I am trying to reconcile Paul Helm's article and the WCF. Would I be correct in stating that the change in a person's inner character and everything that flows from that change is not a part of his justification before God?
Quote
The Call that Brings a Response by Paul Helm Hence, in the conversion of a person through the proclamation of the Christian good news, there is a two-fold call. There is the general call of the gospel through preaching and there is the particular, effective call of God working a change in a person’s inner character to make him appreciative of the gospel and responsive to it.
Quote
Westminster ConfessionThose whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
The Call that Brings a Response by Paul Helm Hence, in the conversion of a person through the proclamation of the Christian good news, there is a two-fold call. There is the general call of the gospel through preaching and there is the particular, effective call of God working a change in a person’s inner character to make him appreciative of the gospel and responsive to it.
I think he is simply talking about God taking out the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. I don't see where he speaks of justification anywhere in this quote. As Romans 8:30 tells us, calling and justification is different.
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
That was my understanding. Can I further infer that Helms is speaking of sanctification only and that Justification by Faith in the effectual call is a separate operation of the Holy Spirit occuring before/at the same time and independently of the "change in a person’s inner character to make him appreciative of the gospel and responsive to it"?
Last edited by speratus; Fri Feb 25, 200511:28 AM.
He's not speaking of sanctification, per se. He's speaking of regeneration. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> And justification by faith is not "in the effectual call."
You may find this article helpful, as I did. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
speratus said: I am trying to reconcile Paul Helm's article and the WCF. Would I be correct in stating that the change in a person's inner character and everything that flows from that change is not a part of his justification before God?
There is no reconciliation necessary as Paul Helm's doctrinal belief is in total agreement with that section of the Westminster Confession.
What Mr. Helm is stating is that only the "particular call", (aka: efficacious grace) brings about conversion, at which time a person believes and is justified. If it is of any help to you in understanding the biblical "ordo salutis", what Helm is referring to with the "particular call" is regeneration from which all the means of grace are given to the then "born from above" sinner. Conversion is the outward expression and result of that regeneration. And Justification occurs when the faith that is created in regeneration, is expressed. (Rom 10:14-17)
If you need/desire to read more on the biblical doctrine of "Efficacious Grace", you can go here:
SemperReformanda said: He's not speaking of sanctification, per se. He's speaking of regeneration. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> And justification by faith is not "in the effectual call."
You may find this article helpful, as I did. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />
Thanks for the link. The chart says regeneration is a divine activity followed the human activities of repentance/faith followed by divine justification. I understand that the first 7 activities are not chronological but logical. However, I can't see the logic of saying that inner character change and responsiveness to the gospel wrought by regeneration precedes repentance/faith which precedes justification. Isn't that the opposite of what Westminster says? Justification is "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them." Faith "they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."
speratus said: Thanks for the link. The chart says regeneration is a divine activity followed the human activities of repentance/faith followed by divine justification. I understand that the first 7 activities are not chronological but logical. However, I can't see the logic of saying that inner character change and responsiveness to the gospel wrought by regeneration precedes repentance/faith which precedes justification. Isn't that the opposite of what Westminster says? Justification is "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them." Faith "they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God."
Hmmmm, are you sure you are speaking about the same chart that appears near the bottom of the page which was linked? I'm asking because I just went to that page and read the article and closely looked at the chart and it clearly says that the order is:
efficacious call through regeneration
repentance unto life/faith in Jesus Christ
justification
definitive sanctification
adoption and the Spirit's sealing
progressive sanctification
perseverance in holiness
glorification
This is in total agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith and more importantly what Scripture teaches. So, what's the problem?
Yes, I'm going by the chart and explanation and Semper Reformanda comments which I may have misunderstood.
Effectual Call and Regeneration come first and are considered divine activities. Is the inner character change and responsiveness part of regeneration or does that come later on the chart? If not, how can it be considered purely divine?
Next comes repentance unto life/faith in Jesus Christ which are considered human activities. But Westminster says faith is gift?
Finally Justification occurs logically and causally last although Westminster makes clear "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them." So, if there was human activity before justification, how can it not be causal?
Samuel Hopkins article was helpful in identifying the source of my confusion. I think in terms of the Holy Spirit giving His gifts of regeneration, faith, justification, enlightenment, etc. immediately through the Word when and where He pleases. Hopkins also speaks of immediate regeneration but without the immediate Word. Other gifts follow human activity so I wonder how Calvinists keep justification purely monergistic.
speratus said: Effectual Call and Regeneration come first and are considered divine activities. Is the inner character change and responsiveness part of regeneration or does that come later on the chart? If not, how can it be considered purely divine?
