confine theology within the limits of piety. In his preface addressed to king Francis I, Calvin says that the purpose of witinh the institutes was "soley to transmt certain rudiments by which those who are touched with any zeal fo religion might be shaped to true godlinees [pietas]."

For Calvin Pietas designates the right attitude of man toward God. It is an attitude that includes true knowledge, heartfelt worship, sabing faith, filial fear, prayerful submission and reverential love. Knowing who and what God is embraces right attitudes toward Hum and doing what He wants.

Calvin's Catechism-"True Piety consists in a sincere feeling which loves God as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending him worse than death."

Institutes-"I Call piety that revence joined with love of God which the knowledge of his benefits induces."

Commentary 1 Tim 4:7-8 "You will do the thing of greatest value if with all your zeal and ability youdevote yourself to godliness alone. Godliness is the beginning middle adn end of Christina living. Where it is complete there is nothing lacking... Thus the conclusion is that we should concentrate exclusively on godliness for when once we have attained to it God requires no more of us."

- Joel Beeke, Overcoming the World
Click to expand...
[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Peter]

[Edited on 1-22-2006 by Peter]
 
Keswick :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

What I (and most Christians of a certain generation) have been taught is the Keswick model of holiness-perfection, popularized by Hannah Whitehall Smith and admired by no less a man than D.L.Moody. This model comes in many flavors from mild to intense, from the Campus Crusade for Christ variety to the radical teachings of Jessie Penn-Lewis or Watchman Nee. It was incorporated into Dispensationalism from that movement´s beginning by C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer, and was later adopted by the Foursquare Church and the Assemblies of God churches as well. This has made it pretty much ubiquitous in mainstream evangelicalism, so much so that many people accept it without understanding its premises or realizing that it has not always been part of the spiritual landscape.

I´m painting with a very broad brush here. The main tenets of Keswick holiness as I understand them are the following; when a person becomes a Christian, he doesn´t immediately receive all the equipment he needs to live the Christian life, he needs a further work in his heart. The difference between this and Wesleyanism is that this further work is not thought to entirely remove sin, just to make moment-by-moment sinlessness possible. In order to experience this further work the Christian must become willing for God to do it, must entirely consecrate himself to God, and ask God, with faith, to do it. It´s exactly like getting saved, say they. The result of this is that the Holy Spirit will indwell the believer in a different way than He did before, counteracting the believer´s sinful tendencies to such an extent that if the believer allows it, the Holy Spirit will virtually live through him, meeting all his temptations for him, so that the struggle against sin will be pretty much a moot point. Unless the believer loses focus for a moment...

The above is part of an article I have been working on. I've been thinking about this for about 3 years. I did not truly become aware of the problem until I started attending a Reformed church.
 
All Reformed Christians should read Wayne Grudem's chapter on Sanctification in his Systematic Theology. I say this because Grudem is particularly good on this subject, and in a way that other good Reformed STs somewhat fall short.

The fact is this subject is where most all Christians - including Reformed - fall short. There is an intitutional bias against the 'active' aspect of sanctification, as opposed to the passive.

This bias also produces some strikingly unbiblical beliefs and statements. To say there is no carnal, or 'old man' vs. 'new man' is to deny something called -- the Bible. (What do you think your struggle is against internally? Oh, but you say it's not against actual flesh? And that passes for advanced doctrinal understanding? Call it vanity, worldly pride, and self-will if you need a succinct definition of what 'carnal' or 'old man' is. Identify it further as shallowness and resentment and lust and so on. Sleep. Drunkeness. Violence. Use biblical terminology.)

Also, the default use of the word 'gnostic' against anything having to do with active sanctification needs to be confronted vigorously. This is a case where heresy has succeeded in allowing bad doctrine to flourish in the guise of defense against said heresy.

God's elect have the Spirit of discernment in them. They have the Spirit of truth in them. They have the Holy Spirit in them. Efforts by a regenerated person are not the same as efforts by a currently unregenerate person.

This is the key mistake people make: they think in terms solely of pre-regeneration. Here is the truth: once regenerate you better make efforts in your sanctification. Because you have ability to and to glorify God you're expected to. The parable of the talents (silver, I have to write because 'talents' and 'sanctification' can be conflated by people who aren't sure the writer knows talent means silver...) is instructive on just this point. If you bury what God has given you in the ground you aren't pleasing Him. He expects you do increase what you have by what you've been given. He gives you what you need to do that. The unregenerate have no talents (silver) given to them. You can't make nothing from nothing. But if you've been regenerated then you now have the ability to increase what you've been given.

When Christians and Christian leaders continually talk in terms of 'warnings' and scepticisim regarding effort in sanctification God's elect lose patience with our fellow Christians and church leaders. God's elect very well know what needs to be done. When we get called 'gnostic' or 'pietist' or some other typical name we just grin. What else can we do? We understand where you're coming from, but...come on. At some point you have to wake up.

The party line is one thing, the commands and teaching of Jesus are another. Jesus said do this, do this, do this. You want to understanding piety? Start with the two great commandments of Jesus. They have depth systematic theologies don't get into (if they are even mentioned to begin with).

The Holy Spirit - yes, the Spirit - can and perhaps will lead one into understanding to a more practical level what one needs to know and do to effect the active part of one's sanctification. That doesn't happen though if one refuses to recognize that effort plays a part in sanctification to begin with.
 
Michael,

While I appreciate your effort in composing the previous post, where is the comprehensive Biblical exposition to support your assertions? I would be interested in hearing some of our very learned Puritan Board members and Clergy weigh in on your post. I don't think anyone here is denying the fundamental dichotomy between flesh and spirit, nor have I seen (maybe I've just missed it) many of the folk here cast the name 'gnostic' against anyone who is pursuit of sanctification.

