The False Gospel of the Puritans???

"Some of the Puritans believed that perseverance of the saints referred to the saints persevering in good works. This amounts to works sanctification or sanctification by law keeping, a very dangerous anti- gospel doctrine."

The quote above was included in a set of notes for a class I'm currently taking. Since the statement is somewhat unclear, and lacks any kind of primary source documenation, I'm a little baffled as to what he's intending to say. These thoughts are my reflections upon this statement, and not a personal attack upon the professor himself.

It seems like we have two options here. Either this professor is objecting to a Reformed understanding of sanctification which upholds the necessity of repentance, obedience, and perseverance as non-meritiorious fruits of saving faith, or he's historically revising the Puritanical understanding of sanctifcication by claiming that its somehow legalistic or theologically Romish. The former position is nothing but an anti-nomian attack upon confessional Reformed theology. The latter position smacks of an unwarranted revisionism with no historical basis. Maybe its both, and he's claiming that any view other than Ryrie's anti-nomian heresy MUST be Roman Catholic. Since this statement is worded so poorly, its really difficult to know what to criticize. The rest of this post will operate under the assumption that this objection is indeed an anti-nomian criticism of Reformed spirituality. As a pretty hardline dispensationalist, I'm quite sure this is what he's getting at.

Perhaps one of the greatest heresies of our day arises from a theological ignorance with respect to the Bible's teaching on sanctification. While the popularity of theological anti-nomianism has certainly waned in evangelical circles throughout the past few years, the devastating effects of it remain alive and well within the church. Many simply operate under the assumption that obedience, repentance, love for God's law, and mortification of sin are unnecessary addendums to true faith,
reserved for a special class of "spiritual Christians", yet still optional for those "carnal Christians" who embracce Christ as Savior but refuse Him as Lord. This theological dichotomy between spiritual and carnal Christians fueled the Lordship debate in the 80's, and was popularized by the likes of prominent dispensational authors such as Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges. The fundamental theological thrust of their argumentation was that true faith, saving faith, justifying faith, is nothing more than a change of mind regarding the objective facts of gospel truth. Thus Charles Ryrie, in his book So Great a Salvation, states that,

"People who reform have repented; that is, they have changed their minds about their past lives, but that kind of repentance, albeit genuine, does not of itself save them. The only kind of repentance that saves is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. People can weep; people can resolve to turn from their past sins; but those things in themselves cannot save. The only kind of repentance that saves anyone, anywhere, anytime is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. The sense of sin and sorrow because of sin may stir up a person's mind or conscience so that he or she realizes the need for a Savior, but if there is not change of mind about Jesus Christ there will be no salvation" (So Great a Salvation)

How does Ryrie respond to the New Testament texts, especially in the gospels, which so obviously teach that both a change of mind and heart are necessary consequences of justifying faith? This is where Ryrie's hardline dispensationalism comes into play. The gospel's teaching concerning the absolute necessity of obedience finds itself within the dispensation of law, and therefore cannot apply to the believer operating under the dispensation of grace. Thus the arbitrary theological cowardice of Ryrie can be seen in his twisted hermeneutical method.

Consequently, anti-nomian Christians have this theological foundation upon which to build their particular doctrinal emphases. How does this all connect to the comment made by the professor? If I'm right, and this comment is indeed an anti-nomian objection to Reformed practice and piety, then really its not surprising at all. Ryrie, Hodges, and others like them have been vainly criticizing Reformation Christianity for decades. What's the answer? It's my opinion that neither evangelicalism, fundamentalism, or any other modern day Christian sub-culture can provide the historical and theological sustenance necessary to fight against the devastating effects of anti-nomianism in the church. What's needed is a return to Reformation Christianity and all of its theological and practical ramifications. Reformation Christianity avoids the dangers of mono-covenantalism, while all the while maintaining the absolute necessity of obedience, mortification, and love for God's law. Reformation Christianity alone provides the covenantal context in which sanctification finds itself, and thus avoids the vague and amiguous doctrinal categories provided by evangelicalsim. Reformation Christiantiy understands the law of God to be the perfect expression of God's righteous character, and therefore insists that it remains normative for the life and practice of every Christian. Reformation Christanity, unlike evangelicalism and fundamentalism, possesses the confessional historicity necessary to refute such heresies as the anti-nomianism of Ryrie and Hodges, and therefore is more than a mere fad which lives and breathes in a historical and theological vaccuum. God is calling our generation to a lively faith in Jesus Christ which overcomes the world. Petty attacks, such as the one displayed by this professor against the Puritans, are nothing more than myopic attempts to discredit Reformation Christianity in favor of one more suited to cultural needs. The truth is staring us in the face. In reality, its anti-nomianism which is "anti-gospel", not Puritan and Reformed Christanity. May we join the voices of the faithful reformers who have gone before us, and exalt, obey, cherish, and proclaim the holy law of God as the perfect expression of God's intrinsic holiness.

I know how difficult this theological issue can be to resolve. On the one hand, Federal Visionists and Roman Catholics have responded to anti-nomianism by making no distinction between law and gospel, justification and sanctification, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This has aggravated the problem, and has provided anti-nomians with more reasons to equivocate saving faith with intellectual assent. What this professor and other anti-nomian theologians fail to understand is that lawless Christianity is not the answer! Running to one extreme after experiencing the sad and devastating effects of the other, will provide no Biblical solution to the question concerning the role of obedience in the life of a Christian.

For those who need some clarification, I've provided Westminster's sections on sanctifcation and perseverance.

Of Perseverance

"I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves." WCF, Chapter 17

Of Sanctification

"I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." -WCF, Chapter 13