"The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment is a truly important work-one that should be required reading not only for church leaders, but for all sober-minded laypeople as well."

John MacArthur (From the Foreword)

"If you were more discerning you’d probably buy this book. If you do read this book, you will be! This book on discernment is simple, clear, well-written and well-illustrated...

Mark Dever

Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author and web designer. My first book, "The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment," is now available everywhere.

Read about the book, about the blog or about the author.

04/27/06
Comments (36)

T4G Session Four - R.C. Sproul

I just got back from a nice Italian lunch with my friend Chris whom I met at The Shepherd’s Conference and a friend from his church who is attending this conference with him. We ate the meatiest pizza I’ve ever laid eyes upon. They don’t make pizza like that back home in Canada! Of greater significance, we seem to have found a restaurant that has significantly less traffic than the other local hangouts. This may serve us well through the remaining day-and-a-half of this conference.

This afternoon we have the privilege of hearing R.C. Sproul speak on “The Center of Christian Preaching: Justification by Faith Alone.” It seems to me that if we could want to hear any man in the world today speak on the subject of “justification by faith alone,” it would be Sproul. Few men have dedicated more time to understanding and preaching this critical doctrine. Few men are more qualified to speak to share with us this: the very heart of Christian doctrine.

Justification is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls, and ultimately, the doctrine upon which you and I stand or fall. This doctrine is the “Atlas” upon which the whole of Christianity rests. Were Atlas to shrug, the entire structure of the Christian faith would fall to the ground and be shattered. This is not a common understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone in our day. It is now considered, tragically, the small print of the gospel. The battle over justification by faith alone is considered, by so many, a tempest in a teapot. Many have declared the Reformation to be over since Catholicism and Protestantism have supposedly mended their fences and now stand together. The New Perspective tells us that both sides completely misunderstood Paul’s true teaching on justification. Yet it should not be surprising that we see a minimalist attitude being expressed about this doctrine. Towards the end of his life, Martin Luther warned (rightly it seems) that in every generation the gospel will have to be reaffirmed because this doctrine, when proclaimed boldly and accurately, will produce conflict. We are those who, when faced with the options of fight or flight, prefer to flee conflict even if the stakes are as low as being burned not at the stake but at the payroll of a local church. With this increasing significance comes an eclipse of the understanding of this doctrine.

Dr. Sproul will discuss the Roman Catholic understanding of the doctrine of justification so we can understand the Reformation understanding up against the Roman Catholic.

Rome did teach and does continue to teach that justification is a sacerdotal matter. The grace of justification is administered by and through the church, by the priesthood, through the sacraments. Justification begins by the sacrament of baptism which functions by the working of the works (near-automatically) and in baptism the grace of baptism is infused into the recipient of the sacrament, which is to say it is poured into their soul. This grace is sometimes called “the righteousness of Christ.” This does not fully justify the recipient because the person needs to assent to and cooperate with this grace to such a degree that he actually becomes righteous. If you are righteous, then you will be justified and remain in a state of grace as long as you keep yourself from mortal sin. Mortal sin is defined as sin that kills the justifying grace that has been infused into the soul. A person who commits moral sin loses his justifying grace. When mortal sin occurs, and justifying grace is lost, that can and often does happen, while authentic, genuine faith remains. A person can have real faith and not be justified. Once mortal sin has been committed, the church requires the sacrament of penance which is called “the second plank of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls.” The sacrament of penance gains “congruous” merit, which makes it fitting that God once again restores a person to grace and gives him a new infusion of the grace that is needed.

Too often Protestants slander the Roman Catholic Church by not being accurate in regards to Catholic doctrine. Rome teaches that, in order to be justified, a person needs to have faith. The Church says that faith has three functions to perform in justification: the initiation of justification, the foundation of justification, and the root of justification. They maintain the importance of faith. It is a necessary condition for justification, but not a sufficient condition. Protestants believe that faith is a sufficient condition. The presence of genuine faith links you to Jesus and His righteousness and becomes the instrument by which you are justified. This distinction alone is enough to generate a reformation. The difference, then, is faith versus faith alone. Rome teaches grace plus merit. Christ plus your own righteousness is necessary to be redeemed. You cannot be justified without grace, but you also cannot be justified without merit.

