Richard Sibbes and William Perkins, Law and Grace

Posted on by

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.

16 thoughts on “Richard Sibbes and William Perkins, Law and Grace”

  1. I love it! What else can I say….I believe that I am going to check out that sermon by Richard Sibbes….Thanks for the post, Bobby

  2. I just posted this on my Facebook page…I briefly explained that EC was not 5 point TULIP Calvinism…..So hopefully people will not only check out this post but really look into EC…:-)

  3. Jesus didn’t see keeping his commandments and being his bride as two opposite things. ‘If you love me you will …’ etc.

    Important to get the relationship between them right though. That I agree with. Which is primary, which is first, which flows from and is an expression of the other etc. are all important questions. As you know, I’m not in the ‘law first/ primary’ camp.

    But if we push this to become an absolute dichotomy it is difficult to see where James and 1 John fit in.

    And the Spirit works through his word, which includes the fulfilment of the law in the teaching of Christ, to transform us in the way Sibbes describes, so again I don’t see a dichotomy but a wonderful harmony here, as did John Calvin of course.

  4. 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.

    I’m unclear as to how the practical consequences of this aren’t exactly the same as that of Perkins train of thought. It would seem that this sort of thing would arguably be even worse – in ending in the sort of wretched urgency characteristic of Holiness movements.

  5. Hi Bobby! What on earth did Perkins & Co. do with Galations? Where did they hide it?
    Foolish Puritans! Having begun in the Spirit, are ye made perfect in the flesh?
    I’m serious. It sounds as if Perkins travelled seriously close to the territory subject to the anathema’s uttered by Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For if works are required, even under inspiration, what sense does what Paul had to say make? The Judaisers could have simply argued that true believers in Messiah would necessarily be lead by the Spirit to keep the Law. Paul would be making much adoo about nothing.

    A side note Bobby: Being about 66% relient on KJV for my reading (I use the ESV mostly for cross reference), I read last night on Wikipedia, in the entry on the Authorized version, that the translators used The Greek New Testament of Theodore Beza. Still, I don’t see Beza’s or Perkins’ God in the New Testament, I see Jesus.

  6. Well, pgjackson said what I was going to say. We need to make sure that we are not making strict dichotomies where they don’t exist. However, as a matter of emphases, I’m with Sibbes.

    Also, we have to note that even the Westminster Larger Catechism has a few statements related to union with Christ. Q66 states, “What is that union which the elect have with Christ? The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God’s grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in there effectual calling.” Also, Q69 states, “What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ? The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.”

    Of course, this does not mean that the Westminster divines were using “union” as a determinative theme for all of soteriology, as Torrance would prefer, but it was not entirely forgotten either.

  8. Chris,

    Thank you, I’m glad you found this helpful and encouraging.

    Pete,

    I would argue, along with Charles Partee, that union with Christ is the key for how we should think about both justification/sanctification. But the key being, that we see this all embodied in Christ. This is contrary to Federal thinking, which is why I find even Sibbes very helpful in this re. (but not totally).

    Chris E,

    I think that’s perceptive on your part. I would, in general agree with your question. That “love” could just become the new barometer by which we determine our election instead of good works. Nevertheless, the general frame of affections (and the anthropology it draws attention to) are substantially different. I do think Sibbes needs to be re-worked to fit into EC a bit though πŸ™‚ .

    Duane,

    I agree with you on Perkins, he went way too far in his thinking.

    Kevin,

    See my response to Pete. On the Westminster Confession. I’m not denying the language that they use, there is no doubt that union with Christ is thoroughly in place in the theology of someone like Perkins. But then the issue is, and you know this, how that theology of union is framed via the Federal notions of Covenant of Works/Grace etc.

    Dave,

    Thanks! I will have to read that soon.

  10. Partee is a well known Calvin scholar (see his book “The Theology of Calvin” 2008); he is also contributing to our book.

  11. Bobby,

    You may be interested in reading Robert Letham’s recent release, ‘The Westminster Assembly’ (P & R Publishing). That’s why I was quoting from the Larger Catechism — I happen to have been reading the LC in order to assess some of Letham’s claims. Letham is very critical of Torrance’s ‘Scottish Theology’ book, but I’m skeptical about some of Letham’s points. In particular, he dismisses Torrance’s criticism of the Assembly on union with Christ and points to the Larger Catechism as evidence of the contrary. But, on my reading of the LC, I only see union mentioned a couple times and it has little to no bearing on any of the other points of soteriology, especially election. I agree with Letham that the union passages are worth pointing-out, especially as it bears on sanctification, but that hardly gets at the criticism that Torrance is making. So, I’m a bit disappointed in the book when it comes to dealing with Torrance. Letham’s prior book on the Trinity does a much better job interacting with Torrance (and Barth).

  12. Kevin,

    Thank you. I’ve been wanting to get my hands on that, now I’m definitely going to be giving that a read. I think Davey over at Theopolitical gave a brief review on it, but your little snippet here is even more helpful in re. to the points that you say Letham is critical of in re. to TFT’s critique.

    I think that’s one of the problems for the Federal guys (like Muller and Letham), it’s as if they think if they provide a good genetic line on the ‘history’ that somehow they’ve undercut the “older scholarship’s” (like the Torrances) critique. What they fail to grasp, IMO, is that the critique is largely, if not wholly, theological in orientation (i.e. Muller mostly thinks if he establishes that Calvin is continuous with the later post-Reformed Calvinists by way of “method” that he has basically up-ended the Torrance’s critique).

    Thanks!

  13. Yeah, I can see some of the superficiality that you are pointing out. It’s a lot like the Reformed Forum’s critique of Barth (vs. Van Til) — they think they’ve actually scored some points because they can quote McCormack on Barth’s Kantian influence, instead of actually testing Barth’s method and conclusions, vis-a-vis exegesis. They’re not actually doing the hard work of dogmatics. So, it’s not surprising that WTS has a lousy systematics program.

  14. Yeah, Kevin. I’ve found, at this point, that it’s really not worth trying to talk with these fellows about such things. Once they find out that I appreciate someone like Torrance, they simply pigeon-hole me with their caricatures in place. Too bad.

  16. Thank you, Dave,

    I look forward to listening to this, and thanks for making available for anyone who might visit the blog and this thread here πŸ™‚ .

Comments are closed.