The "The Puritans Are Not the Bible" Card

"If someone could point me to one passage in the Bible that says...AND DON'T POINT TO SOME OBSCURE PURITAN WHO GOT IT WRONG, OK?!...that actually says explicitly that the Law itself generates love for God and neighbor, I will listen." (Tullian Tchividjian, Chris Rosebrough Interview)

I think this was in reaction to this:

"But what of Tchividjian's claim that these false teachers assume 'that the law (in all of its uses) [has] the power to produce what it demands'? Would anyone argue such nonsense? Well, I do know of some ministers - in fact, even some who were responsible for crafting the Westminster Confession of Faith - who have argued that after Adam's fall, 'God therefore set forth a copy of his law in his word, which is the means of sanctifying us; and sanctification itself is but a writing of that law in the heart' (Thomas Goodwin). Likewise, Anthony Burgess argued that God's commands not only inform us of our duty, but are also 'practical and operative means appointed by God, to work, at least in some degree, that which is commanded.' Samuel Rutherford said essentially the same thing in his disputes against the antinomians because they denied that the law was a true instrument of sanctification.

We all know that apart from the Holy Spirit we can do nothing. And we all know that God's commandments do not have the power, in the abstract, to 'produce what they demand.' (In fact, even announcements of God's saving power in Christ have no effect apart from the Spirit's application.) But, it should be noted, the faithful preaching of God's commands in the context of a faithful gospel ministry can produce real change in a sinner's life because God has ordained his commandments to work, 'at least in some degree, that which is commanded.' In other words, failing to preach God's commandments robs Christ's sheep of a true means of sanctification, and thus they may be - ahem! - less holy as a result. We preach God's commandments to God's people because God has promised to bless such preaching with the Holy Spirit." (Mark Jones, Tullian's Trench)

I had a hunch that TT would be pulling out the "The Puritans are not the Bible" card in the event the proposed debate with Mark Jones materializes. The quote above was a foretaste. At any rate, MJ's explanation of how the Law—as blessed by the work of the Holy Spirit and not taken abstractly—is indeed a means of sanctification pretty much lays that point by TT to rest.

Confused About the Tullian Tchividjian Thingy?

If so, the following couple of resources should serve to enlighten you on what the so-called "Contemporary Grace Movement" is and why many of the Reformed servants of the Lord have taken up arms, as it were, against TT's take on sanctification and why he got ejected, ironically, from the "Gospel Coalition."


A brief, critical explanation by Ligon Duncan:



A more thorough and passionate explication by Rev. James Barnes:


Alternative link: Critique of the Contemporary Grace Movement

John Owen Contra Tullian Tchividjian

In his latest blog post, Tullian Tchividjian states:

"Redeeming unconditional love alone (not law, not fear, not punishment, not guilt, not shame) carries the power to compel heart-felt loyalty to the One who gave us (and continues to give us) what we don’t deserve." (emphasis mine)

Square that with John Owen's statement in his commentary on Hebrews:

"Motives unto a due valuation of the gospel and perseverance in the profession of it, taken from the penalties annexed unto the neglect of it, are evangelical, and of singular use in the preaching of the word. Some would fancy that all threatenings belong unto the law, as though Jesus Christ had left Himself and His gospel to be securely despised by profane and impenitent sinners; but as they will find to the contrary to their eternal ruin, so it is the will of Christ that His ministers should let them know it. These threatenings belong to the gospel, they are recorded in the gospel, and by it His ministers are commanded to make use of them (Matt. 10:28; 24:50-51; 25:41; Mark 16:16; John 3:36; II Cor. 2:15-16; II Thess. 1:8-9), and other places innumerable."

TT is an antinomian, not in the sense that he rejects the law as the guide and rule of the Christian's life, but in the sense that he does not see and acknowledge that even the Gospel itself pronounces warnings and threats upon professors who do not live sanctified, obedient lives, albeit imperfectly.

Antinomianism (And a Few Chuckles)

Dr. Mark Jones, who first came to my attention as the co-author (along with Dr. Joel Beeke) of arguably the best systematic theology to come in recent years, A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life, has now penned another book, that I would think is as important and beneficial to the body of Christ as the aforementioned one, entitled Antinomianism. Don't let the brevity of the title fool you. While I am now only in chapter 2, I expect more pastoral scholarship to drip from every page—every digital page, that is, as the Kindle version, being now available, is what I have, but the paperback is due for release on the 15th of November, 2013.


You can listen to Dr. Jones' lecture on "Antinomianism," delivered at the 2013 Andrew Fuller Conference (SBTS), here.


You can view and listen to Dr. Jones talk about his book here:



You can view, listen to, and LAUGH at Dr. Jones talk about his book here:

Van Til the Street Preacher

These images of Cornelius Van Til street preaching may seem uncharacteristic of a Reformed apologist and churchman like himself. The stereotype is that numbers are added to the church through the procreation of covenant children by believing parents. While this is certainly true and not something to be embarrased about, there is also nothing un-Reformed about what Van Til did. He simply made the antithesis hit hard. What does this mean?

It means every human being is guilty and is aware of this guilt to one extent or another by virtue of being made in the image of God. Even Francis Turretin posits that there is actually no such entity as an absolute, theoretical atheist, though practical ones abound. The voice of conscience is strong in every man, condemning imperfect obedience to the Law. While the unbeliever tries incessantly to suppress this voice, the Holy Spirit uses the means of the declaration of the Law and the guilt it brings, followed by the Gospel with its attendant grace, to effect the faith that justifies. When the unbeliever is translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, he passes from one side of the antithesis to another.

So, in fact, Van Til was merely being a good agent of divine concursus!

T.G.I.S.!

Whenever Fridays come, the social networking sites are awash with "TGIF" posts. Notwithstanding the casual and irreverent use of God's name, the sentiment speaks of the innate longing of man for rest. While work itself is not part of the curse (work is a creational mandate), the world wherein this work is done, after the Fall, is indeed cursed and makes work not devoid of pain.

What may not be privy to many who spew this banal phrase is that the weekend heralded by it is actually founded on another creational principle: the Sabbath. The 4th Commandment was kept by the Israelites even before the Mosaic Covenant was ratified, which speaks of its enduring validity, going beyond the abrogation of the said covenant.

The following posts speak of what the Sabbath is for the worn-out pilgrim: Westminster Wednesday: Refreshment for the Weary and The Weekly Antidote to Worldliness

Whereas the unbeliever exults in the opportunity to indulge more of his autonomy over the weekend, the Christian sees this time as a privilege and blessing afforded by God for making His people have a foretaste of heaven, to which they may exclaim with true reverence and gratitude, "Thank God It's Sunday!"

Church: The Place Where People Have It All Together?

I stumbled across this post over at "The Christian Curmudgeon" and it struck me as a pretty poignant observation, especially since I wrote in the same vein just recently.

TCC observes:

"While the church requires honesty, it may show it does not know quite what to do when there is transparent honesty.

Honesty is particularly dangerous when Christians admit to two struggles – struggles with doubt and struggles with sin."

It is a sad irony that awkwardness should characterize the church in its two chief mandates: orthodoxy and orthopraxy. But I believe the concession lies in one key realization that must occur both on the part of the church leadership and the church members, i.e., the realization that both parties still struggle with sin and that though biblical ideals are in place, the substantial fulfillment of them is reserved for the future age.

In other words, the church leadership should extend more grace to the members, and the members should extend more grace to the former when they fail to extend more grace to them.

The overarching unity in all of this is that we have been saved by grace, through faith, in Christ. As John Owen alludes to in his work on temptation, it is the patience of Christ (Rev. 3:10) that keeps us all together:

A soul acquainted with the gospel knows that there is no property of Christ rendered more glorious therein than that of his patience. (Overcoming Sin & Temptation, eds. Kelly Kapic & Justin Taylor [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2006], 204)

Law and Gospel—the Superiority of the Latter in Dealing with Sin and Temptation

In the Christian's lifelong battle against indwelling sin, his heart is the prize defended and assaulted. Proverbs 4:23 and John Owen agree when the former states, "Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life" and the latter, "Our hearts, as our Savior speaks, are our treasury. There we lay up whatsoever we have, good or bad; and thence do we draw it for our use." [1]

When the heart is filled up with good, the Law and the Gospel are its contents. But Owen makes the very important point that of the two, the Gospel is the superior antidote to temptation and its fruit, sin. He writes:

For the provision to be laid up it is that which is provided in the gospel for us. Gospel provisions will do this work; that is, keep the heart full of a sense of the love of God in Christ. This is the greatest preservative against the power of temptation in the world...Store the heart with a sense of the love of God in Christ, and his love in the shedding of it; get a relish of the privileges we have thereby—our adoption, justification, acceptance with God; fill the heart with thoughts of the beauty of his death—and you will, in an ordinary course of walking with God, have great peace and security as to the disturbance of temptations...A sense of his love and favor in Jesus Christ. Let this abide in you, and it shall garrison you against all assaults whatsoever...Contending to obtain and keep a sense of the love of God in Christ, in the nature of it, obviates all the workings and insinuations of temptation. [2]

He does not discount the utility of the Law, however:

A man may, nay, he ought to lay in provisions of the law also—fear of death, hell, punishment, with the terror of the Lord in them. But these are far more easily conquered than the other; nay, they will never stand alone against a vigorous assault. They are conquered in convinced persons every day; hearts stored with them will struggle for a while, but quickly give over. [3]

So it is the nature of the case that in dealing with sin and temptation, the Christian needs both the Law and the Gospel, with the Gospel as wielding greater efficacy. Churches who neglect one or the other, or both, benefit their members in no way.

Pastorally, however, a key application must not be missed. Pastors who emphasize the Law inordinately debilitate the sheep. Could it be that accountability of the members towards their elders is impaired by virtue of a fundamentalist, legalist bent in the latter? The erring member is predisposed to keeping quiet and left to dealing with his sin on his own because he foresees that acknowledging the error to his pastor would most likely result in humiliating condescension.

The gracious and Gospel-driven pastor would have the opposite outcome—members who are open to him and adequately mortifying sin in their lives.



Footnotes:
1. Overcoming Sin & Temptation, eds. Kelly Kapic & Justin Taylor [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2006], 204.
2. Idid., 205.
3. Ibid., 204.

Westminster Wednesday: Intrusion Ethics

The Decalogue is Moral Law (henceforth, "Law"). It is the expression of God's moral will and is binding on every human being by virtue of the Covenant of Creation. When the reprobate is judged on the Last Day, he will be judged by virtue of his inability and failure to keep the Law perfectly, whereas the elect will be judged as righteous (keeper of the Covenant) by virtue of his union with Christ (the One who obeyed the Law perfectly for the elect and bore the penalty of their failure to keep it in the same way).

Given the binding nature of the Law (as an agent of damnation for the reprobate and as the means of manifesting existentially one's union with Christ through obedience for the elect), the particular instances in the Old Testament of seeming contraventions to it may cause confusion to some. What of the Canaanite genocide? Rahab's lie? Etc. Aren't these instances of the Law being broken, with God giving approval? This is where Meredith Kline's notion of "intrusion ethics" comes into play.

Developing on Geerhardus Vos' biblical theology (notably its deeply eschatological character) and Cornelius Van Til's ethics (notably "common grace"), Kline proposes that these instances of seeming law-breaking in the O.T. were actually in-breakings of the consummation (future kingdom) in the context of redemptive history that was functioning typologically.

So, in fact, the massacre of the Canaanites was a type of the future judgment and destruction of all the reprobate in hell.

Dr. Jeong Koo Jeon, in his essay entitled Covenant Theology and Old Testament Ethics: Meredith G. Kline's Intrusion Ethics, explains :

Turretin on the Uses of Natural Theology

Some have imbibed the attitude of being seemingly allergic to any notion of natural theology (or common grace). Hesitant to afford the denomination of "revelation" to anything apart from Scripture, these people eschew the biblically-sound fact that all truth that can be properly called truth is either of the character of natural or special revelation, the former disposed to matters of the created order, the latter to matters of redemption.

Reformed Orthodoxy recognized the importance of natural theology, and Francis Turretin sheds light on its uses:

"Natural theology is useful to men, for we acknowledge its various ends and uses: (1) as a witness of the goodness of God towards sinners unworthy even of these remains of light (Acts 14:16, 17; Jn. 1:5); (2) as a bond of external discipline among men to prevent the world from becoming utterly corrupt (Rom. 2:14, 15); (3) as a subjective condition in man for the admission of the light of grace because God does not appeal to brutes and stocks, but to rational creatures; (4) as an incitement to the search for this more illustrious revelation (Acts 14:27); (5) to render men inexcusable (Rom. 1:20) both in this life, in the judgment of an accusing conscience (Rom. 2:15) and, in the future life, in the judgment which God shall judge concerning the secrets of men (Rom. 2:16)" (Institutes, I.1.4.4)

Item 1 speaks of what is commonly called "common grace." Through the motions of divine providence, God reveals Himself to every human being as the first cause of every creaturely benefit that he or she enjoys.

Item 2 refers to the subjection of every man to God's moral law (natural law implanted in every human heart) by which he discerns God's valuation of good and evil in various contexts and situations, inclined by conscience to choose the former and shun the latter. Though the depravity of man is such that the world is evidence of man having chosen evil most of the time, still it is not as debauched and sinfully convoluted as it can possibly be. Natural law maintains order in society inasmuch as man submits to it, directed and ordered by divine providence.

Item 3 makes much of the fact that man is man because man thinks, and is truly man when he thinks God's thoughts after Him. The intellectual faculties of man were created by God to be the means by which he apprehends God's truth as displayed in nature and salvation.

Item 4 builds on item 3 in that, seeing the wonders of God within himself and in the wonders of creation all around him through reason, man is then moved to seek the means by which he can be made right with God through faith.

Item 5 builds on item 4 in that men do not naturally go the extra mile from natural revelation to special revelation, and that this failure expresses itself continually, temporally, in a nagging conscience (the law accusing), and terminally, in the eschatological eventuality of hell.

The Sum of Salvation is Christ

If the title's proposition is true, then why would there be ringing in the pulpits devoid of the declaration of the person and work of Christ? If the Christian life is held afloat by the gratitude that is formed by the realization in heart and mind of what Christ is for us, then why do bare platitudes and niceties blare from the mouths of those who supposedly are Christ's mouthpieces?

No preaching is true, biblical preaching unless it is redemptive-historical. Christ Himself testifies, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me" (John 5:39). Preachers who have a penchant for serving "10 steps to this" or "being a better that" think they are preaching life, but the Law kills. "Do this and do that" preaching is Law-preaching. Indeed, the Law must be declared from the pulpits, but apart from an ensuing proclamation of Christ in the Gospel, the Law will only be capable of doing one thing: bring despair. Why? Because God demands perfect obedience to the Law.

But how can the Law be made lovely? Only by the knowledge that Christ has perfectly obeyed the Law and paid its penalty in our stead, and that grateful for this, the Law becomes our guide for expressing this gratitude through its obedience.

Calvin says it best:

"When we see that the whole sum of our salvation, and every single part of it, are comprehended in Christ, we must beware of deriving even the minutest portion of it from any other quarter. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that he possesses it; if we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, we shall find them in his unction; strength in his government; purity in his conception; indulgence in his nativity, in which he was made like us in all respects, in order that he might learn to sympathise with us: if we seek redemption, we shall find it in his passion; acquittal in his condemnation; remission of the curse in his cross; satisfaction in his sacrifice; purification in his blood; reconciliation in his descent to hell; mortification of the flesh in his sepulchre; newness of life in his resurrection; immortality also in his resurrection; the inheritance of a celestial kingdom in his entrance into heaven; protection, security, and the abundant supply of all blessings, in his kingdom; secure anticipation of judgement in the power of judging committed to him. In fine, since in him all kinds of blessings are treasured up, let us draw a full supply from him, and none from any other quarter. Those who, not satisfied with him alone, entertain various hopes from others, though they may continue to look to him chiefly, deviate from the right path by the simple fact, that some portion of their thought takes a different direction. No distrust of this description can arise when once the abundance of his blessings is properly known." (Institutes 2.16.19)

Punch-Drunk on Grace?

How many times have you heard someone claim that "Rules and regulations, do's and dont's, these don't apply to me—I'm under grace!"? While it would be too damning to call them antinomians (some may just be too punch-drunk on the notion of grace), I believe the preceding sentiment is really born out of the ignorance of the enduring significance of the law in the life of the Christian. If the law is the expression of God's moral will, then as long as God endures, the law follows suit.

Dr. Joel Beeke, talking about Calvin's doctrine of piety, offers some profitable insights on the matter:

"To promote piety, the Spirit not only uses the gospel to work faith deep within the souls of his elect, as we have already seen, but he also uses the law. The law promotes piety in three ways:

1. It restrains sin and promotes righteousness in the church and society, preventing both from lapsing into chaos.

2. It disciplines, educates, and convicts us, driving us out of ourselves to Jesus Christ, the fulfiller and end of the law. The law cannot lead us to a saving knowledge of God in Christ; rather, the Holy Spirit uses it as a mirror to show us our guilt, shut us off from hope, and bring us to repentance. It drives us to the spiritual need out of which faith in Christ is born. This convicting use of the law is critical for the believer’s piety, for it prevents the ungodly self-righteousness that is prone to reassert itself even in the holiest of saints.

3. It becomes the rule of life for the believer. 'What is the rule of life which [God] has given us?' Calvin asks in the Genevan Catechism. The answer: 'His law.' Later, Calvin says the law 'shows the mark at which we ought to aim, the goal towards which we ought to press, that each of us, according to the measure of grace bestowed upon him, may endeavor to frame his life according to the highest rectitude, and, by constant study, continually advance more and more.'" (Calvin's Piety, Mid-America Journal of Theology 15 [2004], 45)

Spartacus and Submission to Authority

I've begun watching Spartacus: Blood and Sand, a TV series about the exploits of a certain gladiator given the nickname of "Spartacus." Once a free man, he was forced into gladiatorial servitude by unfortunate circumstances. Though the show is drenched in violence and immorality, I was reminded by it of a certain passage of Scripture, written by the Apostle Peter, which reads:

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly" (1 Pet. 2:18-19).

My Pathetic Piety

I missed two successive Lord's Day services due to sloth and sluggishness. I even lied to my pastor about the reasons. I've repented of my lying and of having profaned the Sabbath, and I've confessed to both him and the Lord. In other words, my piety is pathetic. I feel like Peter humiliated by Paul for hypocrisy—and rightly so.

I found this essay by Joel Beeke entitled, "Calvin's Piety." I need the first use of the Law to weigh down on me and the Gospel to remind me of Christ's active and passive obedience (and the imputation of their merits) in order to impel me to walk gratefully in the Law's third use.

"Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin" (Rom. 7:24-25).

"Natural Law = Decalogue" — Calvin

"Natural law was promulgated by God at creation and implanted in the human consciousness. We only know God because he has revealed himself, but he has revealed himself to us from the very beginning. Thus to say that a law is natural is to say that it is revealed in and constitutional to creation.

In the Institutes, he (Calvin) equated explicitly natural law to the Decalogue. At the beginning of his exposition he said 'that interior law' (lex illa interior) 'which we have described as written, even engraved upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the Two Tables.' In book four, discussing civil polity, Calvin made the same point.

It is a fact that the Law of God which we call the moral law is nothing less than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has inscribed upon the minds of men. Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it.

Far from being a conduit of the Classical or Thomistic view of the lex naturalis Calvin made a very sophisticated revision of the concept of natural law by removing it from the Stoic and Thomistic corpus of 'self-evident' truths and identifying it with the content of the Law revealed in the Garden and at Sinai and in the Sermon on the Mount" (R. Scott Clark, Calvin on the Lex Naturalis, Stulos Theological Journal [6/1-2, May-Nov 1998], 17-18, italics original).

The Rolling Stones Were Onto Something

Despair is the friend of everybody. The day a human being first sees the light of the sun is the day he gives despair an all-access pass to his life. That's just the way it is this side of the Fall.

When Adam transgressed and violated the terms of the Covenant of Works, we were there transgressing with him, and it was no less than Van Til (and I believe Bavinck as well) who surmised that Adam was so inextricably linked to the rest of the created order that the Curse fell on the natural world just as it did on him. Every creature is in covenant with God by virtue of creation, mandated to reflect the glories and excellencies of God in analogical fashion.

Doing Church

Contrast the rantings of this "young, restless, and reformed," Emergent type on his ideals for "doing church" with this treatment of the marks of a true church by Dr. R.S. Clark.

There are three marks of a true church:

1.) The whole counsel of God is preached (Law and Gospel).

2.) The sacraments are faithfully administered.

3.) Discipline is enforced among the membership.

The YRR guy may claim compliance to the first two marks, but his 8th point leaves more to be desired as it relates to the third mark:

"8. If you think this will be a nice little church that stays the same size, where everybody knows your name and you have my cell number on speed dial and we have a picnic lunch together every week (By God’s grace, we want to grow)."

How can discipline be enforced in the form of submission to the rule of elders, as these elders dispense of their God-ordained duties, when anonymity is encouraged and accountability frowned upon? He says they want to grow? By growth it seems is meant the bursting at the seams in terms of population when genuine fellowship then proves impossible.

He does get one thing right, though: I certainly wouldn't want to join his church.

The Turk-ey Affair

If you haven't been aware of the recent rave in the "Reformed blogosphere" then allow me to give you a heads up: Frank Turk of the famed blog, Pyromaniacs—a John MacArthurian, Baptist blog—has written an open letter to Dr. Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn, decrying his and his gang's seeming overemphasis on the indicative and imperative paradigm, in effect neglecting to admonish their supporters to "desire" the manifestation of "fruit" in their lives.

The following responses have been adequate in putting Turk in his rightful place:

Jason Hood, Frank Turk, Dane Ortlund, Mike Horton, and Antinomianism (UPDATE 3)

The Fear of Antinomianism

A Response to Frank Turk's Open Letter

The following thread also exists in the Puritan Board where this issue is discussed: Open Letter to Michael Horton Pyromaniacs

I wrote the following comments in the said thread:

The Frank Turk guy's main argument hinges on his "subjunctive" mood treatment, which he sees has been left out in the Horton Gang's emphasis on the imperative and the indicative. It's basically a straw man, since the indicative is precisely why the subjunctive fuels the implementation of the imperative. Turk would do well to heed a fellow, though much informed, Baptist, D.A. Carson: Underdog Theology: D.A. Carson on a Species of Perfectionism

What does Calvin say about grounding the assurance of salvation on one's good works?

"Now if we ask in what way the conscience can be made quiet before God, we shall find the only way to be that unmerited righteousness be conferred upon us as a gift of God. Let us ever bear in mind Solomon's question: "Who will say, 'I have made my heart clean; I am pure from my sin'?" [Prov. 20:9]. Surely there is no one who is not sunken in infinite filth! Let even the most perfect man descend into his conscience and call his deeds to account, what then will be the outcome for him? Will he sweetly rest as if all things were well composed between him and God and not, rather, be torn by dire torments, since if he judged by works, he will feel grounds for condemnation within himself? The conscience, if it looks to God, must either have sure peace with his judgment or be besieged by the terrors of hell. Therefore we profit nothing in discussing righteousness unless we establish a righteousness so steadfast that it can support our soul in the judgment of God....For no one can ever confidently trust in it [one's obedience—M.H.] because no one will ever come to be really convinced in his own mind that he has satisfied the law, as surely no one ever fully satisfied it through works....First, then, doubt would enter the minds of all men, and at length despair, while each one reckoned for himself how great a weight of debt still pressed upon him, and how far away he was from the condition laid down for him. See faith already oppressed and extinguished!...Therefore, on this point [assurance—M.H.] we must establish, and as it were, deeply fix all our hope, paying no regard to our works, to seek any help from them...For, as regards justification, faith is something merely passive, bringing nothing of ours [not even repentance and a determination of the will to obey—M.H.] to the recovering of God's favor but receiving from Christ that which we lack" (Institutes, 3.13.3—5, cited in Michael Horton, Christ the Lord, p. 52—53).

and

Turk may indeed believe that [i.e., justification by faith], but he adds the qualifier that the justified must necessarily bear fruit, so therefore the assurance of one's salvation, for him, must be buttressed by the presence of good works. I think this is the meat of his argument, for which he criticizes Horton, i.e. Horton and the Gang's lack of emphasis on "fruits." But then even Calvin (see quote above) sees the precarious nature of basing one's assurance of salvation on the presence of good works since the manifestation of good works is prone to ebb and flow (Romans 7).

I think Turk's weakness is his appeal to an abstraction of what the justified must possess in terms of attributes and properties for the label to stick.

Whereas, the Reformed consensus is that the "just shall live by faith," with faith defined as noticia + assensus + fiducia (no works there), Turk seems to prefer the following, "the just shall live by faith and prove their faith by good works." But then how much good works is enough to prove a state of justification?

The soundness of the indicative + imperative paradigm is that the knowledge of who you are in Christ as founded upon His person and work (indicative) is precisely the gratitude-producing impetus to obedience (imperative).

The Utility of Indwelling Sin

Indwelling sin—it is the scourge of the Christian life, even more so than the world or the devil. Though the Christian has been made a partaker of the nature of Christ through the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, still, absolute freedom from sin is not to be had in this present age.

To be sure, it is the Christian's duty to be mortifying sin in his life, as far as he is aware of particular instances of dominance. However, it may come as some comfort to know that this enemy has both a God-glorifying and man-benefiting function, the knowledge of which can never be a warrant for lawlessness, but is actually the impetus behind the pedagogical use of the Law.

John Owen writes,

"To mortify sin is not utterly to kill, root it out, and destroy it, that it should have no more hold at all nor residence in our hearts. It is true this is that which is aimed at; but this is not in this life to be accomplished. There is no man that truly sets himself to mortify any sin, but he aims at, intends, desires its utter destruction, that it should leave neither root nor fruit in the heart or life. He would so kill it that it should never more nor stir anymore, cry or call, seduce or tempt, to eternity. Its not-being is the thing aimed at. Now, though doubtless there may, by the Spirit and grace of Christ, a wonderful success and eminency of victory against any sin be attained, so that a man may have almost constant triumph over it, yet an utter killing and destruction of it, that it should not be, is not in this life to be expected. This Paul assures us of: 'Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect' (Phil. 3:12). He was a choice saint, a pattern for believers, who, in faith and love, and all the fruits of the Spirit, had not his fellow in the world, and on that account ascribes perfection to himself in comparison of others (v. 15); yet he had not 'attained,' he was not 'perfect,' but was 'following after' (v. 12): still a vile body he had, and we have, that must be changed by the great power of Christ at last (v. 21). This we would have; but God sees it best for us that we should be complete in nothing in ourselves, that in all things we must be 'complete in Christ,' which is best for us (Col. 2:10)" (Overcoming Sin and Temptation, eds. Kelly M. Kapic & Justin Taylor [Illinois: Crossway, 2006], 69-70, italics original, emphasis mine).

