The Totality of a Man's Experience Makes Him Who He Is

 The will is first and original; knowledge is merely added to it as an instrument belonging to the phenomenon of the will. Therefore every man is what he is through his will, and his character is original, for willing is the basis of his inner being. Through the knowledge added to it, he gets to know in the course of experience what he is; in other words, he becomes acquainted with his character. Therefore he knows himself in consequence of, and in accordance with, the nature of his will, instead of willing in consequence of, and according to, his knowing, as in the old view." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Page 292 and 293

One of the problems with some of the rationalist philosophers is that they often become combatibilist.

Arthur here is teaching that our being is the will. We are who we are in eternity past. When we enter this life which is time and space, we go through life in successions. Thus as we learn more and more we get to know ourselves. Thus who we are and what we chose in eternity past becomes clear to us as time goes on.

It is similar to Leibniz thoughts.

G.W. Leibniz says, "Since this is so, we can say that the nature of an individual substance or of a complete being is to have a notion so complete that it is sufficient to contain and to allow us to deduce from it all the predicates of the subject to which this notion is attributed. An accident, on th other hand, is a being whose notion does not include everything that can be attributed to the subject to which the notion is attributed. Thus, taken in abstraction from the subject, the quality of being a king which belongs to Alexander the Great is not determinate enough to constitute an individual and does not include the other qualities of the same subject, not does it include everything that the notion of this prince includes. On the other hand, God, seeing Alexander's individual notion or haecceity, sees in it at the same time the basis and reason for all the predicates which can be said truly of him, for example, that he vanquished Darius and Porus; he even knows a priori (and not by experience) whether he died a natural death or whether he was poisoned, something we can know only through history. Thus when we consider carefully the connection of things, we can say that from all time in Alexander's soul there are vestiges of everything that has happened to him and marks of everything that will happen to him and even traces of everything that happens in the universe, even though God alone could recognize them all." - Discourse on Metaphysics, Page 8

In other words some qualifiers can be given to several different people. Such as King can be given to Alexander and David. However, what makes up Alexander is the sum total of his parts.

Regulative Principle

 The regulative principle of Scripture whether in worship or every day life is:

6Brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written. Then you will not take pride in one man over another. - 1 Corinthians 4

Who were Paul and Apollos but servants of God, men not to be worshiped or trusted but in so far as they were called of God to preach and teach the gospel alone which the Bible alone has declared to us, we head their writings.

What is the Bible? It is the 66 books it contains. These books alone are the words of God. God by his power dictated the words to his Prophets and Apostles.

We are not to go beyond what is written. What has been revealed by special revelation is what we head.

What did the Apostle Paul believe about his writings?

Peace and mercy to all who walk by this rule, even to the Israel of God. - Galatians 6:16

He considered his writings as part of Canon. The term for rule is a term where we get the term Canon from.

That is right, the Apostle consider his writings as part of the Holy Bible, the Scriptures, that is what is written.

To deny Paul's writings is to deny the Bible alone is the word of God.

The Gospel alone is our Mother

 Galatians 4:23 talks about the wives of Abraham. The one was a slave, the other was a free woman.

Then in v. 24 and 25, Paul says that these women were allegorical to the realities they represented, for they represented two covenants. Agar represented Mt. Sinai, and it's bondage of the law.

In v. 26, Jerusalem which above is free, which is the mother of us all. This is the covenant of grace. In other words, this is the gospel that has begotten us. God in Christ is our Father, who alone teaches us all things necessary for our salvation, and the gospel alone is our mother who makes us alive with Christ, and sits us with him in the heavenly realms.

John Murray makes repentance necessary for salvation

 John Murray writes on union with Christ in Chapter 9, in Redemption Accomplished and Applied. You would think that such an important subject as he says on Page 171 would have been addressed earlier in the book. Bit instead he deals with the subject after discussing Faith and Repentance, Sanctification, and Perseverance. None of these things are conditions for salvation.

No one is saved by their Repentance, whether thay be the narrow or wide sense of the word.

John Murray also writes that union with Christ is a spiritual matter (Page 176). What does this mean? "'Spiritual' in the New Testament refers to that which is of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual man is the person who is indwelt and controlled by the Holy Spirit and a spiritual state of mind is a state of mind that is produced and maintained by the Holy Spirit."

It's not that Murray's views are necessarily wrong, they are necessarily unclear. What does he mean by being controlled by the Spirit unless he believes in mysticism? How can he discern a life that isn't lead by the Spirit? Would he agree with not by sight but by faith? But if faith includes repentance as even Schreiner says then I suppose he could say such.

The Bible does talk about walking according to the Spirit and by this it means to walk by faith, by the Bible, by the Gospel doctrine. What does a man bring before other men? What do they speak of (Matthew 7). We judge a prophet by the fruits of their words. Unfortunately if we follow Murray we would not know what to say.

John Murray's Process of Justification

 John Murray's book Redemption Accomplished and Applied makes Redemption a process. For instance in his book in Chapter 8 on Perseverance he writes that one thing saints do is persevere. Of course, he says this act of perseverance is of God (Page 169). The saints are kept (Page 164). But with all this being said, he makes our Perseverance an application process of Redemption. The question then becomes how do you know you are saved? What are the grounds for which we may deduce we are saved? For some people it is that they give to charity, or go to church, or so Christian things. However, again others as long as they persevere they shall be assured.

The Bible however tells us that salvation is found in no other name but the name Christ Jesus. Saints know and are assured of their salvation because He died for the sins elect alone and propitiated the wrath of God and was buried and was raised again 3 days late. This is how we know the love of God (Ephesians 3).

John Murray's Final Justification

 John Murray, although he wrote years before Schreiner, and Murray's views are not quite as evident as Schreiner's, in Redemption Accomplished and Applied it is interesting he writes on sanctification and his views are quite the same as Schrieners. He says it is process (Page 157) and on the same page he says we are active.

He uses Philippians 2:12-13 to refer to the eschatology salvation. Remember in Schreiner's book, he writes on Final Justification?

Well John Murray says, "The salvation referred to here is not the salvation already in possession but the eschatology salvation."

What exactly does this mean? Again this book should be about Redemption we have in Christ and by Christ alone. Instead, Murray writes about what we do. Again is our justification a process? Does it involve my repentance from sins? Note the topics. Sanctification is one. He wrote on Faith and Repentance prior to Justification.

Our justification before God is complete. It is finish. We need not worry about attaining heaven. The only thing not yet is that we are still waiting for the new heavens and the new earth. We wait by faith in Christ cross work alone.

The Double-Justification of John Murray

 John Murray's book Redemption Accomplished and Applied is none other than Double Justification.

Redemption is an Accomplished fact. It is not an on going process. Because we are bought we have assurance.

Regeneration is not an added step towards Justification

 It is often difficult to critically analyze a popular teacher let alone a common belief system. People who follow these people or hold so close to these ideas, who have not thought any other way before, often hear the criticism and are immediately filled with hatred and disdain the criticism.

John Murray, for example, says Regeneration is the prerequisite of adoption. It is the same Holy Spirit who regenerates who is also sent into the hearts of the adopted, crying Abba Father. But adoption itself is not simply regeneration, nor is it the Spirit of adoption - the one is prerequisite, the other is consequent." - Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Page 141

What is wrong with this statement? What is wrong with saying that regeneration is prerequisite to adoption? The primary issue is that one makes what happens in us the basis of adoption, justification.

The simple critique that shall be given is that according to Scripture the basis of being called a son is the cross of Christ. Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified, by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

Or John 5:24 or John 6:46 "verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

Life precedes knowledge and assent. One must have life before they believe

We do sing songs that refer to this truth at the cross at the cross. Ones sins must be expiated and God's wrath propitiated before one is regenerated. One must therefore be adopted before they can posses belief in Christ alone.

The general flows out of the principle. Regeneration is not the difference maker, Christ is.

Or again like Luke 5:20 says, "And when he saw their faith, he said unto him, Man, thy sins are forgiven thee."

This man believed because his sins were forgiven. The result of this forgiveness was that he believed. He was converted in other words because of the principle doctrine.

Poets know man profoundly

 "Therefore it has been observed that a poet may know man profoundly and thoroughly, but men very badly; he is easily duped, and is a plaything in the hands of the cunning and crafty." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Page 194

Great thinkers are often thought of as Mad

 "Even Aristotle as quoted by Seneca (De Tranquillitate Animi, XV, 16 [xvii, 10]), is supposed to have said: There has been no great mind without an admixture of madness. Plato expresses it in the above mentioned myth of the dark cave (Republic, BK. 7) by saying that those who outside the cave have seen the true sunlight and thr things that actually are (the Ideas), cannot afterwards see within the cave any more, because their eyes have grown unaccustomed to the darkness; they no longer recognize the shadow-forms correctly. They are therefore ridiculed for their mistakes by those others who have never left that cave and those shadow-forms. Also in the Phaedrus (245 A), he distinctly says that without a certain madness there can be no genuine poet, in fact (249 D) that everyone appears mad who recognizes the eternal Ideas in fleeting things." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Page 190 and 191

Elpizo and Pisteo and Pepoithotes are one and the same

 There are probably other things I could post about John Murray's views in Chapter 4 of Redemption Accomplished and Applied, such as his tripartite views of faith. I believe however faith is bipartite. The assurance, or confidence the believer has is delegated not to a third element of faith but rather to the object. Christ is our hope. The Greek word is Elpizo which comes from Pisteo which means to believe. To hope is to believe upon Christ. To believe upon Christ is to believe upon his words. To believe in Christ is the same as to believe that Christ has made sufficient atonement by expiation of sins and thereby God is propitious. Colossians 1.23 talks of Hope of the Gospel. Or the other word is Pepoithotes which means Confidence. Again this comes from Pisteo. Peitho is the root for Pistis they are the same words.

John Murray, says, "We see, therefore, that the emphasis which the Scripture places upon faith as the condition of salvation is not to be construed as if faith were the only condition. (Page 121)" If this is true then what else is necessary for our salvation? Murray tacks on repentance. However, none of the reformers ever taught that repentance in the strict or general sense ever saved anyone. In thr strict sense it causes contrition by the law, to which after the comforting news of the gospel is given causing our conversion. In the general sense it results in a life long change of the mind to which we grow in knowledge of the gospel. But in all this what saves is belief of the gospel doctrine.

Schreiner's Faith Formata

 When you read Schreiner say, "This is a good reminder to us that sola fide can't be sustained, nor should it be defended, if we understand it simplistically. Formulas and slogans are often misleading and distorting, and occasionally Protestants have thrown about the slogan sola fide as a mantra, as if the slogan itself captures the truth of the gospel. As we saw when we unpacked the meaning of faith in the letter of James, there is a sense in which sola fide, understood unbiblically, is dramatically wrong, for it is flatly contradicted by the words of Scripture itself." - Faith Alone, Page 231

You would think that this came from a Catholic who was studying his documents trying to get a degree. But no, this comes from Schreiner who holds a doctors degree, teaching at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who claims to be Reformed. He has said earlier that slogans are not the thing itself (Page 17).

For Schreiner, Faith is formata when it is connected with our love, our commitment, our doing. This is why he believes that Paul and James does not contradict. Again, Schreiner understands he is not perfect, which makes him an antinomian. He weakens the curse of the law or of the commands of Scripture to suit his imperfections. However, Scripture contradicts Schreiner's view of both Paula and James, and of his view of Faith.

When believers say simultaneously just and sinner, or God is one and three, or Christ for us vs Christ in us, they speak in different senses.

Paul says we are justified by faith alone. He is talking about our justification before God, who knows all things apart from the senses. But when James says a man is justified by faith and works, he is referring to our justification or vindication before others. Again, Luther says, it is not God who needs our good works, it is our neighbors. Scripture contradicts Schreiner's and Piper's view of justification.

Ecumenicalism in Schreiner's argument

 Because Schreiner is weak on justification by Faith alone, and that he wiggles into the formula of faith works, albeit imperfect; we see in part 3, how he sides with the ecumenical movement. Catholics are brothers. Well of course they are if you believe thay justification is by faith and works. Mohler, who signed the Manhattan declaration also has endorsed Schreiner's book. They did this because they don't believe the gospel doctrine. This whole book, rather than defending justification by faith alone, was a book trying to bridge the differences between Catholics and protestants.

Schreiner believes works are necessary for salvation

I am just about done with Thomas Schreiner's book Faith Alone. Needless to say it is horrendous. The fact that this book was written and written from a Calvinistic Baptist point of view and endorsed by the Seminary's president is very frightening. When Schreiner says that Faith is living and active (Page 196) and throughout the book he is saying that works are necessary for salvation, for final justification (Page 48, 63, 65, 81, 84, 87, 98, 199, 200, 203) these aren't just mere slip ups. We might say a man may wright a good theological text and then might in it say one thing wrong. But the fact that he has repeated it for so much and for so long, this is not a mere mistake. He is teaching the Roman Catholic view of faith, which teaches that Faith is active our salvation. When he explains James 2, he says John Calvin and John Owen were wrong; Schreiner's view is the Catholic view. When Schreiner says good works are evidences, one should ask evidences for who? Luther himself says God does not need your good works. Does God need your good works to know whether you are believing the Gospel promises? No. Your neighbor needs your good works. Even with these they are a mere conjecture. For the question is what is a line? A line is between two points. However, we have never seen a line. Again, Schreiner says both James and Paul speak in a soteriological manner. 

