This is continued from Is Reformed & Evangelical Theology Biblical? Pt. 1
For those who have not read part one of this article, I would advise that you stop a moment and do so now for much of what you will read is in direct response to Reformed and Evangelical Theology. As Stated at the end of part one, our objective is to point out the critical flaws associated with Reformed Doctrine while simultaneously offering what we feel is a better and more biblically credible alternative to many biblical intepretives rendered by reformed theologians.
This debate has raged for over 400 years and I do not expect to settle it here however, that does not disuade me from trying…<:)
Observations, Assertions & Questions:
1- Reformed Theology begins with the premise of a characteristic of God rather than that of HIS essence.
As demonstrated, monergism begins with the thought that God is Sovereign. Although it is correct that God is soveriegn, sovereignty describes a characteristic of God and does not describe his essence. This simply describes what he chooses to do or HIS actions. I submit that this is simply not the best place to begin when it comes to matters of salvation toward humanity.
A much better place to begin a theology of salvation is where God has revealed his essence to humanity through Jesus Christ. Rather than Sovereignty, which is a prerogative of God’s will and actions, one is better served to express the love of God. HIS love is the unending river from which HIS sovereignty is exercised among men. Love better indicates the nature and essence of God according to scripture:
(I John 4:8) ~ “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love”
(John 3:15) ~ “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved”
(John 15:13-14) ~ “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.”
(I John 4:16-19) ~ “And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us.”
(I John 3:16) ~ “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”
This concept is vitally important to understand. Why? Because God has communicated truth to the WORLD because he loves the whole of mankind and has moved to free man from his sin, not to destroy man in his sin. This is one of the first acknowledgements that must be made in order to have a more effective understanding of our union with the Creator. Reformed Theology as commonly taught and understood in many circles today does not begin from this perspective and therefore neglects that God’s sovereignty, as it pertains to the salvation of mankind, is exercised from the position and nature of God’s love.
Although God is sovereign, HE has invested all to save humanity from their sins and HIS grace is abundant throughout HIS creation to ALL of his creation not just a select group.
(Titus 2:11) ~”For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,”
The grace that has appeared to ALL men is the grace that BRINGETH salvation
- (John 12:32) ~ “And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.”
The purpose of the Cross was to DRAW ALL men not a select few, and certainly not to reject those who would come.
(II Corinthians 4:6-7) ~ “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.”
- The darkness (overwhelming entanglement) of our sins
- The darkness of our understanding or illumination
(I Timothy 2:3-4) ~ “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”
(II Peter 3:9) ~ The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Saved folk need no repentance only sinners who don’t know God.
(Matt. 9:12-13) ~ “But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
(Romans 5:2) ~ “By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”
(Romans 5:15) ~ “But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many”
These scriptures explain 2 types of Grace. One Grace “wherein we stand” after being saved (v.2) and a Second grace that “hath abounded to many” or extended to us (all individuals) to be saved (v.15) through and by our Lord Jesus Christ.
(II Cor. 4:14) ~ ”For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God.
(I Timothy 1:13) ~ “And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus.”
We acknowledge that faith came from God given to man. For the scripture has said this:
(II Peter 1:3) ~ “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:”
“All things that pertain unto life and godliness” also includes faith, and the ability to believe. That ability, given by God, includes the free-will of man. Therefore, it is improper to believe that God has somehow restricted or prohibited men from belief or the ability to come to saving faith since the complete object of God’s position towards mankind was to provide a savior.
4- The reformist would hold that what I set forth (in point 3) is a form synergism or a combination of God’s grace and man’s free-will being exercised in order for one to be saved and therefore contrary to Sola Gratia or grace alone.
One of the best examples here is this: God has written a check that you did not earn. It is a free gift . Is it really considered work or helping God when you take the check to the bank and cash it? NO. You do yourself a favor by using what he has delivered to you, but you gave yourself nothing. Cashing the check in no way dimishes the roll of God, HIS grace, or HIS sovereignty.