A great debate during the Reformation was “the instrumental cause.” The church, beginning as early as Augustine, made us of Aristotle’s distinctions between different types of causes: material cause (the material out of which something is made), a formal cause (a blueprint or a plan), a final cause (the purpose for which something was made), and an efficient cause (the person who does the making). Rome says that the instrumental cause, the tool, is the sacrament of baptism followed by the sacrament of penance. They affirm that the efficient cause is God’s declaration. The Reformers said that the instrumental cause is faith. Faith is the instrument of our justification. This does not mean that faith is a work or carries its own merit. Christians—those who are justified—are at the same time righteous and sinners. The Catholic Church declared this a legal fiction.

Luther said that this is the heart of the gospel. God counted or reckoned Abraham as righteous by virtue of imputation—the single most important term in the debate. So much of the controversy focuses on this single idea of imputation. The meritorious cause that we have to be justified, the only ground of our justification, is the imputation of the righteousness of God to us. Don’t ever negotiation the imputed righeousness of Christ! This is not an abstract doctrine! It is not merely important for us to believe this, but to defend it and to contend with our all for this doctrine.

We are given a righteousness that is outside of us—apart from us. The only righteousness that will justify us is the righteousness of Christ. Without this we are naked and helpless. We need to be covered in Christ’s righteousness.

We are not justified by the doctrine of justification by faith. We can give assent to this doctrine and contend for it without having the faith that alone will justify you. Justification is not accomplished by a profession of faith. It is the posession of faith, not the profession of it, that saves. We must not give people a false sense of security by making them believe a profession is enough! The doctrine simply describes what it is that brings us into a state of justification.

Dr. Sproul recounted the testimony of his own conversion and shared how this doctrine leaves us as the publican, who cannot even lift his head but cries out “have mercy on me, a sinner!”

The gospel of Rome is no gospel at all. It saves no one. There is no other gospel than this one: justification by faith alone. This is a simple matter. It is not a difficult doctrine. But we must be careful. It is an easy doctrine to get into a head, but far more difficult to get into the bloodstream. For this reason we must hear this doctrine again and again and again. Satan constantly seeks to deceive us, thinking that we must add our own merit to Christ’s. But we must stand firm on this doctrine. “Do not move from that.”

Following Dr. Sproul’s speech, Bob led us in song again, singing “Before The Throne of God Above.” We will resume again with another panel session after a short break.

T4G Session Four - R.C. Sproul

Comments (36) »


1. James
April 27, 2006
4:07 PM

Keep up the good work Tim!

I will definitely have to purchase the videos once they are available. Having you liveblog this conference is the next best thing to being there.


2. Mike
April 27, 2006
4:07 PM

Tim:

Good stuff. I wonder if you could give us some visual clue - such as “RCS#1:” - so we can know where your input stops and his (or anyone else’s) starts?

Not that you’re unworthy to read, but just to know who’s error it is that needs to be corrected!


3. Brian Thornton
April 27, 2006
4:09 PM

“The gospel of Rome is no gospel at all. It saves no one. There is no other gospel than this one: justification by faith alone. This is a simple matter. It is not a difficult doctrine. But we must be careful. It is an easy doctrine to get into a head, but far more difficult to get into the bloodstream.”

Wow…what an important truth that we should all be willing to stand up for and not be afraid of being labeled ‘unloving’ or ‘intolerant’ for holding to this truth which Sproul has so clearly stated.

Justification by faith alone…it won’t win you any new Catholic friends…but God just may use you to preach the foolishness of this one and only true gospel message to bring someone out of the dead religion of Rome and into the life of true faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.


4. 4ever4given
April 27, 2006
4:18 PM

When you wrote “Pane session” I am sure you meant “panel session”… however it does remind me of how I often walk away from one of my pastor’s sermons both encouraged and in pane, I mean pain, by way of justifiable conviction.


5. Jason
April 27, 2006
4:18 PM

Keeping up with the conference like this is awesome! I have to agree that listening to Sproul on this topic would be great and thanks for your summarizing of his message. Keep up the good work!


6. castusfumus
April 27, 2006
4:31 PM

Did he ever say anything about the one on one conversation that he had with Jonathan Edwards?


7. Dea
April 27, 2006
4:46 PM

Thanks for these updates - it’s overwhelming the amount of sound doctrine we are hearing.


8. Sam
April 27, 2006
5:12 PM

Thanks for posting, Tim. Great to see a fellow Canadian serving the Lord so well. I’m a member of CHBC and wish I could’ve gone too so this has been great for me in keeping up.


9. Lin
April 27, 2006
5:12 PM

Sorry to be so shallow with such great teaching but since I live in Louisville, I bet your meaty pizza was eaten at Bearno’s by the Bridge on Main street! it is within walking distance from your hotel.


10. donsands
April 27, 2006
5:40 PM

That must have been, “rejoicing with joy inexpressible and full of glory!”. I was able to attend Dr. Sproul’s teaching here in Baltimore, and he truly is a gifted teacher of the Word. He is a humble man, and has such a love for the Lord and the truth. And it’s amazing how the knowledge of the Scriptures, and Church history, pour out of him, and he has no notes; just some chalk, and a chalk board.


11. Joel
April 27, 2006
5:42 PM

Tim, your explanation of Catholic teaching on justification was excellent! Too many apologists slip in enough “straw man” to make it sound not merely incorrect but both evil and stupid as well (and by extension, anybody who believes it). You may not agree with it, but you described it fairly.

I’m not sure it’s as clear as all that that justification is the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. Since the Reformation, it certainly has been the dominant bone of contention between Christian sects, but I’m not sure it’s any more crucial (pardon the pun) than the Incarnation and Trinity were in the first three centuries, or than the nature of the Eucharist in the middle ages.


12. Adrian Warnock
April 27, 2006
6:58 PM

I am so very jealous of you guys that I am avidly devouring ALL the blogs covering the T4G conference. I am regurgitating them over at my place, so if you want to know more than Tim is giving you, come on over.

Well done Tim for your GREAT work in liveblogging this thing!

Who is going to be first to get us the full text of this “statement of purpose”?


13. C.H.H.
April 27, 2006
7:57 PM

Hmm- I too wonder if the jokes about R.C. knowing the Puritans are still flying around. That was one of the funnier moments at Shepherd’s!


14. Patrick
April 27, 2006
8:47 PM

Adrian,

Who is going to be first to get us the full text of this “statement of purpose”?

It looks like you were able to snag a snippet of that statement of belief:

“We are brothers in Christ united in one great cause — to stand together for the Gospel. We are convinced that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been misrepresented, misunderstood, and marginalized in many churches and among many who claim the name of Christ… We are also brothers united in deep concern for the church and the Gospel. This concern is specifically addressed to certain trends within the church today. We are concerned about the tendency of so many churches to substitute technique for truth, therapy for theology, and management for ministry… that God’s glorious purpose for Christ’s church is often eclipsed in concern by so many other issues, programs, technologies, and priorities…. [there is] confusion over crucial questions concerning the authority of the Bible, the meaning of the Gospel, and the nature of truth itself… We stand together for the Gospel — and for a full and gladdening recovery of the Gospel in the church.”

15. david
April 27, 2006
8:54 PM

Joel,

I’m not going to pass up this rare opportunity to agree with you.

If you’re saying that justification is a doctrine rather than the doctine the church stands or falls on, I’ll agree with that. The Trinity, among others, is vital as well.

Really, though, without justification, what do we care about anything else? Of what use is good doctrine without hope of salvation?

Speaking of vital doctrines, lets not forget sola Scriptura!


16. Jason Ramage
April 27, 2006
9:16 PM

I’m surprised he didn’t touch on the Lutheran World Federation and Catholic Church’s Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification from 1999, especially considering Luther lead the way in teaching salvation by faith alone. Is it significant, or do Baptists essentially disagree with Lutherans and Catholics alike on justification?


17. david
April 27, 2006
10:05 PM

Jason,

I’m a former Lutheran. It’s a shame you have to ask that question, but you have to wonder, don’t you?

The answer is that Baptists and historic Lutherans agree completely on justification. The problem is that the mainstream Lutheran denominations today are so liberal that they’re willing to buddy up to anyone. The distinctions between Catholic and Lutheran still exist on paper, but they are simply overlooked as non-essential.


18. david
April 28, 2006
9:44 AM

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the truths presented in the seminar, not to provide a platform for Catholic apologetics. This is a Protestant conference. The speakers will be presenting viewpoints that are uniquely Protestant. Get over it.

I won’t allow this thread to be hijacked into a debate over Catholicism. I’ve deleted the offending comments. The conference title is “Together for the Gospel.” That implies some presuppositions, one of which is that all participants are on the same side of the Reformation.


19. Brian Thornton
April 28, 2006
10:10 AM

David, Sorry for my part in hijacking the thread.

Brian


20. david
April 28, 2006
10:15 AM

Brian, You’re forgiven. Now go say 27 “Our Fathers.”


21. CJD
April 28, 2006
10:57 AM

Whenever I come across Luther’s simul iustus et peccator, it’s hard for me not to see it as a “legal fiction” for the simple reason that Romans 6 exists: “We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin” (vv. 6–7).

I’ve heard Dr. Sproul affirm this aspect of the Christian life — that the old man is dead if we are in Christ. How then can he simultaneously affirm what Luther did on this point (if “sinner” means “he who is under the power of sin”)?

Also, it doesn’t seem biblically valid to make a distinction between “faith” and “faithfulness,” though it surely is proper to note that faith doesn’t “carry its own merit.”


22. Brian Thornton
April 28, 2006
11:02 AM

Thank you, O theologian who art thirsty…


23. diablaazul
April 28, 2006
11:15 AM

shrugs

I wasn’t trying to make the thread a platform for Catholic apologetics. I was simply pointing out that Dr. Sproul’s explanation of Catholic teaching is, in fact, wrong. That’s not Catholic apologetics … that’s just a statement of fact.

Tim paraphrases Dr. Sproul as saying: “Too often Protestants slander the Roman Catholic Church by not being accurate in regards to Catholic doctrine.” It’s quite true, and unfortunately, it’s also true of Dr. Sproul’s message as outlined above.

Not as if anyone cares, but I grew up in Covenant Life Church (CJ and Josh Harris’ church), my family still attends there, and I attend with them when I am at home … so it’s not as if I have a problem with Protestants, or Protestant conferences. I just thought people here would benefit from knowing that Dr. Sproul’s summary is inaccurate.


24. Morris
April 28, 2006
12:11 PM

The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the doctrine on which our salvation stands. That is why R.C. and the reformers are so adamant about it, and go to the lengths they do to explain it and protect it.


25. RB
April 28, 2006
3:32 PM

“Justification is the doctrine upon which the church stands or falls, and ultimately, the doctrine upon which you and I stand or fall. This doctrine is the “Atlas” upon which the whole of Christianity rests. Were Atlas to shrug, the entire structure of the Christian faith would fall to the ground and be shattered.”

Well said!

Quotes attributed to Packer in J. I. Packer, “Introductory Essay,” in James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church and of Its Exposition from Scripture.

Irony is evident when you know what J.I. assented to.


26. Joel
April 28, 2006
5:51 PM

The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the doctrine on which our salvation stands. That is why R.C. and the reformers are so adamant about it, and go to the lengths they do to explain it and protect it.