Wisdom: Carnal and Spiritual Compared

CARNAL WISDOM	SPIRITUAL WISDOM
Thy body is weak, spare it, and weary it not; it cannot abide toil, labour, and weariness; spare thyself then.	Your body is God's as well as your spirit; spare it not for glorifying God (1 Cor. 6:20). 'In weariness and painfulness' (2 Cor. 11:27). 'He giveth power to the faint, and to them that have no might he increaseth strength' (Isa. 40:29). This thou hast experienced.
Labour to get neat and fine expressions; for these do very much commend a preaching to the learned; and without these they think nothing of it.	Christ sent thee to 'preach the gospel not with wisdom of words' (1 Cor. 1:17). Go not to them with 'excellency of speech, or of wisdom' (1 Cor. 2:1). Let not thy speech and preaching be with 'the enticing words of man's wisdom' (verse 4).
Endeavour to be somewhat smooth in preaching, and calm; and do not go out upon the particular sins of the land, or of the persons to whom thou peachest.	'Cry aloud, and spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet: shew my people their sins' (Isa. 58:1). 'Open rebuke is better than secret love' (Prov. 27:5). 'Study to shew thyself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth' (2 Tim. 2:15).
If thou wilt not do so, they will be irritated against thee, and may create thee trouble; and what a foolish thing would it be for thee to speak boldly to such a generation as this, whose very looks are terrible!	'He that rebuketh a man, afterwards shall find more favour than he that flattereth with the tongue' (Prov. 28:23). I have experience of this. 'Fear them not, neither be afraid at their looks, though they be a rebellious house. I have made thy face strong against their faces' (Ezek. 3:8,9). Experience confirms this.
It is a dangerous way to speak freely, and condescend on particulars; there may be more hazard in it than thou art aware of.	'He that walketh uprightly, walketh surely' (Prov. 10:9). 'Whoso walketh uprightly shall be saved' (28:18).
Thou wilt be looked on as a fool, as a monster of men; thou wilt be called a railer, and so lose thy reputation and credit, and thou hadst need to preserve that. Men will hate and abhor thee; and why shouldst thou expose thyself to these things?	'Thou must become a fool, that thou mayest be wise' (1 Cor. 3:18). 'We are made a spectacle to the world' (1 Cor. 4:9,10). 'The servant is not greater than his lord,' (John 15:20, compared with 10:20), 'He hath a devil, and is mad, why hear ye him?' If thou wilt be Christ's disciple, 'thou must deny thyself' (Matt. 16:24). 'If the world hate you, ye know it hated me before it hated you,' (John 15:18) says our Lord.
Great people especially will be offended at you, if you speak not fair to them and court and caress them. And if you be looked down upon by great people, who are wise and mighty, what will you think of your preaching?	'Accept no man's person, neither give flattering titles to man: for, in so doing, thy Maker will soon take thee away' (Job 32:21,22). 'Few of the rulers believe on Christ' (John 7:48). 'Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called' (1 Cor. 1:26). 'Speak thou God's word to kings, and be not ashamed' (Ps. 119;46).
Our people are new come out from under Prelacy, and they would not desire to have sins told particularly, and especially old sores to be ripped up. They cannot abide that doctrine. Other doctrine would take better with them. Hold off such things; for it may well do them ill. It will do them no good.	'Thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear, for they are most rebellious' (Ezek. 2:7). 'Give them warning from me. If thou do it not they shall die in their sins, but their blood will I require at thy hand' (3:17,18). 'What the Lord saith to thee, that do thou speak' (1 Kings 22:14).
If you will preach such things, yet prudence requires that you speak of them warily. Though conscience says you must, yet speak them somewhat covertly, that you may not offend them sore, and especially with respect to them that are but coming in yet, and do not fill them with prejudices at first; you may get occasion afterwards.	'Cry aloud and spare not' (Isa. 58:1). 'Cursed be he that doth the work of the Lord deceitfully' (Jer. 48:10). 'Handle not the word of the Lord deceitfully.' Peter, at the first, told the Jews that were but coming in to hear, 'Him (Christ) ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucifed and slain' (Acts 2:23). 'Work while it is called today; the night cometh wherein thou canst not work' (John 9:4).
Be but fair especially to them that have the stroke in parishes, till you be settled in a parish to get stipend. If you will not do so, you may look for toiling up and down then; for parishes will scare at you, and will not call you, and how will you live? And so such a way of preaching will be to your loss, whereas otherwise it might be better with you.	'To have respect of persons is not good; for, for a piece of bread that man will transgress' (Prov. 28:21). 'The will of the Lord be done' (Acts 21:14). 'God hath determined your time, before appointed, and the bounds of your habitation' (Acts 17:26). 'And his counsel shall stand, oppose it who will' (Isa. 46:10). 'It is God that sets the solitary in families' (Ps. 68:6). 'If thou be faithful, thou shalt abound with blessings; but if thou makest haste to be rich, thou shalt not be innocent'

— Thomas Boston, The Art of Manfishing, A Puritan's View of Evangelism (Scotland, GB: Christian Focus, 1998), 64—68.