That being said, I have well over 15 years experience in Charismatic and High Life churches - much of that engaged in heavy study of their "doctrinal disctincives". My experience clearly lines up with what BB Warfield, Michael Horton, and other great Reformed Scholars have observed regarding the mysticism that prevades these teachings/movements.

Also, be careful about painting Reformed Theology with too broad a brush on this issue. Are you an expert on the historical theology of Sanctification among the Great Reformed Theologians (although a great man of God and modern scholar, I'm not sure that Wayne Grudem qualifies as a Great Reformed Theologian)?

We have some PB members (e.g. R. Scott Clark, Matt McMahon, VirginiaHuguenot, etc.) who are so learned in the history of Reformed Theology. I would be interesting in reading their commentary on what you have posted.


Grace & Peace in Christ!

[Edited on 1-23-2006 by BrianBowman]
 
The fact is the Puritans understood sanctification in a way that has been lost by modern day Reformed, Calvinist Christians.

You try to pose Calvinists of the past against me, but it is they that convict you.

When this subject comes up the Puritans themselves even come under criticism by Calvinists who refuse to entertain that effort is involved in sanctification.

If you come from an off-the-mark school or denomination it doesn't give you by default insight into what is on-the-mark. The fact that a person can spend alot of time in an off-the-mark environment with off-the-mark practices suggests that discernment is lacking to begin with.

Ryle's Holiness was mentioned above, and this is a very good source. But it also exposes another problem with this subject and modern day Reformed, Calvinist Christians (I don't speak of other Christians because their problems are more foundational, they need to discover biblical doctrine to begin with): knowledge having to do with practices in the area of sanctification have to be presented at the practical level or they are nigh worthless. They remain merely devotional or mystical or just theoretical or philosophical. On the mark practical level instruction is rare and valuable, but to see it you have to get to a point where you accept that effort is OK post-regeneration, and in fact it is mandatory (not for salvation, you can do nothing and be saved, but as Paul describes it, that is the necessary foundation, you have to build your house upon the foundation and it will be tested by fire and some structures will burn and be destroyed and some will withstand the fire because they are sound, yet those whose houses are burned still have the foundation and are saved.

Once regenerated and conversion has occured the Christian's life and practice is a matter of degree of development. To teach otherwise is horribly unbiblical. The Bible talks explicitly of degree of being and reward. Jesus' parable of the talents sends the message rather explicitly as well.

I am aggressive on this subject because I receive aggression back on it, and I've gotten to the point where I'm not glorifying God if I don't get aggressive on this subject with people who need it. The shallowness in the churches is real, folks. The feminization of the churches is real. The fact that God's elect often aren't walking through the doors of the churches for these very reasons is real. If we do walk through the doors we are often met with ultamatums expressed in all the ways one meets such things in worldly environments. Guess what: God's elect take ultimatums seriously; and we tend to side with God and His teaching and, yes, our experience and guidance by the Holy Spirit Himself.
 
Dude,

It would be a little easier to take you seriously if you would hang around a little longer and let folks get to know you before you start coming off as an ultimate authority on what it means to be in an authentic process of sanctification (For what it's worth - I learned this the hard way in my early days on PB by taking on others in subject that may be even more volatile than this one). You are not basically saying anything that I did not hear in well nigh two decades of the "higher life" experiences mentioned above. To suggest that I (or anyone else who went through those experieces) was "lacking in discernment" may be true, but God's providence is still a factor here as well as the lacking in sound Theological development of the 100's of leaders that preside over these various movements and churches. The Scriptures are _clear_ that such shepherds will be held to a high standard of accountablilty than us sheep, who at the time were doing the best we could.

I'm not looking for some kind of "out" in the development of holiness and true piety Michael. Just be careful in your appraisal about "people who need it". It also might shock you, if you could comprehend the 100's of hours of study and broken prayer that God used to lead me out of "the off the mark school" that I was formerly part of.
 
I'll tone down the attitude, and I overshot the argument too. Also, I'm not prepared to give away what informs my own understanding of this subject (because it's 'extra-biblical', and from my 'past', but, General Revelation exists too, and the Spirit of Truth enables the separating of wheat from chaff).

Actually it's from my past, but not from before being born again (regenerated by the Word and the Spirit). Just prior to learning biblical doctrine.

Regarding extra-biblical influences, though, to judge from my own bio, for instance, it can be argued classical literature led me to the Word of God, I mean...arguably...

There is Truth in classical influences. Not pure, but only the Word of God is pure Truth.

There is also on-the-mark practical instruction in the area of sanctification that exists outside the Word of God (just as theological, doctrinal teaching exists). And it elucidates biblical teaching in the same way a Calvin can elucidate Scripture.

But if you deny effort to begin with the Spirit can - or perhaps I should say won't - do much with you. Paul said it and Calvin said it: once you have the foundation -- build the house.
 
Good words Michael!

We all need much time on our knees loving God (especially when he brings in the "rod of correction through the Holy Spirit's conviction") as well as patiently loving our families and neighbors! Simply being informed in the Scriptures is not enough - there are many unbelieving "Scholars" this would apply to!

Thanks for this dialog and for your humility brother! I'm wanting to get before God just now!!

:handshake:
 
Hi, Michael,

I think the "higher life" system being critiqued here is actually a form of quietism. No one is saying that we don't cooperate with the Spirit in our sanctification, at least I hope not! We're simply arguing for a more practical approach based on a true understanding of regenerate human nature, rather than basing it on holdovers from pre-Christian mysticism.

I personally am trying to make more dilligent use of the means of grace.

In Christ,
Meg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top