Pages Menu
TwitterRss
Categories Menu

Posted by on Dec 26, 2012 in Christian Life, Soteriology | 1 comment

Does Justification Cause Sanctification?

theologicalguidetocalvinFrom Dick Gaffin’s article, “Justification and Union with Christ,” in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes:

Only those already justified are being sanctified. But this is not the same thing as saying, what Calvin does not say, that justification is the source of sanctification or that justification causes sanctification. That source, that cause is Christ by his Spirit, Christ, in whom, Calvin is clear in this passage, at the moment they are united to him by faith, sinners simultaneously receive a twofold grace and so begin an ongoing process of being sanctified just as they are now also definitively justified.

This is not something that I have spent much time considering in detail, though I don’t think it’s too hard to see how this connects to the recent discussions involving Tchividjian, Phillips, and others.

Far from being purely an academic theological question (though, obviously, there is much to explore here in that realm), this has great practical implications. If justification causes sanctification, how does it do so? If justification does not cause sanctification, then how are they related? Is there a danger in deemphasizing justification in favor of union with Christ? Even more practical: how do we encourage people to continually return to their justification but not forget all the other aspects of salvation that God has accomplished on our behalf?

Read More

Posted by on Dec 18, 2011 in Soteriology |

Practical Implications of Limited Atonement

Anyone who knows me or has read my blog knows that I believe very strongly in Reformed theology, including the doctrines of grace (or, as they are sometimes termed, “Calvinism”). There has been a bit of a resurgence of interest in the doctrines of grace in the past few years, and many younger evangelicals have come to agree with these teachings. However, there also many who want to accept most of them, but who reject one of the tenets of Calvinism known as “Limited Atonement.”

Limited atonement, or as it is sometimes called, Particular Redemption, teaches that Jesus came intentionally to save those whom God has chosen to be saved, and that therefore his death on the cross paid for the sins of those people only. Thus it would not be accurate to say that Jesus died for every single person, but rather for his people. Obviously, we don’t know all of who those people are, and so we proclaim the good news of Jesus to all people. But nonetheless, we believe that those for whom Jesus died will truly be saved.

My point today is not to defend that doctrine. That is an important discussion, and I do believe that the Scriptures are clear on the issue. However, I am often faced with this question about limited atonement: why does it matter? In other words, what’s the big deal? Why should we care?

There are, I think, significant theological reasons that make this doctrine very significant, but those also are not my purpose now. I want to look at simply one practical implication of limited atonement.

In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul is talking about the issue of brothers and sisters in Christ who have different convictions about issues, using the language of “weak consciences.” He encourages the believers to not be a stumbling block to others in their own choices. And then in verse 10-12, he makes an interesting point:

For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

Notice the reason that Paul gives for not being a stumbling block to a brother: he is one for whom Christ died. In other words, how can you trample on another brother so as to cause him to sin when he is one of the very people for whom Christ’s precious blood was spilt? How can you not take great care to love and build up that brother rather than tear him down?

Thus limited atonement, the teaching that Jesus died for his elect, ought to be one of the greatest motivators of church unity that we have. Jesus died for our brothers and sisters. That fact ought to give us great pause in the midst of conflict, in the midst of division, in situations requiring reconciliation. The doctrine ought to be a motivator to greater love and kindness for those who name the name of Christ.

Ironically, those who hold to limited atonement have at times had the label of being ungracious and unloving in the way they present their beliefs. All we can say to that is what Paul says about sin abounding in Romans 6: may it never be! Perhaps one way to see whether or not we have really understood limited atonement is to see if we can present in such a way that our love for the brothers and sisters for whom Christ died simply shines through. And perhaps, when we Reformed people explain what we believe to be Scripture’s teaching on this topic, this ought to be a repeated reminder to make sure that right beliefs are ever accompanied by right behavior.

Read More

Posted by on May 18, 2011 in Soteriology |

Calvin Wednesdays #20: Salvation’s Power

To this doctrine wherein our religion is contained
We have given first place,
Because here our salvation begins,
But to make itself useful and fruitful
It must reach the inmost recess of our heart
And show its power in our life–
Even transform us into its nature.

[The Piety of John Calvin, 74-75]

I’m not quite sure where or when it took hold, but this has often been the characterization of the Reformed: heady, intellectual folks who don’t seem overly passionate about practical life and the progress of the gospel.

Nothing could be further from the heart of one of the men to whom we Reformed people owe much of our heritage. This is only a brief quote from him, but it communicates something incredibly important: the wonderful message of salvation, the heart of our religion, ought to go to the innermost recesses of the heart. It ought to change everything about the way we do everything. Our motivations, our conduct, our speech, literally, everything must change. And this change is not merely in the mind. It goes to the heart, and while the characterization has been sadly true at times, I see wonderful signs that there are many who want the riches of the Word to go to the heart and not only to the mind.