Morris, that was my point. The doctrines surrounding justification are now the ones that we go to lengths to defend, but in centuries past, there were other, equally vital controversies. The Christological disputes of the first three or four centuries created rifts as great as the Reformation, between the orthodox Church and various groups like the Monophysites, the Arians, and the Nestorians. (I don’t think the Arians are still around, but the other two are, and still in schism.) Athanasius had no less crucial a task in defending orthodoxy than the Reformers did (or, from where I stand, Trent).


27. James H
April 29, 2006
10:31 AM

CJD—(#21)

Re: the “legal fiction” of Luther’s “simil iustus et peccatur” (at the same time just and sinner)….

You say you don’t know why or how Sproul or anyone would cite how anyone could be both justified and sinner in light of Romans 6…

In doing so you forget the light of Romans 7! Verses 7 and following, but especially from verse 14ff:

“We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. [note the present tense here] I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I don not want to do, I agreee that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is SIN LIVING IN ME. I know that NOTHING GOOD LIVES IN ME, that is, in my sinful nature….”

This is the further context of chapter 6, of course, and note that this is not speaking past tense/before Paul was converted. He admits, in verse 23, “but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work withing my members.” Verse 25b, “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.”

So, how can Sproul or Luther hold to anything less than “simil iustus et peccatur”? Another point: most of the Bible wouldn’t have been written if God’s people did NOT struggle (continually struggle) with sin—there has never been a person who has come to Christ and stopped sinning by mere virtue of being in a saving relationship to Christ. The apostles themselves do not exhibit such perfection, (see Peter’s fall in Matthew 16 “get behind me, Satan!” and later when he renounces Christ before those who captured Him) but they do exhibit a continual repentance.

Regarding the distinction between faith vs. faithfulness: Biblical, saving faith produces faithfulness to God’s law (John 15:14-16, James 2:17-26, Gal. 5:22ff). Having faith refers to what we believe, apprehending that what Jesus did was true, trustworthy, sufficient to save. Being faithful is the evidence or fruit of that saving faith. Faith produces faithfulness, but they are distinct in this: faith is the foundation, faithfulness the building.

James H “simultaneously just and sinner”


28. CJD
April 29, 2006
10:54 AM

James H., thanks for your response.

My struggle with it is this: First, Romans 7 doesn’t need to be employed to show that we still struggle with sin. Romans 6 does that just fine: “Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness…,” etc., implies that one who has been “set free from [the power] of sin” can indeed do the wrong thing by presenting his “members to sin.”

Second, Romans 7 ought not be used in this manner. The simple reason is the obvious juxtaposition between the two cases in chapters 6 and 7.

Consider Romans 6: “But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. …When you were slaves of sin…. But now you have been set free from sin… (vv. 17–18, 20, 22).

Now compare it Romans 7: “…but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. …For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. …but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members” (vv. 14, 18, 23).

Sounds like two different people to me.

And regarding the distinction between faith and faithfulness, I understand the systematic you give, but I don’t see it all that neatly in Scripture. And to make that systematic distinction, it seems you come real close to reducing saving faith to mere assensus.


29. carissa
May 2, 2006
11:19 PM

i’ve heard him preach this sermon before too (or a similar one) at the 2005 shepherd’s conference. it helped me understand the doctrine of imputed righteousness far better than i ever had before, as well as just how our definition of justification and grace differed from Roman Catholicism’s. thanks for blogging!


30. James H
May 3, 2006
9:35 AM

CJD:

Thanks for replying.

scratching scalp

But, you lost me. I see in the verses in James and in John (re: the believer and the connection with the “vine” of Christ, and the resultant fruit), as well as Eph. 5 (re: fruit of the Spirit) saying this: if we have true faith, we will be faithful. I John is another epistle that lays this out. There we are told to confess our sins (which it sounds awfully close that you would be denying we commit after salvation? I am puzzled), and in doing will be forgiven.