Adding works as part of the element of Faith

 After reviewing a bit of Schreiner's problematic understanding of Paul and James, and his longing to want to make faith more than mental assent to the propositions of Scripture alone, he pushes further out to Matthew, John, and Paul.

It's interesting that Schreiner criticizes Wright, but Schreiner's views are in line with Wright, Shepherd, and Dunn. These guys were students of Van Til, who believed that all propositions of Scripture are paradoxes.

Schreiner's view of the Parable of the Sower is that since some believed for a short time and others received the word with great joy that therefore faith is more than mental assent. As we get into other text of the NT, Schreiner believes Perseverance, Fruit, i.e. good works, receiving, obeying, abiding, remaining, hearing (which he correlates as obedience and not that spiritual act of believing the contents (Page 197), love, follow, coming, enter, go, behold, drinking and eating; all of which are the result of Faith and not the faith itself; Schreiner makes to be part of faith. In his view saving faith is not saving because of its particular object it "looks" to, but that third element which he subscribes to love, or other evangelical obedience. This is a vital and dynamic faith he claims (Page 117, 122, 198, 199). He also believes that faith is active. A faith that isn't active is not justifying.

With this said, Schreiner's view makes the gospel message not a saving message, but makes man the final arbiter. The text he uses to claim a "dynamic faith" is not warranted. The Parable of the Sower, for example, presents to us that these men had not faith in the correct object or understanding. The deficiency of their faith was in the intellect not the assent. The various "acts" of faith are not third elements of faith. These acts are the result or cause of saving assent not the saving faith itself. Faith is not active in salvation but passive. John and the Apostles are clear, believing upon Christ and his Word is saving faith. The other problem is that Schreiner includes our work as part of the element of faith. This means as he says throughout that good works are necessary for salvation. Of Schreiner doesn't believe in perfection (page 201) so with that he is an antinomian legalist.

The Sin of Romans 5 is unbelief

 Romans 5, speaks of sin. What is the sin in which Paul is talking about? It is the sin of unbelief. Abraham believed God and it was counted as righteousness (Romans 4). Of course, the counting refers not to Abraham's faith but to the object. To the promises of God in Christ. Adam was a man, the proto man, the first man, who stumbled in unbelief. This is the sin by which all men are now born with. The sin of not believing God. But we are saved by the belief of Christ alone. For Christ believed God. By his knowledge we are saved as Isaiah says. It is because we have been justified, by faith we have peace with God - Romans 5:1.

And as it is said, God concludes all in unbelief (11:32). Who believes the report except him who the arm of the Lord has been revealed(John 12:38).

Schreiner says our works are included in Faith

 In Chapter 16, Schreiner jumps off the rails. He says mental assent is worthless. That Paul and James speak in the same sense. He uses the fallacy of equivocation throughout.

He says, (Page 191) that merely saying one believes is not the same thing as saving faith. Of course, this is why it is a credible profession of faith. This does not mean saving faith is something more than assent to the saving proposition of the gospel. If its something more then what is it? Is it love? Our obedience? If its such as these then we cant be saved by Christ alone.

Schreiner, instead of removing the Paradox, teaches that James and Paul spoke in the same way. James and Paul both mean the same thing when they use the words "justify" and "save" (Page 192). He even disregards those who argue that Paul and James were not talking of the same thing (Page 192).

This is why we distinguish the Law and gospel. For the believer, those who are saved by Christ alone, the law serves to be used as a rule of life. It isnt used to attain heaven. It is used to show gratitude and thanksgiving, gratefulness, love and help to ones neighbor. It isnt for salvation

The question to be asked is if James and Paul can contradict? Paul says no one is justified by the works of the law. James says we are justified by faith and works. Are they speaking the same thing or saying the same thing? Schreiner says yes. Even when he says sola fide, he really includes works of love, of perseverance in the mix (Page 193).

Schreiner also struggles by equivocation. He is talking about works being necessary for salvation, as if God does not know the heart, and yet he also says that "their faith is demonstrated in ther actions" (Page 193). The question is demonstrated to who? Does God need your good works?

I'm not done with this chapter.

Our Wisdom, and Knowledge is of and about Christ

 Again, we continue with Schreiner's book on Faith Alone. In Chapter 15, Schreiner doubts whether Christ's righteousness is actually imputed to us. On Page 180, he says, "In consideration of 1 Cor 1:30, Wright notes that imputation isn't a convincing way to understand this passage, for if one maintains that righteousness is imputed to us, then one also has to say that wisdom, sanctification, and redemption are imputed since all these benefits are listed together. Since no one claims that these other gifts are imputed, it doesn't work to say that righteousness alone is imputed." Or again on Page 188, "More compelling, however, is the objection that because this verse also refers to God's wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, how can we say that God's righteousness is imputed to us unless we are also willing to say that God's wisdom, sanctification, and redemption are also imputed? Though I would agree that this objection has some merit, ultimately it is not decisive. . . . But this objection assumes that every item in the list (wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption) must be given to believers in the same way . . . ."