The free gift of grace that has been given by God is no less powerful and no less effective when I turn to God with the same free-will that he has allowed to come alive in me because of the propitiation of Jesus in the world.
The illumination of our free-will and conscious has been done by God through a process called Reconciliation through the process of Regeneration:
(Romans 5:8-10) ~ “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.”
“Reconciliation”~ is the process by which God and people are brought together again. The Bible teaches that they are alienated from one another because of God’s holiness and human sinfulness. Although God loves the sinner (Rom. 5:8), it is impossible for Him not to judge sin (Heb. 10:27). Therefore, in biblical reconciliation, both parties are affected. Through the sacrifice of Christ, people’s sins are atoned for and God’s wrath is appeased. Thus, a relationship of hostility and alienation is changed into one of peace and fellowship. The uniquess of Christian theology is that the initiative in reconciliation was taken by God—while we were still sinners and “enemies,” Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8, 10; Col. 1:21). Reconciliation is thus God’s own completed act, something that takes place before human actions such as confession, repentance, and restitution. God Himself “has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ” (2 Cor. 5:18). Paul regarded the gospel as “the word of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:19). And knowing “the terror of the Lord,” Paul pleaded, implored, and persuaded people to be “reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).
This reconciliation is the very act of the preceding grace, or the grace that was taught by Jacob Arminius to be “prevenient grace”.
(II Cor. 5:18-19) ~ “And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”
(Col. 1:21-22) ~ “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:”
When did this special act of grace occur on behalf of mankind?
Throughout all humanity culminating in the work and ministry of Jesus and specifically on the cross when Jesus, hung his head and died. The Roman Centurion was among the first to have been illuminated as a result of the finished work of grace and truth. (Mark 15:38-39, Luke 23:45-47)
(Matt. 27:50-54) ~ “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.”
The veil was what ceremonially separated between God and man. It represented the part of God’s knowledge and revelation that the common man or common sinner could not experience. Although the grace of God was ever present on the outside of the veil, when the veil was torn apart, there remained nothing that could further separate God and man.
I contend that it was at that point that man (mankind) gained the ability to have an enlightened conscious. Although man’s free-will was still tainted by the sin nature, now a light shined which did not shine previously and that could not be dimmed. Man was given a renewed sense of the ability to choose good and evil. This ability was present BEFORE the cross of Christ but was made efficacious after the sacrifice on the cross.
(Deut. 30:19) ~ “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:”
The Law (Pentateuch) provided clear evidence that a choice for or against the will of God could be exercised at a time BEFORE the sacrificial offering and atonement of Jesus.
(John 1:4) ~ “In him was life; and the life was the light of men”
The New Testament outlines that that “life” and “light” was in Jesus. This scripture indicates 2 things primarily:
1- That there was a replacement of death (life = redemption) provided by the Jesus and
2- That life was the illumination (light = regeneration) of men (aka mankind)
5- The Reformationist believes solidly in election and predestination. In fact the most strict monergist believes that the “elect CANNOT miss their salvation” no matter what they do because they are elect to participate in the grace of God from the beginning. Likewise he also believes that there are certain individuals (the non-elect) that are born or destined to go to hell.
This particular element of Reformed Theology is probably one of it’s most exasperating and divisive teachings. The doctrine of unconditional election if taken to it’s logical conclusion would teach that salvation is totally dependent upon God’s choice as is his prerogative, and that man does not under any circumstance have the ability to provide a response to the call of salvation or the resultant end which is the salvation of God.
This element is class distinction between the elect and those that are not elect and is dangerously close to fatalistic pre-determinism, which offers no room for choice and at best sets parameters by which free-will operates. In essence this doctrine creates only an illusion of free-will. To the atheist and non Christian, this becomes a great source of contention for obvious reasons and in large part a reason that many Christians do not accept reformed theology. It should be noted that many reform believers reject this element of the doctrine. Strict adherence to this element and other more restrictive elements of the theology are not necessarily essential to the application of reformed theology.
To further demonstrate the point, Reformed Blacks Of America addresses the issue of Limited Atonement in the following manner:
“Jesus died and rose for those whom the Father predestined. If God were to die for all, then all would be saved. The atonement is sufficient for all, but not efficacious for all. The atonement is accomplished and eternally secured for the elect through the cross of Christ. Christ did not die a hypothetical death for every single human being, but rather a real death for his people, his sheep whom he actually and really saves. Therefore, the atonement is not limited in power, but in extent.”
This doctrine, when coupled with double predestination inspires questions and attitudes such as,
- “Since I’ve been born to go to hell, I may as well enjoy myself”
- “I was created to go to hell.”
- “I will go to heaven anyway, therefore I do not need to live like a Christian.”
- “Free-will is the ultimate deceit of God.”
One should keep in mind what Dr. Calvin actually taught in this regard:
(John Calvin stated) “…(God) does not create everyone in the same condition, but ordains eternal life for some and eternal damnation for others.” (Cited in Alister McGrath, Christian Theology, p. 396)
By his own statements Dr. Calvin sets forth the idea that some people are born to be lost. This is a rather despairing way to live or exist especially since the doctrine also teaches a literal, perpetual hell coupled with torment and not annihilation.
Although many credit Saint Augustine with the formulation of Evangelical doctrine, Dr. Calvin’s teachings in this area were clearly at variance with Saint Augustine’s teaching. St Augustine (-Life-) taught that God is active only in the salvation of the elect, while he is passive (inactive) with regard to the non-elect. This may be a way for some to reconcile this problem.
Another interpretation regarding this issue and much closer to the source of the original Apostles was Clement Of Alexandria. In debates against the gnostics of his day, Clement Of Alexandria (150-115 CE) wrote the following in 195 CE regarding election:
“Therefore, all having been called, those who are willing to obey have been named “the called”. For there is no unrighteousness with God…To these, prophecy says, “If you are willing and hear me, you will eat the good of the land,” proving that choice or refusal depends upon ourselves.”
Here Clement Of Alexandria acknowledges that ALL have been called but only them that “obey” have been named “the called” ie: elect. He goes on to provide his support for his position by invoking Isaiah 1:19 restating that in his understanding God has not withheld salvation from any man.
6. Is Sola Scriptura (scripture alone) a valid doctrine?
Sola Scriptura ~ by the Scriptures alone, our only foundation in reference to authority.
For many, this teaching of reformed theology is the most essential element. Without it no other teaching is solidly affirmed. But is this teaching practical or meant to be applied in the way that many reform theologians apply it?
Remember the imputus of the reformed theology is to return to the scriptural message that God has delivered to his people through the Bible and to remove “tradition” especially “indulgences” from matters of faith. The aim was against the tradition of the Catholic Church which had taken liberties that were unbiblical. This was Martin Luther’s purpose for nailing the 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Whittenburg, Germany.
It is taught and commonly understood that the written word is the only current revelation whereby man can know God. It is the final place of arbitration for all matters of Christian living and practice and that God’s written word is the capstone of all Christianity and without it we are in trouble. Please note that all of things are generally held to be true among most protestant Christians. However, there are problems in understanding that must be addressed that cannot be overlooked regarding this issue. Serious questions are outlined as follows:
- In applying Sola Scripture does one dogmatically assert that each letter of the written text is an exacting copy of what was originally written within the first manuscripts?
- Is it necessary to assert that what was written in the New Testament is an all inclusive or a verbatim disposition of the sayings of Christ, the disciples and eventually apostles in the gospels and Acts?
- Why is it that many adherents to Sola Scriptura revert to “tradition” as it pertains to the exclusionary teachings against the understanding of the perpetuity of Spiritual Gifts and the dispensation of the 5 fold ministry offices?
- What role does Oral Historicity and Oral Tradition have in establishing the scriptures that we have today, and why has that tradition since the closing of the canon of scripture in 367 AD by Athanasius been minimized?
- How do we account for the fact that all of the Apostles including Paul and the brother of our Lord, James, were only persuaded in salvation after an experience with Christ in the resurrection? This is to say that although the WORD (Pentateuch) was present, that was not the final place where salvation was gained.
Although this type of argument can be a two-edged sword if not placed within proper context, we cannot overlook the current works and studies of Professor Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of NC and one of the worlds leading textual critics. Professor Ehrman has stated in his work “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” (2006 San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco pg. 10) the following:
“These copies (in refrence to biblical texts and manuscripts) differ from one another in so many places that we don’t even know how many differences there are.”
In fact Dr. Ehrman’s conclusion is that there were over 200,000 to 400,000 textual variants found within scripture itself. This means that there were a significant number of changes and or scribal additions to or from the original text.
In this writing I don’t have time to settle every issue as it pertains to the variants that Dr. Ehrman points out but I will conclude this section by saying that the meaningful and viable variant number is approximately 1% or less of all variants. Further those variants that are both meaningful and viable only suggest a difference in orthopraxy (the practice of the Christian faith) and not orthodoxy(what the Christian faith teaches). With that said even conservative scholars confirm that there are yet variants.
Is Sola Scriptura as taught in reform theology able to withstand the fact that variants within the scriptural text exist? If so, do the variants affect the doctrine of scriptural inspiration in the way that inspiration is often interpreted and applied under the monergist system?
As we can see these are not simple issues and do not deserve cavalieer answers. However people are effected by many if not all of the doctrines set forthin this study.
Is Reformed and Evangelical Theology biblical? Certainly elements of the theology are biblical without question, but yet there are important elements that are only constructions of men. One should be careful as to not overstate his/her case when discussing these issues and related matters matters of faith. There are, as I have demonstrated valid and more powerful and persuave arguments to be made from scripture regarding many points that reformed theology attempts to address.
Question: Pastor Burnett will you become a “reformed” theologian or believer?
Answer: Don’t hold your breath.
I dont know how Reformed believers get around the desire and Will of God, as shown in Ezekiel 18 “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?”
John Piper has an excellent response to this in a chapter entitled “Are there two wills in God?” I believe the book is called The Pleasures of God. D.A. Carson also handles this issue in a small book entitled, “The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God.” I recommend you look into these. Both of these men are Reformed.
As for your question Eze. 18:23 you quoted, in v.30 reads “Therefore, I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways declares the Lord GOD, Repent and turn from all your transgressions,lest iniquity be your ruin. v.32 so turn and live.”
Reformed believers don’t try to “get around” this verse. These verses are a call to repentance. Reformed theology is clear. God is Sovereign in Salvation and man is dead in sin. The Scriptures also teach that man is responsible for his sin. Calvinism affirms that sinners perish for one reason and only one reason, refusing to repent.
[PHB~ Tom, Thanks for stopping by and thanks for reading and giving a critique on the article. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we clearly disagree on some pretty significant points regarding this issue and the basis and wielding of the soveriegnty of God about which we both agree. The problem I have is this, what you say in the preceeding statement is inconsistent. You say there is a "call to repentance" (once again we agree), that man is "responsible for his sin" (once again we agree) and that sinners will perish for "refusing to repent" (once again, we agree)...but on your site you clearly say this:"Many individuals falsely assume that ALL are called to be saved. While this is true in one sense (the General call of the Gospel that goes out to everyone,) it is quite the opposite in another as this text bears out. This “call” that Paul is speaking of here is a special one. Theologians draw a distinction between general revelation and special revelation."There we totally disagree and that total disagreement is the whole deal in my opinion, because under your theological system fatalism to damnation exists. We're not talking about mere quality of life as in saying that not all men will be rich or something of the sort, what you hold to is that God has decided to ultimately and completely withhold his goodness and salvation from certain of his creatures while simultaneously and as far as we know arbitrarily provide that goodness to others. I contend that your approach IS NOT biblical and is further ungodly and is a twisting of scripture and an unwarrented interpretation of scripture. Under your system, the call to repentance is false and is only mechanical in nature and not done to save the whole world even though the whole world is preached to. Under your construct God acts within the world as a deceiver, even if his intent is to only save those that have been "predestined" he 'acts' as if he has a sincere call to all only to limit the actual appeal to them that are elect. So although the "elect" may be lost at the time of the call, noone outside of that group will be saved or is really being preached to. So that is a fault of the theology as promoted by most reformed apologists, teachers and promoters such as yourself.]