Regeneration changes the entire disposition of the soul; enmity > amiable. The infallible and effectual result of regeneration is the "responsiveness"; i.e., it infallibly leads to conversion, etc.
Quote
Next comes repentance unto life/faith in Jesus Christ which are considered human activities. But Westminster says faith is gift?
Again, there is no contradiction here between the article/chart and the WCF. As I stated in reply to your first question, regeneration allows one to be responsive to the conviction of the Spirit and to be effectually drawn to Christ, in Whom the "born anew" sinner believes. God the Spirit doesn't experience these elements of regeneration, but effects them. Man experiences the effects of conviction, the pain of being guilty before God, under judgment for sins, hatred of sin, love of God, the necessity and sufficiency of believing on Christ, reconciliation to God through Him, etc., etc. And it is man who through his recreated will, having been moved and determined by this new knowledge and emotive experience, repents and believes. (Eph 2:1-9) The man's repentance and faith doesn't contribute in any way to justification. It is simply the necessary means by which a sinner secures justification, both of which are gifts given by God to the elect and them alone.
Quote
You then ask: Finally Justification occurs logically and causally last although Westminster makes clear "not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them." So, if there was human activity before justification, how can it not be causal?
You have totally confused this matter by quoting the WCF's statement on "Effectual Calling" (Chapter X:II) and trying to apply it to the matter of justification. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hairout.gif" alt="" /> Westminster is simply and clearly stating that this effectual calling (regeneration and drawing) is of God's own will and free grace which was "not from anything at all foreseen in man,". The Confession goes on to say that man, in this effectual calling "is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,". It goes on to say exactly what I have written above concerning the active participation of the regenerated sinner, i.e., actual repenting of sins and believing upon Christ unto justification. I hope you now understand this doctrine in at least a factual way. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />
Quote
And lastly you wrote: Samuel Hopkins article was helpful in identifying the source of my confusion. I think in terms of the Holy Spirit giving His gifts of regeneration, faith, justification, enlightenment, etc. immediately through the Word when and where He pleases. Hopkins also speaks of immediate regeneration but without the immediate Word. Other gifts follow human activity so I wonder how Calvinists keep justification purely monergistic.
I'm sorry to say that you have totally misconstrued what Hopkins wrote in this section IV, "This change is wrought by the Spirit of God immediately; that is, it is not effected by any medium or means whatsoever." Hopkins had already established that it is through the means of the Word that the Spirit most always works. And then he established quite succinctly that regeneration occurs immediately as opposed to progressively. And now in this section he writes that this regeneration of the soul does not depend upon any outside means, including the Word of God, i.e., the Word of God, whether read or spoken has no efficacy to effect regeneration; i.e., it is solely the independent work of the Holy Spirit Himself. It is only AFTER a sinner is regenerated that the Word of God is able to be comprehended and attended to. In fact, Hopkins goes to great length to explain why the Word of God cannot be a means to effect regeneration. Can you understand this?
Westminster is simply and clearly stating that this effectual calling (regeneration and drawing) is of God's own will and free grace which was "not from anything at all foreseen in man,". The Confession goes on to say that man, in this effectual calling "is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,". It goes on to say exactly what I have written above concerning the active participation of the regenerated sinner, i.e., actual repenting of sins and believing upon Christ unto justification. I hope you now understand this doctrine in at least a factual way.
The order of salvation between the effectual call and justification has been a real enigma to me. Before I immerse myself in the Institutes, let me try one more to describe the Calvinist view as I understand it now: The inner character change and responsiveness to the gospel are instrumental means not effectual causes of the repentance/faith that follows and repentance/faith are instumental means not effectual causes of the justification that follows.
Quote
It is only AFTER a sinner is regenerated that the Word of God is able to be comprehended and attended to. In fact, Hopkins goes to great length to explain why the Word of God cannot be a means to effect regeneration. Can you understand this?
Would it be accurate to say the Word of God is a catalyst not an instrumental means of the effectual call/regeneration that follows? Would it be accurate to say that after the call/regeneration the Word of God is an instrumental means of all things that follow?
speratus said: The order of salvation between the effectual call and justification has been a real enigma to me. Before I immerse myself in the Institutes, let me try one more to describe the Calvinist view as I understand it now: The inner character change and responsiveness to the gospel are instrumental means not effectual causes of the repentance/faith that follows and repentance/faith are instumental means not effectual causes of the justification that follows.