Of course, Schreiner struggles with 1 Corinthians 1:30 because he himself cannot see how the believers only plea is Christ alone not their works.

In what sense is Christ made wisdom or sophia for us? The Apostle Paul says, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." - 1 Corinthians 2:2

For us Christ alone is our wisdom, or plea. He alone is our only argument. He alone is the logic of God. He is the Son of God. Thus for believers, he is made wisdom. We think no other thing. We don't think Christ plus works. But we think Christ alone before God. We are accepted before God by the beloved - Ephesians 1:6-7. Verse 7 says we have redemption through him. He is our only redemption. It is not the works of the law. It is not what my hands have done, but His.

Schreiner makes faith the difference maker

 One of the hardest things about reading Schreiner is that he is unclear. He says things in which seem and sound good; such as, "Yes, the verdict is effective: we really are in a right relationship with God since Christ is our righteousness and we are united to Christ by faith. We are truly right in God's sight by faith alone!"

I would not say that we are united to Christ by faith. But I would say that because we were united to Christ through his death, burial, and resurrection therefore we look upon him by faith. So when we say we are justified by faith we are really saying we are justified by Christ alone.

But then again, Schreiner says we are made right by faith alone, but then he'll say we need works to enter heaven. In some way works, according to him, is necessary for salvation. So Schreiner is always in a perpetual doubt.

The Constitution extends the power of the general goverment

 "This power, exercised without limitation, will introduce itself into every corner of the city, and country. - It will wait upon the ladies as their toilett, and will not leave them in any of their domestic concerns; it will accompany them to the ball, the play, and the assembly; it will go with them when they visit, and will, on all occasions, sit beside them in their carriages, nor will it desert them even at church; it will enter the house of every generation, watch over his cellar, wait upon his cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into the parlour, preside over the table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will attend him to his bedchamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the professional man in his office, or his study; it will watch the merchant in the counting-house, or in his store; it will follow the mechanic to his shop, and in his work, and will haunt him in his family, and in his bed; it will be a constant companion of his industrious farmer in all his labour, it will be with him in the house, and in the field, observe the toil of his hands, and the sweat of his brow; it will penetrate into the most obscure cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the United States." -Robert Yates, "Brutus" in The Anti-Federalist Papers, Page 297 and 298

Schreiner extends the atonement more than what it was intended

 Reading through Schreiner's book it is clear that he believes not the gospel and that he believes that the extent of the atonement is more than what God has promised in eternity past. Another error of Schreiner's view is that it makes justification an eschatological event. He still believes justification to be a declaration, but this declaration is what happens on the last day. Believers are not declared righteous because of what Christ did on the cross for them. Schriener seems to believe that one's assurance is based on their continuing in their faith. Works righteousness is ultimately Schreiner's belief on justification by faith.

Wilson's theology is determined by history

 "Wilson writes: 'The subsequent redemptive covenant was equally grounded in history' (64). In this passage Wilson seems to be confusing the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace, for the 'redemptive covenant' is not subsequent. But he is wrong about both: Neither the Covenant of Redemption nor the Covenant of Grace is 'grounded in history.' Rather, history is grounded in the invisible and eternal decree of God, and that decree includes the invisible Covenant of Redemption, made between the persons of the Trinity in eternity, and the invisible Covenant of Grace, made between God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as the substitute for and representative of his people. To suggest that any divine covenant is 'grounded in history' is to get things precisely backwards. Events do not precede thought and doctrine (theology), either logically or chronologically. That is the evolutionary view of the world. The Christian view of the world is that Truth, the Word, Wisdom, Logic is eternal and prior to all history." - John W. Robbins and Sean Gerety, Not Reformed At All, Page 96 and 97

Schreiner can never have assurance

 Schreiner's view of justification being eschatological means that he cannot have assurance in this life. Because he conflate law and gospel, he either has to be perfect and thus become a legalist (which is what he doesn't seem to believe) or become an antinomian by which he makes the law doable and tries to pat himself on the back when he fails. Schreiner says on page 153 that justification in Paul is fundamentally eschatological.

Schreiner weasels in works to the righteousness of God

 Schreiner is a very good sophist. He is able to conflate two ideas into one. Again a book about Faith Alone, which is what the name of the book is, should communicate clearly what it intends to say on the subject. With Schreiner, we get a conflation of the notion of law and gospel. Schreiner doesn't properly distinguish the law from the gospel. We see this in his chapter 11, God's saving Righteousness.

What is God's saving Righteousness? According to Schreiner it is more than, not less than, the declaration of being counted Righteousness before God by Faith alone. He says Righteousness and salvation do not mean the same thing (Page 146). Where righteousness will become a reality or when God's people will stand in the right before the judge(Page 147). Schriener views Righteousness as also following the Norm (Page 149). It is walking in integrity in which some people can be more righteous than another (Page 150). It is conformity to the standard of God (Page 151). God's Righteousness cannot be limited to salvation but it is more (Page 152). Then on the same page he ask if we have overemphasized the idea that Righteousness is God's faithful to the Covenant (Page 152).

Subtleties is Schreiner's slyness. However, a book on salvation, there should not be a conflation of the imputed righteousness and the infused righteousness. What saves alone? It is the imputed righteousness of Christ received by assenting to the gospel promises alone. We believe, rely, trust in the Christ for us for salvation. We are set apart by his imputed righteousness.

It is not our righteousness, but thine as the hymn says. Of course, as a result of salvation by Christ alone being received by belief alone, believers do work but not for salvation. Their works are still filthy. Doing good to one's neighbor and for the honor and glory of God and being thankful to God for his grace in Christ alone are the why's or motivation for works. The righteousness that are done in sanctification are not also the basis of or the grounds of our salvation. it is only the imputed righteousness of Christ that saves us alone. We should not confuse the law and gospel but we are to rightly divide the law from the gospel. It is the law that tells us what good works are. It condemns all for lack of perfection. It sends us to Christ alone who alone saves us by his righteous work on the cross for His elect alone.

What is a Dynamic Faith?

 In Schreiner's book, Faith Alone, it is something other than faith alone. He argues that faith is dynamic. He says, "Suffice it to say here that believing in John is dynamic and full-orbed. It can't be confined to mental assent to truths. True belief dominates a person's life and changes dramatically how he or she relates to God. (Pg. 117)" And he says it again at the bottom of Page 122. Just what is meant by this we are not told. We are to just to believe him because we'll he's a doctor at a Baptist seminary. He further says that faith and repentance are connected. He says, "Faith and repentance were closely aligned, and genuine faith always includes repentance (Page 119)." Or a faith that doesn't include repentance is a false faith (Page 119). We are not told what is Faith and what is repentance. This is a very serious problem with Schreiner's book so far. Schreiner says Faith is more than mental assent, well what is it? Is it repentance? What is that? Is repentance actually forsaking sin? So if you are not forsaking sin (whatever that means), then you have serious measure to doubt.

He says Faith that is real leads to works (Page 122 - 123).

Those who know and believe their Bibles know and understand that Faith is mental assent to the propositions understood. To include something else as a dynamic matter is to speak in sophistry. What is it is the question that ought to be asked. What exactly is the repentance that Schreiner is thinking of.

In the Bible, the term repentance literally means metanoia(change of mind). Often the Bible will interchange repentance and faith. They mean the same thing in the general sense.

When they are distinguished, like in Mark 1:15, they are taken in their strict sense. To preach repentance and belief is to preach the proper law and gospel distinction. The law causes contrition, sorrowfulness, and the gospel alone causes joy and comfort.

What is done by Schreiner is a conflation of law and gospel.

Does Schreiner believe?

 Again I'm reading Schreiner's Faith Alone. It's difficult not to critique every little thing he says. I know when I do critique every little thing he says, I can over do it. There are serious problems with Schreiner's book, but I should let him speak.

With this said, in Chapter 9 he tries to talk about the faith of Christ vs faith in Christ. This is just one little critical analysis. But the fundamental issue is that Schreiner does not Properly divide the law and gospel. It shows when he is speaking of Faith as a verb and Faith as a noun

1. In Romans 3, their unbelief (which is a verb) does not nullify the "faith of God" or later in vs. 7 "the truth of God". What exactly is this? It is a noun. What then is it referring to? It refers to the Gospel message of what Christ got done. This message saves those it was intended.

2. Faith in Christ vs Faith by Christ. Perhaps I'm nitpicking. But saying a faith by Christ to me is much better than faith in. But then it doesn't matter. You could say both its a faith that is in Christ and by Him.

3. Faith in Christ vs Faith that Christ. The Bible, such as in Romans 10, says if you believe in your heart, and confess that... there is no difference between believing in Christ and believing that Christ's atonement upon the cross is the sole and only grounds of the elects salvation, justification, sanctification, glorification. It is not of works.

Schreiner says no transformation, then no justification but what does he mean?

 Schreiner in his book says that if there is no transformation then there is no justification (pg. 89). Look how he has flipped the truth on its head. Rather he should have said unless Christ is for you on the cross, He is not in you. The question is if this is so, Mr. Schreiner, then can you please qualify it or quantity it? I'm sure you would confess to being a great sinner. You wouldn't say things like you have arrived. So tell us so we can be such good Christians.

He further suffers from confusing belief in the Gospel and repentance unto life. These two are distinct. Again he says belief is more than intellectual assent and so he tacts on repentance to his idea. John Calvin didn't do such. Faith and repentance were dealt separately. Faith was dealt passively in Justification, and repentance was dealt in sanctification.

He talks about the new creature and the new man (Page 141) but for Schreiner these are all connected to the ethic and morality so that if you are not being transformed or becoming better in your walk then you have reasons to doubt.

Schreiner treats justification and the free forgiveness of sins as if they are not the same. Dear brothers and sisters, the gospel is what justifies sinners. Paul was sent to preach the forgiveness of sins. These are one and the same message (Acts 13).

We are finally brought back to Schreiners idol, when in Romans 6 he says to die with Christ entails being transformed (Page 140). This is wrong. Romans 6 is about the death of Christ and how the elect have died with him securing their justification, salvation, and sanctification, and glorification.

The Anti-federalist thought the bigger the growth of the government the less free we were

 "If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be contrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these encreasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is Baron de Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws, Chap. XVI. Vol. 1[book VIII]. 'It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of larger fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents, in a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.' Of the same opinion is Marquis Beccaria." - Probably Robert Yates, 'Brutus' in The Anti-Federalist Papers, Page 288 and 289

it's interesting to read these people. They quote a lot from Montesquieu. I was once told that when reading someone whether in opposition or not, to go back and read who they quote to get a broader view of what is being said and why.

Schreiner represents the deadness of our churches and seminaries

 All of our seminary's, and Churches, and professors and preachers have all erred. Read what Schreiner says, a southern Baptist theological seminary professor, he says every where that works don't justify (Page 104) and that there is a polarity between works and faith (Page 105). Of course, all this would be well and good if not for the simple fact that he does says we are made right with God by faith alone (Page 108). Why is this problematic? Read the foreward by John Piper, who says we are made right with God by faith alone, but we attain heaven by works (Page 11). This conclusion of Piper is made clear by Schreiner when, he (Schreiner) says for the Jew "circumcision was the initiation rite." (Page 106)

Dear brothers and sisters, if this is right, then the basis of our assurance is no longer what Christ alone got done for us on the cross. If attaining heaven was the result of our works whether it be single or multiple works, then we are at a loss. The simple fact is that we are not getting better. None of us are. Our desires are always futile. We may have a desire to do good but these desires are mingled with sin. To be made right with God is to have sure assurance to attain heaven, not by works or by the law, which in the strictest sense is the commands or demands found throughout Scripture; but by the works of Christ alone and what He did for us. We simply look to Christ as a sin-bearer, as our scapegoat.

Schreiner believes works are necessary for salvation

 . . . "I will show later in this book, that demonstrate that good works are necessary for salvation." - Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone, Page 87

Or again on Page 93 when discussing Wesley, without any qualifications or push back, he says, "in conclusion, Wesley tried to maintain the balance of Scriptures. He affirmed that salvation is by faith alone and that our righteousness is grounded in Jesus Christ. Still, good works are necessary as fruit for our salvation, and if they aren't present, we have no hope for eternal life."

If good works are necessary for salvation Mr. Schreiner then guess what? You have no salvation nor do you have assurance. Salvation is either all of Christ and what He did for the elect alone or it is of works. Hope is founded in Christ alone not in our works.

Schreiner's Paradoxes

 When Schreiner's Pare of doxes come out.

"It is also difficult to discern John Wesley's views on justification. Though he clearly taught justification by faith alone, he didn't speak with one voice on imputation." - Schreiner, Faith Alone, Page 94

This is very confusing and paradoxical.

On the one hand he says Wesley is difficult, and is not speaking in one voice. But on the other hand he says he is clear.