Peter taught this in his sermon in Acts. Jesus was delivered over by the predetermined plan of God, but was crucified by the hands of evil men. You have Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Scripture affirms BOTH of these concepts. See Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God by J.I. Packer for a more detailed explanation.
[PHB~ These things are not in dispute, however your obtuse teaching of it is. Jesus had a WILL that he subjugated to the WILL of God. This is a crucial distinction. It is one of the basis upon which the "Person" of God the son or the second person of the Trinity is determined. To merely claim that Jesus was fatalistically assigned to his actions without the acknowledgement of his free-will decision to do so is yet another fault and one with significant theological implications and considerations. Although that's certainly not an easy one, man, having been given the same or similar type of free will enjoins a similar decision making process that certainly is constructed or shaped by God but not fatalistically predetermined by God. there is a sharp and poignant distinction that you fail to make or address.]
In view of the elect being lost at the call please allow me to clarify with Romans 8:30 Moreover, whom He predestined, these He also called; whom he called,, these he also justified; and whom He justified, these he also glorified. Here you see my dear friend that the called are guaranteed to be justified and consequently glorified. No one gets lost through the cracks.
This is not determinism, According to the Westminster Confession under God’s Eternal Decree Point 1. “God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.” It is my sincere hope that this addresses your concern.
Respectfully yours, Tom Michnay
It is a shame that you misrepresent Reformed views. Augustine wasn’t the first to come up with these views. Paul was and to predate Paul, Christ. I would encourage you to visit my blog 5pointcalvinism.wordpress.com for a somewhat detailed explanation of election/predestination.
[PHB~ I know that is what you claim, however this is the point of the argument in general. I don't believe there is adequate scriptural support of that claim when the nuance of scripture is considered. See my response to your other commentary to get more detail on at least one criticism that reformed apologists work with and struggle to answer currently regarding the reformed thesis.]
Your questions. As for point 1. Scripture Alone affirms that Scripture is ALL that is necessary for us today, period. God has spoken and His word is contained within the 66 books. (It seems to me you have questions lie more with textual criticism.) Sola Scriptura doesn’t address this, it wasn’t an issue historicaly when it was addressed. Evangelicals affirm that Scripture is infallible and inerrant in its’ original autographs. Furthermore, thus the need to continually compare various texts to ensure accurate translation i.e. various codices, UBS Text, Nestle Aland, et cetera.
PHB~ Absolutely correct. What is transferred in the text? what Jesus said word for word or what jesus meant by what he said? For example, how long does it take to read through teh Sermon On The Mount? If this is one of his greatest messages, do you think that there may have been more actual content? Granted i affirm with you that what we have is from the Lord. so that’s not in question. The question I raise is that since we know that Jesus more than likely said a more abundance of actual words, it sounds more like “alphabetic worship” to say that each letter was what Jesus specifically spoke. God has specifically and expressly spoken it by his Spirit and we have teh letter taht we do according to the will and word of God, but to set forth a dogmatism based on the physical letters and words themselves I believe is more than we are called to do. Is what we have infallible in the original? Yes I believe so. Is what we have the revealed word of God? Yes! Should we limit our complete understanding to God by the letters written on the page? NO. To do so will reduce the scripture itself to “spiritless” rendering which is not supported by scripture itself. John 6:63~ It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] ARE SPIRIT, and [they] are life. Now when you can tell me how you can confine “spirit” to a mathematical equation or letters on a page you can let me know.]
Point 2. Yes, it is absolutely necessary to say that the 66 books known as canon are ALL inclusive. To say anything to the contrary immediately calls into question what actually is and is not the Word of God.
Point 3. It is wrong to assume that many who affirm Sola Scriptura are cessationists (denying the spiritual gifts/charismata). Wayne Grudem, Vern Poythress, both of whom are reformed do not fall into this category. Also as a former Assembly of God member now Reformed, I had several Professors who attended Reformed Seminaries that definitely affirmed Sola Scriptura and believed the gifts were in operation today. Dr Douglas Oss, Dr. Dale Brueggeman, and Dr. Waverly Nunnally just to name a few.
[PHB~ That is good to note and maybe I can reword that section because I didn't mean to broadbrush. So thanks for looking out.]
Point 4. I believe you misunderstand the closing of the canon. This wasn’t singlehandly done by Athanasius. Nor was canonicity decided by a group of men in smoke filled rooms forcing people to accept/reject what was canon and what wasn’t. Most of canonicity had already been determined by what was being accepted by the local churches. F.F. Bruce has done some great work on the subject along with Norman Geisler’s work How We Got our Bible (even though Norm isn’t Reformed).
[PHB~ I haven't really set forth and accounting of this issue. so statements toward this are incidental, however onnce again, I'll review and see the context in which I make certain conclusions. Sawyer, Wallace and Komoszewski have also set forth a good and detailed account in Reinventing Jesus also. Thanks again.]
Point 5. Your last point is ambiguous to say the least. Salvation in the Old Testament was accomplished the same way it was in the New Testament. By Faith Alone. In the O.T. they looked forward to the coming of the Messiah, In the N.T. they had to Repent and Believe the Gospel, Today, We look back. Lastly we account for Paul’s salvation and James salvation the same way we do for anyone’s, solely on Christs Righteousness, plus or minus nothing.
[PHB~ Yes, ultimately you're correct, but in practice there's a lot to be said here. In the NT all judgement is based on works whether that was for reward or for eternal destiny. I take a look at that in my article, "Are Works & Faith Inseperable?" This is a hot topic and one deserving of additional research and study in my opinion and one that should not be merely discarded as many withyin reform circles have done.]
Faith and Works haven’t been discarded in reformed circles as many have wrote concerning this. Your statement here is without suffficient ground or warrant. Dr. Norman Shepherd (formally from Westminster Seminary), John MacArthur in “The Gospel According to Jesus”, and his “Gospel According to the Apostles.” Earlier, J. Gresham Machen in “What is Faith?” Calvin himself dealt with this topic in his institutes;moreover, so did the Westminster Confession of Faith” Lastly Luther in his Commentary on Romans. This list is not meant to be exhaustive by any means, but to provide a starting point as the backbone of what Reformed Theology represents.
In the Westminster Confession of Faith (hereby referred to as WCF) The larger catechism in Q. 76 asks, “What is repentance unto life?” A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace wrought in the heart of the sinner by the Spirit and the Word of God, whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for and hates his sins…purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with him in all the ways of new obedience.” See II Cor. 7:11
When you ask are works and faith inseperable, I believe you are contemplating the doctrines of Justification and Sanctification. See WCF Q.77 Wherin do justification and sanctification differ? A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former sin is pardoned in the other it is subdued….”
Machen in What is Faith pg. 204 wrote “But if the faith regarded insufficient by James is different from the faith commended by Paul, so also the works commended by James are different from the works commended by James are different from the works regarded as inefficacious by Paul. Paul is speaking of the works of the law, he is speaking of works that are intended to acquire merit in order that God’s favor may be earned; James on the other hand is speaking of works like Abraham’s sacrifice of Issac that are the real result of faith and show that faith is real faith.”
The difference of works in reformed thinking is that they establish nor gain any merit in salvation. (This includes initial saving faith.) Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian thought emphasizes works as the basis for salvation. Consequently many falsely assume that the reformers tossed works altogether. Martin Luther flies in the face of this kind of thinking in his commentary of Romans in his introduction pg. 17
“Faith, however is a divine work in us…Oh it is a living busy, active, mighty thing, this faith and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. It does not ask whether there are good works to do, but before the question rises, it has already done them. He gropes and looks about after faith and good works and knows neither what faith is nor what good works are….it is impossible to seperate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light fires. Beware therefore of your own false notions and of the idle talkers who would be wise enough to make decisions about faith and good works, and yet are the greatest fools. Pray God to work faith in yo; else you will remain forever without faith, whatever you think or do.”
Calvin discussing James 2:21-22 (see MacArthur Faith Works pg. 92) wrote this “It appears that he is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by ture faith prove their justification by obedience and good works…And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works. Due attention to the scope will thus disentangle every doubt; for the error of our opponents lies chiefly in this, that they think James is defining the mode of justification, whereas his only object is to destroy the depraved security of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for the contempt of good works.Therefore let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than the two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and taht the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification with good works.”
In addition it is absolutely essential to understand that justification is by faith alone. Works merely illustrate that truth. The WCF mentions that justification and sanctification are inseperable. I urge you kindly not to say this topic has been discarded by people of the Reformed Faith. This is a gross misunderstanding on your part. In response to it needing additional research, I can kindly assure you that a multitude of articles in Theological Journals like JETS, WTJ and practically every Puritan wrote on this topic. I hope you find this helpful.
Respectfully Tom Michnay
[PHB~ Tom, Thanks for posting once again, I've placed your response in the comments section of the post I mentioned (Are Faith & Works Inseperable?)and it is a good read...shaky, but a good read. What I see is a desire to have it both ways. On one hand works can't save (a sentiment to which I agree) however they also can't be discarded or minimized because eternal bliss or reward may just depend upon them to a certain degree. Now the debate is over who the "Goats" are in Mt. 25 as a "sinner" isn't expected to do or have any good works so why and how would they be judged according to their works? Secondly they would have already been separated not because they didn't do "Christian" things but because they didn't follow the Lord. But what I see in Reformed Theology is an equivocation on the issue to make faith and works have some sort of systemmatic appeal. There is much lacking however, which cannot be simplified by reading a few reformed theologians mental exercises and simply saying, "now take our word for it". That may well be what they say, but none of it squares with the rest of their doctrine and IF the teaching is effectual it is only effectual for them who are elect and predestined according to your view. So in essence, this is much greater than a pelagian/neopelagian argument (which NONE of my arguments resemble in the least bit) and I don't believe my any of my statements misrepresent what is traditionally and openly espoused and taught within reformed circles. So labeling doesn't help the argument, but an honest look at scripture might depending upon what you're willing to rethink and pray about.
What I've stated and continue to state is that scripture does not support that works are simply overlooked and are only an afterthought of the Christian experience as is commonly expressed. They are more closely tied to the actual experience of salvation, but do not flow from the vessel receiving salvation, nevertheless are so important that Paul said that they which "do such things" will NOT inherit the kingdom. Works are repeatedly taught as determing factors of both God's blessings, rewards and eternal bliss. The same isn't said of faith. The scriptures are dramatically clear on the issue.
So I know this may seem a little shocking and certainly does not fit reformed dogmas or systematic theological structures, BUT if our aim is to value the word of God and make it our only authority, we can't arbitrarily accept what we wish while discarding other parts that offer an equally as intense and clear message. I'll respond to further inquiry on this particular subject (faith and works) at the aforementioned blog.]