Perhaps the confusion that "I" am having is the way you are phrasing things? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
Let me try and lay this out again for you:
The Holy Spirit works in conjunction with the written Word of God. The Word has no inherent "power" to effect anything, in and of itself. It is a means of grace, much the same as faith is the means by which a sinner apprehends justification; i.e., the faith isn't effectual in an of itself. Justification is made effectual by God when He applies the benefits of Christ's atonement to the one who believes.
The Holy Spirit regenerates the soul, creating within it a new nature/disposition. This new nature contrasts with the old nature in that it is inclined to know, feel and will that which is good, to hate sin, love Christ and to render obedience out of thankfulness. The elements of repentance and faith are "natural" expressions; the fruit of regeneration, thus they are gifts of God and not something which the individual produces within himself nor by his own unregenerate will. For that would be impossible to do since the old nature is "dead" spiritually and at enmity with God and opposed to all that is good.
Quote
You further asked: Would it be accurate to say the Word of God is a catalyst not an instrumental means of the effectual call/regeneration that follows? Would it be accurate to say that after the call/regeneration the Word of God is an instrumental means of all things that follow?
No, the Word of God is indeed the "instrumental means" THROUGH WHICH the Holy Spirit works regeneration. A new nature (regeneration) would be ineffectual for the obtaining of justification/salvation if there was not "directions" (aka: propositional truth from God) by which the person would respond TO. In other words, if a person had a new nature but knew nothing of his/her sinful condition, the guiltiness which was imputed, the offer of salvation in Christ, reconciliation with God, etc., etc., then nothing further would nor could occur. It would be like replacing a blown engine in your car with a new one but there was no knowledge of which direction to go. There would be a "desire" to travel but no destination. Thus the necessity of BOTH regeneration which enables one to gain salvation AND the Word of God; i.e., the knowledge of how it is apprehended.
Slightly off the subject…. I understand that there is a justification that occurs at the cross and in the resurrection nor do I deny justification by faith but is there any place in the Westminster that speaks of God’s decree to justify in eternity? Presently I believe you have to embrace both. Thanks Bill
Yankee said: Slightly off the subject…. I understand that there is a justification that occurs at the cross and in the resurrection nor do I deny justification by faith but is there any place in the Westminster that speaks of God’s decree to justify in eternity? Presently I believe you have to embrace both. Thanks Bill
First here's your answer to the question re: the WCF and justification in eternity:
The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XI Of Justification
IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]
11. Rom. 8:29, 30; Gal. 3:8; I Peter 1:2, 19-20 12. Gal. 4:4; I Tim. 2:6; Rom. 4:25 13. Eph. 2:3; Titus 3:3-7; Gal. 2:16; cf. Col. 1:21-22
Now, could you explain what you mean that there was a "justification that occurs at the cross and at the resurrection"? What was the nature of that justification? And going back to God's decreeing the elect's justification in eternity, what do you understand about that aspect of justification? Hmmm, so many questions, eh?
I think it is obvious that I asked the question wrong about the WCF. (sorry) I meant to ask is there a place in the confession that speaks of God's "eternal decree that justifies" and not "to justify"?
1. By the justification that occurred at the cross I believe it to mean all of elect and justification by his life is meant the interceding life of Christ in heaven. (without both there is no salvation)
2. I believe justification occurred in God's mind from eternity proceeding the cross.
3. The nature of the justification occurs in time and is an act of God whereby he imputes the righteousness of Christ upon a guilty Hell deserving sinner (elect in Christ) on the merits of Christ and gives him eternal life.
4. These are aspects I believe of justification even #2. I know that armenians reject the eternal decree that justifies and I also know that there was much antinomianism at the time the WCF was written. Sorry but thats all I know, Lord willing He will lead me in all truth if I am truly one of His sheep. Bill
As for the Westminster Confession stating specifically of "eternal justification", I don't think you are going to find one. The closest thing you are going to find is in Chapter III - Of God's Eternal Decree.
This idea of an "eternal justification" has been hotly debated among Calvinists, of which most reject the view as held by Abraham Kuyper and several other, predominately Dutch theologians, which says that the elect were actually justified in the decree. Although brief, you might want to read my comments here: on eternal justification. Also, if you have a copy of Berkhof's Systematic Theology, he has a good section on this issue as well on p. 517ff.
And as I mentioned in my comments to John_C in the link above, John Murray's Redemption Accomplished and Applied is indispensable in one's study and understanding of the atonement and justification. If you would like me to comment further, just ask away. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />