Below I comment on the final Forde quote:
"If we are turned around to get back down to earth by grace, then it would seem that true sanctification would show itself in taking care of our neighbor and God’s creation, not exploiting and destroying either for our own ends, religious or otherwise. It would mean concern for the neighbor and society, caring for the other for the time being. Here one should talk about the place of morality and virtue and such things. Although we do not accept them as the means by which we are sanctified, they are the means by which and through which we care for the world and for the other. This is what the Reformers meant when they insisted that good works were to be done, but one was not to depend on them for salvation."
Here Forde rightly categorizes virtue and morality to such things as “concern for the neighbor and society” and “taking care of our neighbor and God’s creation”. The prescription to do these things is explicitly Law and neither Forde nor Reformed theology suggests we lean on our doing of them as the merit or assurance of our pardon. Only the repetition of the gospel can give us assurance in the midst of our struggle against sin, and only the repetition of the gospel can cause the type of life change that acts on such commands as to love one’s neighbor as oneself and to love God above all else.
In conclusion I’d like to reiterate Forde’s thesis that, “Sanctification, if it is to be spoken as something other than justification is perhaps best defined as the art of getting used to the unconditional justification wrought by the grace of God for Jesus’ sake.” Perhaps it is stated in typical Lutheran hyperbole, but in this thesis Forde indicates that a distinction should not be made between justification and sanctification, except to say that sanctification is the “art of getting used to” being justified by grace alone. Reformed theology certainly disagrees with the idea that the two shouldn’t be distinguished. Justification is historically spoken of as the momentary event when God declares one righteous before His holiness on account of Christ’s merit. And sanctification, though it has its moment of eventfulness (John 17:19; Acts 20:32, 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 2:11, 10:10; Jude 1:1), has been referred to additionally (and in distinction to justification) as a process toward glory—and as support, scriptures that say we are “being conformed to the image of Christ” (Rom. 12:1-3), and “being made” like the Son of God (Phil. 3:8-11), or “being made perfect or holy” (Gal. 3:3; Heb. 10:14). Forde agrees with the Reformed position in that whatever progress in sanctification, whatever obedience is rendered in the believer’s life is due to the pouring out of the unconditional grace of God. So it is right not only to express justification as being by grace alone through faith in Christ alone but also to speak of sanctification as being by grace alone through faith in Christ alone.
Also, whatever spontaneous care-taking we see in our lives, or humility we express regarding our sanctification is still a measurement against the Law and should not be used as an agent of assurance. Only that historical fact of Christ’s life for our life and death for our death can assure us of our adoption and give us hope of a future freedom from even the desire to sin. Though our good works, to which believers were in fact predestined, are evidence to others of some difference about us, and though they may serve to a certain degree as a confirmation of faith along with continued repentance and belief, even they are tainted and marred by Adam’s indelible mark. As it was once penned in a Puritan prayer…”I need to repent of my repentance, I need my tears to be washed”. I believe we would do well to be reminded of the depth of our sin so the gospel of Christ grows increasingly sweeter thus we are assured because of its certainty.
3 comments:
I kept thinking I would make some comments on what you were writing in this series. I even started to write some comments one time, and decided to wait instead. The series turned out to be quite long though, so I might make some comments that you've already addressed in here, but you can point that out if I do.
I wanted to get a fuller understanding of what Forde was getting at, so I read the original article. That helped somewhat, but not entirely. I just think it's a classic case, as you addressed, of a Lutheran trying to over-emphasize the idea of "all of grace" at the expense of Christian responsibility. Alot of what he said sounded like an attempt at playing around with metaphors in order to erase any notion of human work. But Scripture doesn't seem to speak that way. If there's a passage that addresses all of this, it's Philippians 2:12-13. Other Lutherans would be more open to recognizing the importance of sanctification. I heard Dr. Rosenbladt say on the WHI one time that the Christian can and must cooperate with God in his sanctification, though he was quick to emphasize that he didn't earn God's favor through that action.
I don't think Forde was attempting to critique a Reformed view of sanctification in what he wrote. It sounded like he had in mind a more Humanistic approach to Christianity, such as came to be common in Liberal Mainline Christianity in the 19th and 20th centuries. I'm sure, though, he would include things like Wesleyanism in his critique.
I also don't think he was intending to turn justification into a process. I think his intention was to take the responsibility off of the Christian and put it on God, thereby relieving the Christian of guilt. If anything, it seems that he is allowing Positional Sanctification to swallow up Progressive Sanctification.
So far as Luther's response to Rome goes, Luther himself and Lutherans ever since have clearly believed in baptismal regeneration (though they didn't believe it washed away Original Sin). And they clearly taught that the Lord's Supper is a means of grace. So I would consider Luther's views to be a sort of high sacramentalism, even though there are differences between Rome and Luther here. I personally hold a high view of sacramental efficacy, and in my mind it in no way conflicts with the five solas or the doctrines of grace.
I just have to say that I attended the church where Reggie Kimbro is pastor a number of years ago. He's a great guy, and godly man. But his denomination is so Bob Jones-influenced that it strikes me as strange to hear anything from him about Christian liberty. The Free Pres Church requires a person to agree to abstain from alcohol in order to become a member. Things that Fundamentalists have traditionally viewed as sinful, such as dancing and smoking, are at least frowned upon, if not forbidden - I'm not sure of the exact rules there. Such rules are contradictory to what Calvin believed should be the Christian's liberty.
One key thing I believe is missing here is the Covenant. I know I take a different view on the Covenant. But it seems very clear to me from Scripture that God requires covenant obedience. I believe it is a mistake to turn that into an issue of merit. There has been a fair bit of debate on the use of the word "merit" even. Take this quote from Calvin:
"I must first make these prefatory remarks concerning the term 'merit': whoever first applied it to men's works over against God's judgment provided very badly for sincere faith. Of course, I would like to avoid verbal battles, but I wish that Christian writers had always exercised such restraint as not to take it into their heads needlessly to use terms foreign to Scripture that would produce great offense and very little fruit. Why, I ask, was there need to drag in the term 'merit' when the value of good works could without offense have been meaningfully explained by another term? How much offense this term contains is clear from the great damage it has done to the world. Surely, as it is a most prideful term, it can do nothing but obscure God's favor and imbue men with perverse haughtiness." - Institutes III.XV.2
There is an approach to man's dealings with God that tries to make it foundationally a legal matter. But I think a close examination of Scripture shows that Law in Scripture always sits within the context of the Covenant, and the Covenant is primarily relational, not legal. That's not to say that the legal aspect isn't present. But God is personal by nature, He deals with man in a personal way, and it is within the context of a personal relationship that He gives us rules to obey. It is because the Personal God stands above His Law that He is able to make another way when His children fail to obey Him. Due to the influence of Greek philosophy on Western thought, we gravitate toward the impersonal. We men especially feel more comfortable there. But it isn't Biblical.
I thin that's all I had to say, and even if it isn't, it's enough, I guess. :
Thanks very much for your insights.
Now being a month or so out from the writing of that series, I don't think Forde's intention was to critique the Reformed view of sanctification, and I think his thoughts about it were, as you basically said, not that he thought justification was a process—like some might believe—but that sanctification is more an event than a process. I think that's how he focused his treatment "positional sanctification swallowing up progressive sanctification". When I read through the article the first time I really had a hard time disagreeing with anything, because I have found that the way I formerly thought of the nature of progress in sanctification and the way we obtain assurance was far too Law based and graceless that his way of describing it was very attractive. But after a few reads through the main portions, it seams to me that he emphasized the "event" part of our sanctification over the "journey" part of it. And after looking at most of the NT passages regarding it, one can see that there is a fair bit more verbiage treating the positional part. I think his motives are righteous especially seeing how often the "smoldering wick" and "bruised reeds" of the Church have been abused by certain ways progressive sanctification have been taught.
I definitely see redemption in the covenantal view of, but I also think the legal aspects of the atonement, the way it is sometimes spoken of in the NT, are helpful as well.
Post a Comment