Schreiner's view of the Law is unclear and unspecific

 The problem with Schreiner's Faith Alone book is numerous. Another problem one might have with Schreiner is his inability to properly define what the law is. He seems to stand on the premise that the law is merely the Torah (Page 101). But then again he isn't clear. A book about sola fide, one would think and hope that how one is justified or declared righteous would be clear. But then again, he starts his book with the idea that language is not precise and we are all just talking past each other.

Why is Justification by Faith alone so Important?

 I bought Schreiners book Faith alone. In it he says, "How important is 'Faith alone' - the doctrine of justification? I am not arguing that sola fide is the gospel, though I believe it is one element ot entailment of the gospel. Those who reject the motto aren't necessarily proclaiming a different gospel."

Well Mr. Schreiner the Apostle Paul would say that if Righteousness came by works of the law then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21) and to place one's trust in something other than Christ alone which is Faith alone is to believe in vain.

Doctrine as the Road or the Map? Not really.

C.S. Lewis says that Doctrine and Theology is like a map that will be discarded in Heaven. "Now, Theology is like the map. Merely learning and thinking about the Christian doctrines, if you stop there, is less real and less exciting than the sort of thing my friend got in the desert. Doctrines are not God: they are only a kind of map. But that map is based on the experience of hundreds of people who really are in touch with God - experiences compared with which any thrills or pious feelings you and I are likely to get on our own are very elementary and very confused. And secondly, if you want to get any further, you must use the map. You see, what happened to that man in the desert may have been real, and was certainly exciting, but nothing comes of it. It leads nowhere. There is nothing to do about it. In fact, that is just why a vague religion - all about feeling God in nature, and so on - is so attractive. It is all thrills and no work: like watching the waves from the beach. But you will not get to Newfoundland by studying the Atlantic that way, and you will not get eternal life by simply feeling the presence of God in flowers or music. Neither will you get anywhere by looking at maps without going to sea. Nor will you be very safe if you go to sea without a map." - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Pg. 154 - 155 (HarperSanFrancisco Zondervan Publishing House)

Even newer theologians are saying the same thing. Read what this little devil said in his book.

"A final word about the use of slogans and doctrines. Anthony Lane rightly says that doctrines are maps and models, not mathematical formulas. We must avoid, then, relying on simplistic appeals to sola fide, or condemning without conversation or understanding those who reject the term. Instead, we must ask what those who reject sola fide intend when they question its adequacy. Perhaps those who reject it and those who affirm it are speaking past each other." - Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone, Page 17

Is it true that those who hold to the simple belief of the gospel alone to save are just talking past each other with those who teach one is saved by Christ and something else?

Several questions come to mind when reading what Lewis wrote: How is theology less real, How do you know God? What exactly is a feeling? But, Gordon Clark, who was probably not thinking of Lewis at the time or perhaps he was, wrote on this subject about making theology only the map.


Gordon Clark says, "Passing on from Barth and Brunner we now come to Dr. George S. Hendry, Professor of Systematic Theology at Princeton Seminary. It is not so much his rejection of predestination and the atonement to which attention is here directed, as it is the non-Christian view of the nature of religion that underlies these rejections. In his book The Westminster Confession for Today Dr. Hendry writes,

Doctrines are not faith; they are statements of faith in propositional form. Faith has often been compared to a journey or a pilgrimage. Doctrine may then be compared to a map. No one would suppose he had reached his destination merely because he had located it on the map, or traced the route that leads to it. Yet the map is an indispensable aid to any traveler in unfamiliar country. And just as the map is right when it enables the traveler to reach the end of his journey, so doctrine is right when it enables the pilgrim to reach the end of his faith.

One should note that this analogy applies to the Bible itself as well as to the creeds, for the Bible also is written in sentences - propositions. When, therefore, Dr. Hendry in the next sentence says that doctrines are never 'infallible and irreformable,' his words apply as much to the Word of God as to the Confession. On these premises the Bible must itself be amended, and not simply the creeds where and if they inadequately reflect the Bible.
The analogy is attractive, but like all analogies it is misleading. Obviously a doctrine or a set of doctrines is not our ultimate destination, Heaven. But it does not follow that doctrine is merely a map. If an illustration is needed, let us say that doctrine is the road itself. If we change the doctrine, we change the road and head off in a wrong direction. Here we recall Luke's words to the effect that doctrine (that is, the propositions Luke wrote) is 'a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us.'
In fact, this illustration of doctrine as map is so inept that even when corrected so as to make doctrine the road, it remains misleading. After we arrive at a destination, we not only throw away the map; we also cease using the road. But in Heaven we shall continue to believe these infallible and irreformable doctrines and learn many others, too. They will remain our precious possessions forever." - The Philosophy of Gordon H. Clark, Pg. 98