You say, “thanks for the systemmatic response.” Uh—que? What “systemmatic”? If by this you mean to discredit me because I hold to a system of thinking, I query: how do you infer this if I gave you Bible ref’s, not “according to Francis Turretin, Institutes of Eclentic Theology, Volume 1…” etc.?

I appreciate your comments on Rom 7, and thought you might answer thus. I would take issue with the argument “ch 6 is one person, 7 another,” when there is but one continuous argument from the mind of Paul between the two. In 6, he lays the ground for our being justified sinners, saying that we ought to put to death sin, be slaves to righteousness, etc. In 7 he refers to the continuation of sin in his life. Do you think that Paul was saved and then became a sinless man?

No apostle made such claim. I John says that if we say that we do not have sin, we are a liar and the truth is not in us.

I have to ask, however, exactly what position are you taking? I am ignorant of this. My guess is that you are either RC, making the distinction of venial and mortal sin, or of a perfectionist of some sort. Nonetheless, how could we hold to perfection in this earthly vale? Paul looked forward to the day (I Cor. 13) when he’d be made perfect.

Curious.

James H


31. CJD
May 3, 2006
2:53 PM

Hello, James H.

Rest assured I would come clean on what position I held — if I was strongly committed to any particular one. If you carefully read what I’ve written already, you’d see I am no perfectionist: “First, Romans 7 doesn’t need to be employed to show that we still struggle with sin. Romans 6 does that just fine….”

How much clearer need I be on how we Christians are not sinless upon salvation? Paul, in Roman 6, clearly implies the struggle will continue. But he also says that Christians are liberated from the power of sin, which is why Romans 7 can’t be speaking of the same man, for in that chapter the speaker (Paul before his conversion speaking in solidarity with his fellow Israelites, I gather) is deemed still a slave to sin.

So, put aside the notion that I think Scripture teaches perfectionism, and also shelf the idea that I’m Catholic. I’m Reformed, and I just don’t see the simul iustus peccator justified by Romans 7 (following Ridderbos here, anyway). If Luther merely meant “sinner” to mean “one who struggles with sin” (i.e., “least of the apostles,” etc.), fine. Still, I’m not sure that’s what he was going for. His thoughts seem to want to re-introduce the “old man” back into picture. But that old man is dead (Rom. 6:1-7).

Regarding the faith vs. faithfulness distinction, I simply meant that the cited Bible references delineate no such distinction, and as such it requires one to read a systematic distinction back into the text.


32. James H
May 3, 2006
7:55 PM

CJD:

still scratching head

All right. I’m lost.

I have heard of the view that Rom. 7 is a “different” person than the one in Rom. 6, but I would not arrive at the same conclusion. Regarding being under the power of sin vs. freed from it, I would say this: the natural man has no hope or choice, he is a slave to sin through and through. Those redeemed have a choice that was not there (in that none have the Holy Spirit within them until conversion) before: they can choose to obey their Lord.

The presence of sin and its efffects are felt throughout this life, the distinction you are making over not being under the power of sin I think I’m tripping over.

At bottom, neither Luther nor Sproul are canonical in every word they speak (there are myriad issues I take with Sproul, though not at the justification level), and I won’t defend either further here. I have always understood the “legal fiction” of “simil iustus etc” as being clearly taught from Scripture—that we will always, within this mortal frame, struggle with the presence of sin working in our flesh. I have always taken Rom. 7 as the ground of hope for thinking, “Paul struggled, too”—and at this I am puzzled yet.

That is, what precisely is it about the “legal fiction” that you deem erroneous? I charged you with being RC (or Methodist, or what have you) because I thought only they took issue with that point.

As for the faithfulness vs. faith query: Christ is saying in John 15 that if we be connected to the Vine (i.e. abide in Him), then we produce fruit. Not to say that in the production of the fruit (righteous works) we are saved, but that our faith will show itself by its fruit. This is also how we are to discern true from false teachers, as we shall know them by their fruit. In James, we are told that faith sans works is dead. That cannot mean what the RC’s have it—some justification by merit, working with infused grace. We cannot earn salvation one iota, however James is teaching that faith produces the works (which I take to denominate “faithfulness”) that proves the profession of faith is genuine.