Read More

Posted by on Mar 13, 2011 in Soteriology |

Kevin DeYoung Goes Above and Beyond on Love Wins

Tim Challies may have written the first review of Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins, but Kevin DeYoung has put out a mini-book of his own in an effort to review and respond to it. Here’s the opening part of his review:

Love Wins, by megachurch pastor Rob Bell, is, as the subtitle suggests, “a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived.” Here’s the gist: Hell is what we create for ourselves when we reject God’s love. Hell is both a present reality for those who resist God and a future reality for those who die unready for God’s love. Hell is what we make of heaven when we cannot accept the good news of God’s forgiveness and mercy. But hell is not forever. God will have his way. How can his good purposes fail? Every sinner will turn to God and realize he has already been reconciled to God, in this life or in the next. There will be no eternal conscious torment. God says no to injustice in the age to come, but he does not pour out wrath (we bring the temporary suffering upon ourselves), and he certainly does not punish for eternity. In the end, love wins.

Bell correctly notes (many times) that God is love. He also observes that Jesus is Jewish, the resurrection is important, and the phrase “personal relationship with God” is not in the Bible. He usually makes his argument by referencing Scripture. He is easy to read and obviously feels very deeply for those who have been wronged or seem to be on the outside looking in.

Unfortunately, beyond this, there are dozens of problems with Love Wins. The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character.

Read the rest of the review here, or download a PDF version.

Read More

Posted by on Mar 9, 2011 in Soteriology |

A Review of Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” Is Up

Given all the recent turmoil in the evangelical world over the video trailer and publisher’s information over Rob Bell’s new book, provocatively titled Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, it was nice to finally see a review of the actual book. While Kevin DeYoung had some thoughts on why it was legitimate to criticize Bell before actually reading the book, I find it ultimately more helpful to read some interaction with the actual book (at least an advance copy, in this case).

Tim Challies and Aaron Armstrong have read through an advance copy and offered some thoughts here. They quote the following section from Bell’s book:

As soon as the door is opened to Muslims. Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn’t matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what you believe, and so forth.

Not true.
Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true.

What Jesus does is declare that he,
and he alone,
is saving everybody.

And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe.
…
People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways.
…
Sometimes people use his name;
other times they don’t.
…
Some people have so much baggage with regard to the name “Jesus” that when they encounter the mystery present in all of creation—grace, peace, love, acceptance, healing, forgiveness—the last thing they are inclined to name it is “Jesus.”
…
What we see Jesus doing again and again—in the midst of constant reminders about the seriousness of following him living like him, and trusting him—is widening the scope and expanse of his saving work.

Challies and Armstrong conclude:

That is what we know as universalism. And it is cause for mourning.

Christians do not need more confusion. They need clarity. They need teachers who are willing to deal honestly with what the Bible says, no matter how hard that truth is. And let’s be honest—many truths are very, very hard to swallow.

The truth is, while I find it distasteful that we must disagree so strongly with one who professes to know Christ, nonetheless, this is not an error of lilliputian proportions. This would redefine our faith, our mission, and our lives. So hopefully, evangelical Christians will gently, graciously, and in love point out why such thinking is off the mark, not for the sake of patting themselves on the back, but for the sake of Christ’s mission in the world.

Read More

Posted by on Feb 17, 2011 in Soteriology |

Bavinck on the Benefits of Reconciliation

One of the charges that N.T. Wright makes repeatedly in his discussion of the Reformation tradition on salvation is that the tradition has restricted the meaning of salvation and the atonement to only one aspect when it really encompasses much more. In particular, he charges that it has forgotten the renewal of all creation and the work of the Spirit.

In reading through Herman Bavinck’s discussion of Christ’s work, particularly the work of reconciliation, he lists many “benefits that accrue to us from the reconciliation of God-in-Christ”:

the juridicial, that is, the forgiveness of sins; justification; adoption as children; the right to eternal life and the heavenly inheritance; also redemption, which, however, sometimes has a broader meaning as well;

the mystical, consisting in being crucified, buried, raised, and seated with Christ in heaven;

the ethical, that is, regeneration, being made alive; sanctification, being washed, cleansed, and sprinkled in body, soul, and spirit;

the moral, consisting in the imitation of Christ, who has left us his example;

the economic, that is, the fulfillment of the Old Testament covenant, the inauguration of a new covenant; the freedom from the law; the cancellation of the bond with its legal demands, the breaking down of the dividing wall, the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile and all other existing sets of opposites into unity in Christ;

the physical, that is, the victory over the world, over death, over hell, and over Satan.

In a word, the whole enterprise of re-creation, the complete restoration of a world and humanity, which as a result of sin, is burdened with guilt, corrupted, and fragmented, is the fruit of Christ’s work. [Sin and Salvation in Christ, Vol. 3 of Reformed Dogmatics, 452 (Scripture references not included for the sake of space)]

In other words, the very points at which Wright criticizes the Reformed are points that Bavinck makes sure to include in his summary of what Christ accomplished in his work.

The point of all of this is not to criticize Wright. The point is this: we ought to be thankful for the tremendous amount of reflection that the Reformers and their heirs put into their understanding of Jesus’ person and work. His work of reconciliation was far greater than we are accustomed to thinking, and it ought to remind us that God’s global mission is far more dazzling than our small imaginations often take us.

Read More
%d bloggers like this: