**I see Richard Sibbes, and his camp — The Spiritual Brethren — as very closely tied to their Scottish counterparts, also known as Evangelical Calvinist** — Let me just add, if you’re going to comment make sure it’s on point to this post; if you are going to say its wrong then show me how Perkins, for example is being misrepresented. Don’t give me these anecdotal assertions like: “well, that’s not what Federal Theology really teaches,” or whatever other red herrings you want to use. I’m dealing with the “history” of Federal Calvinism, not what you “think” it entails in your comfortable, insulated “Calvinist” environs.**
Richard Sibbes, English Puritan and pastor, according to Ron Frost, believed that the “law” was not the mechanism for determining if a person was one of the elect of God. This is contrary to the federal, or covenantal view forwarded by William Perkins and others. In fact, it was by keeping the law, by the Spirits’ enablement, according to Perkins, that a person ultimately would ‘realize’ their justification. Notice:
. . . In England John Bradford, Thomas Wilcox, and Richard Greenham all pointed to the law for the same purpose. Tipson links these men to Perkins’ theology in arguing that they all represented a model in which conversion is a process rather than a dramatic event. . . . (Ron Frost, “Richard Sibbes’ Theology of Grace and the Division of English Reformed Theology,” 28)
Of course none of these men, as good Protestants, would be asserting that any of these good works, or “law-keeping”, would be anything other than Christ’s good works flowing through them — albeit as they cooperate with the Holy Spirit or Grace.
This position has been labeled, “Nomist”, or in English, “Law-ist”, someone who places a high premium on the Mosaic law, and its function in the appropriation of salvation (of course this all needs to caveated with the fact that this “keeping of the Law,” is what defines Christ’s “active obedience,” but the real problem here is how the Federalist understands “union with Christ”). This emphasis, known as Federal theology, is being revivified today by some. Contrary to Perkins, Richard Sibbes forwarded an anti-nomist position which emphasized the immediacy and direct work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the elect — which both served as the means of salvation, which immediately resulted in “real” spiritual union with Christ.
Sibbes offered his more characteristic view of the law in The Hidden Life in which he argued that a persons’ affections are drawn to Christ in the regenerated life so that a Christian becomes functionally dead to the law. A person is not to look for salvation or even “comfort” from the use of the “moral law”. In his making the point that salvation is not found in keeping the moral, Sibbes was simply repeating an orthodoxy shared by the nomists. The context in which he placed the point is the distinctive element. He held that Christ’s communion with a believer is in some sense perceptible. Such experiences of communion, generally regarded as spontaneous increases of affection for Christ, transcend the law as a guide for behavior. As in marriage, the mutual commitment of love, rather than rule-driven behaviors, was seen to be the point of spiritual union. The Christian’s behavior is increasingly shaped by a devotion to Christ as accomplished by the Spirit. . . .
. . . While the nomist model emphasized the continuity of the law in the old and new Testaments, seeing it as God’s chief tool in producing sanctification, Sibbes came to view the law as obsolete in the presence of Christ’s self-revelation. Sibbes spelled out the fundamental discontinuity of the two Testaments in his aptly-titled sermon series, The Excellency of the Gospel Above the Law. It is this principle, that the Old Testament law is inferior to the Spirit’s work in the New, that most characterize the antinomists. Sibbes, it seems, was not so much influenced by the law-grace polarity of Luther (Sibbes, as all the early Reformers did, continued to honor the law as revealing something of God’s character), as much as he was shaped by a very literal exegesis of 2 Corinthians 3: 17-18. This was the crux interpretum for antinomists and the text on which the exposition of the Excellency of the Gospel rested. It released Sibbes from a primary orientation to Old Testament law in describing the life of faith. (Ron Frost, “Richard Sibbes’ Theology of Grace and the Division of English Reformed Theology,” 37-38)
Obviously Sibbes emphasized the immediate work of the Spirit, which resulted in a real union with Christ. This is contrary to Perkins, who believed in an ad hoc union with Christ; which one could only “really” realize as he or she persevered in good works (i.e. practical syllogism, to be discussed later). In other words, for Perkins, certainty of election was a mediated reality, determined by one’s behavior relative to their cooperation with grace. This framework, for people who followed Perkins (which was the majority of Puritan England), resulted in an inward/introspective spirituality; since this perspective was very individuated and obsessed with personal holiness — for all the wrong reasons. Perkins in many ways serves as a forerunner for the later developed, Pietism, which climaxed with Schleiermacher (fodder for another post).