Lexically, I am puzzled that the relation of the noun to the adjective (faith to faithfulness) gives one ground to say, “there is no distinction.” Again, to be fair, I may be misunderstanding your point. What is the issue with this distinction? Does faith not produce the fruit thereof (faithfulness)?

Curious as George James H


33. CJD
May 5, 2006
9:46 AM

What I deem erroneous about simul is this: it suggests we are still under the power of Sin. We are not. Though “the presence of sin and its effects are felt throughout this life” (as you say), I don’t think this is what Luther or Sproul after him have in mind. I think they go a step further — a la the Puritans. Sometimes I wonder if folks who think like this understand what “new life” really means.

My point about Romans 7 is this: it is not correctly used to ground your hope for thinking, “Paul struggled, too.” Why? Because it describes someone contrary to what Paul just got done describing in the previous chapter, which chapter, I might add, does just fine in reminding us of our continued struggle with sin. The seventh chapter makes more sense to (Ridderbos and Moo, etc.) if it is taken to be about the place of the Mosaic Law in the life of the church. In getting at this point, Paul speaks autobiographically, projecting himself onto his fellow countrymen, that is, Jews before the coming of the Christ (as well as those who presently reject the Christ). He does this to show the inability of the Torah to do what it promised (b/c of the “flesh”). And he shows this in order to accentuate the work of the Spirit, who is, of course, able to make good on the promises (see chap. 8: “For what the Law could not do, (H)weak as it was through the flesh, God did,” etc.).

I don’t think we’re in disagreement theologically here, just on how and where to back that up biblically…

Regarding “faith vs. faithfulness,” I again mean only that, biblically speaking, “faith” is synonymous with “obedience.”


34. James H
May 5, 2006
10:44 AM

I see. You are approaching the subject in the Biblical Theological manner. Which is why I didn’t see earlier. The Biblical Theological school of thought poses interesting insight at times to the Word, but sometimes I have to wonder at the conclusions. I once heard a sermon on Galatians similar in vein to what you are mentioning here on Romans 7, but the conclusion was completely left-field. I would fear that the BT school may be calling into question the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture.

Which is not to say I’d disagree with how you’ve put the current issue. Again, I simply didn’t see or understand what you meant.

Thanks for responding.

James H


35. CJD
May 5, 2006
1:15 PM

James, my pleasure. It’s how I was taught, so BT is my default position. Yet there is no doubt BT, just like any other school, can be misused to reach conclusions far afield of the orthodox faith.

Also, I’ve heard that critique before re: the perspicuity of Scripture. Consider:

It seems “perspicuity of Scripture” ought to relate specifically to that content which refers to the gospel proper (e.g., Rom. 10:9). In other words, insofar as the gospel is concerned, Scripture is clear on the issue. But this doesn’t mean, of course, that a great many other things are difficult to get at, not least because of our general ignorance with respect to history and socio-grammatical exegesis.

“Perspicuity of Scripture,” for this reason, cannot be used as silver bullet against biblical-theological positions regarding, for example, creation, prophecy, justification, etc. If one is going to say that an exegetical conclusion calls into question the perspicuity of Scripture, then that conclusion better have something to do with the simple, and clear, gospel proper for that accusation to stick.


36. Don Reiher
May 9, 2006
11:04 PM

Does anyone know if mp3s will be available for free download? I have been a fan of Dr. Sproul over the last 35 years or so.


Post Your Comment Here »

It's generally preferred that you use your real name. 
This is just to perturb spammers. It won't be visible. 
You can include a link to your own blog (if you have one). 
Click here and you won't have to enter your personal information every time you comment. 

You may use HTML to style your comment.
Your comment will appear on the site immediately, so think before posting! 
This is to guard against spam. Please forgive the inconvenience. 
 
Please click once and wait patiently!