Sibbes’ emphasis on the immediacy of the Spirit, instead of promoting an incipient Pietism, allows the person to be obsessed and consumed by the beauty and majesty of Christ. This approach emphasizes a Trinitarian approach to salvation, which has a high pneumatology, leading to an even higher Christology — as the person of Christ and his works are magnified in the bride/bridegroom relationship, between Christ and his Church. I think this is much more fruitful than the approach offered by Perkins, and anyone who might fit his soteriological paradigm.
I think you are seeing a horizontal divide where there is really a vertical separation. We don't say two Reformed Christians like Perkins and Sibbes are each a part of wholly different and warring schools or traditions when we are speaking of issues of sanctification. And Reformed Theology doesn't separate law and gospel in the way you seem to think. There is gospel in the law, and there is the law in the gospel. When you reference 'Old Testament' for 'law' you are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of Reformed Theology. You also seem to be referencing notions of perfectionism which is more associated with Methodists and other schools other than what would be associated solely with Reformed Theology (I know there were/are Calvinist Methodists). One central point: you continually want to deny nuance and 'tension' and such things to orthodox Reformed, Federal Theology (for instance regarding issues of the use of the law – third use – and regarding the subject of sanctification), which is necessary for you to make your criticisms, but is just not historical and does not represent Reformed Theology. To a Reformed Christian Richard Sibbe's writing is not opposed to Perkins, but represents a part of the whole. Much like Paul states regarding gifts and how each brings their own particular gift to combine with the entire body of Christ. Even so, Calvin was called the theologian of the Holy Spirit, and so was John Owen, the 'Calvin of England.' The Spirit has always been central to Reformed Theology. Arguably one sees less understanding regarding this in modern day seminary-educated Reformed professor types, but most Reformed Christians get their doctrine from sources a bit older, thank goodness…
Actually Dr Ron Frost underscores this "divide" between Perkins and Sibbes (following Janice Knight: 'The Spiritual Brethren' – Sibbes; 'The Intellectual Fathers' – Perkins).What you're following is the 'popular' notion that Reformed history (a la Perry Miller's thesis, and others) is a monolith. What Frost demonstrates in his dissertation is that this is just pure nonsense. I've just come to the realization, Puritan, that you don't know your history — at all. You need to go and read some 'critical/constructive' accounts/books on this stuff before you continue to make assertions that are just not supportable. Sibbes was non-Federal. He rejected Perkins' experimental predestinarianism, the "Golden Chain," etc. He didn't see salvation framed through Federal understandings at all. Instead he framed it through the Pauline Marital framework found in Eph 5. What I want you to do, Puritan, is to go and read some stuff on your history — like the 3 books I'm rereading. I don't want you coming on here any further, and making the wild assertions that you do. I'm starting to get embarrassed for you, seriously.I'm afraid I will be deleting your comments from now on; what you are saying is unintelligible — relative to the facts of history, your Puritan history — our discussions are really never fruitful (most of the time you just assert I don't know what I'm talking about). So basically, I'm banning you from the blog. If you want to come back in 3 months from today, on the caveat that you've become more 'self-critical', then you can continue commenting. Until then, you're done.Peace in Christ,Bobby
Bobby, thanks for posting this. I definitely hear the Nomist view preached from our pulpit. And I'll be totally transparent and say that it bothers me. It's not that I don't want to keep the law, but I see Paul saying that we are dead to the law and that we are not under law but under grace. So I see the "marital" view of our relationship to Christ more than I see some sort of binding agreement that requires the use of the law in any other way than to show us our need of Him.So, I'm curious, would you consider yourself to be sabbatarian? What's your view of the "Lord's Day"?In Christ,Ten Cent
Ten Cent,No, I'm not a sabbatarian — why do you ask?I see the "Lord's Day" as a huge theme in scripture (particularly related to His first and second comings). But per the "Sabbath rest," in Hebrews 3, as I recall, I would see every day as 'Sabbath rest' in Christ . . . that this language — Sabbath — is eschatologically and redemptively charged; so that when the Father rests, we can rest, in Christ. More to be said, for sure, let me know if this answered what you were getting at.
Bobby, I was just checking to see if you're practice matches your theology. I was guessing you would not be sabbatarian and thought that it would be ironic if you were. In my circle, the "gospel law-keeping" as they like to call it, necessitates a high view of the Christian sabbath (aka Sunday). Even within this circle there are differing views as to what it means to keep the Sabbath. For some, it means denying oneself the pleasures that detract them from focusing on Christ. So…no watching sports/TV, no reading the paper, no going out to eat, etc…It's a hot button for many of my friends/brothers in Christ.The issue is that if I am dead to the law, what do I do with the 10 commandments. Because, surely it doesn't negate the commands. I still cannot commit adultry or have other gods before Him, or covet what my neighbor has. If I do those things, it's still sin, right? So if I don't remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, am I not sinning as well. Not that my union with Christ is based on my performance with in the bounds of the law. But if these rules that God gave to us are "transgressed" isn't it sin? And isn't keeping the Sabbath one of those rules? So then, should I not try to understand what it means to keep the Sabbath and attempt to do so?That's what I'm getting at.Thanks for the conversation.In Christ,Ten Cent
Oh, it was a test π . . .Of course there is the ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects of the Law that need to be kept in mind — even if these distinctions are merely hueristic.On the sabbath, it is grounded in a 'Creational ethic', before the Law. It is always a binding reality. The NT points out how this too is christologically conditioned, so the first time we hear of 'Sabbath' it is with the original creation; the second time it is with the New recreation in Christ. The Father's 'first'/original rest in creation, was predicated upon the 'final' rest eschatologically grounded in recreation of Christ, for us.'Make sense? π
Practically speaking, what does that mean for me? Do I keep the Sabbath because I am in Christ, so I'm resting from my "work"?I'm referencing the moral aspect of the Law (10 Commandments) because that's what most often pointed to as the rule…of sorts…for the Christian.In Christ,Ten Cent
Christ fulfilled the law – all of it, so that we are no longer under the law. The law was given to the Jews, God's chosen people, not to the church or to those of the new covenant. So I am not under the law, any law bu the law of Christ/Spirit. So I don't feel the need to obey any of the law fr laws sake. I realsie I can't obey it, so I give in, I concede my defeat. ANd CHrist, in his goodness, lives it perfectly for me, vicariously. He completes the law for me. So now I strive to live by the law of Christ which is not at odds with the Mosaic law but is so much more. In his SPirit I am empowered and equipped, united to Christ, to live out the Father's will on earth as it is in heaven. So sabbath – as Bobby said, it is rest in Christ – every day, every minute. The pattern of an actual day of rest makes sense in so many ways and is a good idea – unless it is done as an act of law-obedinace – then it is legalism outside of Christ. The same goes for lying, adultery, etc etc. That is how I see it anyway and that is what it means for me. We must always look to Christ as the author and perfector of our faith, to his vicarious life and humanity, and then live in the Sirit responsive lives of worship.
Ten Cent,What Myk said. Like Paul says, we are under the "Law of Christ." I'd like to say more, Ten, but I'm really tired today (working 10's again . . . more later).Myk,I'm encouraged by how our thinking is so similar (your's much more sophisticated, of course ;-).
Bobby,Please don't feel pressured to respond. I'm grateful for the dialogue, but not at the expense of the rest of your life. I can empathize with you.Myk,Thanks for your response. I'm tracking with you and am in agreement with you. What you have described is how I've thought about my relationship to the law since I am in Christ. I'm going to try to ask a few questions of you, but not because I disagree with you. But because I'm trying to think this stuff through.—–You said, "So now I strive to live by the law of Christ which is not at odds with the Mosaic law but is so much more. In his SPirit I am empowered and equipped, united to Christ, to live out the Father's will on earth as it is in heaven."—–I John 5:3a "This is love for God: to obey his commands."OK, so if the the whole law is summed up in the two great commandments of loving God and loving your neighbor, and if love for God is to obey His commands, then isn't there a certain amount of striving to keep His commands–law keeping.What would make this legalism is the motivation. If I do it to earn God's favor, then I'm being legalist. But if I'm doing it out of love for God, then it's of and through the Spirit. I avoid committing adultery, not because I want God's smile, but because He loves me. And so it is with the Sabbath. I strive to keep the Sabbath because He loves me.So my first question is, if you're striving to live by the law of Christ (which is not at odds with the Mosaic law) then aren't you, by default, a law-keeper?Second question, if we don't redefine the other 9 commandments, why would we redefine the 4th, keeping the Sabbath?In Christ,Ten Cent
Hey Big TenHow about "love-keeper?" I know that probably doesn't help a ton but…that was the first thing I thought of.PeaceWill