Inquirer: What is the C.R.E.C. ?
Colin Pearson: It’s a big C (W)rec(k)
Paul Liberati: Actually, we're the denomination everyone loves to hate. Well, not everyone. Just those who worship at the altar of Reformed tradition and denominationalism.
Colin Pearson: Paul, Nice slander. Typical of those who defend a fake denomination that protects heretics.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, who is the slander against? Name the person, and then we can talk.
Colin Pearson: Paul, You didn’t name names, but you included anyone who criticizes the CREC. Pretty broad brush you paint with and very serious charges. Guess you’re too cowardly to actually name names. Figures. Typical CREC folks. Blast people with blatant, unmitigated slander and then retreat.
Nathan Beatty: Paul, who worships at that altar?
Paul Liberati: Nathan Beatty and Colin Pearson, I'm not running. If the shoe fits, wear it. If you're the kind of person who thinks that belonging to a certain denomination gives you favor with God, then Yes, I am describing you. You are obviously worshiping at the wrong altar. If you're the kind of person who likes to exalt himself with the notion that you are the Truly Reformed, then Yes, that certainly fits my description. I am talking about you. You are boasting in the wrong thing. Try boasting in the Lord alone, which is what you're supposed to be doing.
It's sad that so many are preoccupied with hating on the CREC. If you want to debate a point of doctrine, I'm right here. But it's more than a bit of irony to hear you say that I'm the one who blasts people with unmitigated slander "and then retreats." Bro, I'm not the one who uses my Facebook status to take cheap shots at other denominations. And then cry when they push back.
Nathan, what substance is there in anything you wrote in the OP? Obviously, there is none. The OP is just another expression of what I mentioned above: a love to hate on the CREC. But like I said: If you guys have something of substance to say, I'm all ears. So, do you want to debate something, or not?
Colin Pearson: Paul, No need to debate. CREC promotes and tolerated FV. Toleration of heresy, a false gospel, is sufficient warrant for criticism. Whine all you want. I’ll say the same thing a thousand times, but you’re the coward that comes out with false accusations.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, have it your way.
Colin Pearson: Paul, no need to rehash what’s been settled. FV is heresy. Always has been. You support and promote heresy by being a part of CREC. Repent of your divisiveness and tolerance of a false gospel.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, thank you for your opinion. But it doesn't carry much weight with me anymore. Not after you blocked me on Facebook for teaching "heresy" concerning the Atonement when all I was arguing for was the universal sufficiency of the death of Christ. Remember when you mistook that for Amyraldianism?
Colin Pearson: Paul, sorry that the whole of Protestant and Reformed orthodoxy is an insufficient warning to heed.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, the entirety of Protestant Christianity? Okay, prove that.
Colin Pearson: Paul, name the Protestant who defines faith as necessarily obedient.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, you need to give me more than that to work with. First, explain what "faith as necessarily obedient" means. Second, show me that we actually teach it according to the explanation you provide.
Colin Pearson: Paul, it means defining saving faith as, in essence, including obedience. This is taught by the FV joint statement as well as every proponent of FV.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, can you quote the FV joint statement, please?
Colin Pearson: Paul,
“We deny that the faith which is the sole instrument of justification can be understood as anything other than the only kind of faith which God gives, which is to say, a living, active, and personally loyal faith. Justifying faith encompasses the elements of assent, knowledge, and living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer. We deny that faith is ever alone, even at the moment of the effectual call.”
You would be aware of this if you had taken the time to read the reports of every Reformed church against FV before jumping into the wolves’ den.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, I see nothing in the statement you provided that has not been stated even more forcefully by well-known Protestant Divines:
// We absolutely deny that we can be justified by that faith which can be alone; that is, without a principle of spiritual life and universal obedience, operative in all the works of it, as duty doth require. For those who assert it must be Antinomians, and I know not what; such as oppose or deny the necessity of universal obedience, or good works. If they mean those who believe that faith alone is on our part the means, instrument, or condition of our justification, all the prophets and apostles were so, and were so taught to be by Jesus Christ. But if they mean those who affirm that the faith whereby we are justified is alone, separate, or separable, from a principle and the fruit of holy obedience, they must find them out themselves, for we know nothing of them. For we allow no faith to be of the same kind or nature with that whereby we are justified, but what virtually and radically contains in it universal obedience, as the effect is in the cause, the fruit in the root, and which acts itself in all particular duties. Yea, we allow no faith to be justifying, or to be of the same kind with it, which is not itself, and in its own nature, a spiritually vital principle of obedience and good works //
— John Owen
Colin Pearson: Paul, of course, you pick one part of the quote that no one disputes. Please actually take the time to study why every Reformed church has condemned FV instead of continuing the same satanic obfuscation that they have for decades.
“Living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer” makes works part of the definition of faith, rather than a product of faith. This is made clear in the writings of Leithart, Lusk, etc., which you can find in plain detail in the reports you won’t bother reading. I’m not going to do your homework for you anymore. You’re an adult.
Nathan Beatty: Paul,
// If you're the kind of person who thinks that belonging to a certain denomination gives you favor with God, then Yes, I am describing you //
But that's not what you accused people of. You accused people of worshipping at the altar of Reformed tradition and Denominationalism. I'm curious who does that. I don't think I actually know anyone like this…
Colin Pearson: Paul,
“Yes, we do have the same obligation that Adam (and Abraham, and Moses, and David, and Jesus) had, namely, the obedience of faith. And, yes, covenant faithfulness is the way to salvation, for the “doers of the law will be justified” at the final judgment. But this is all done in union with Christ, so that “our” covenant faithfulness is dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us, and our covenant faithfulness is about faith, trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.”
— Leithart
Notice his conflation of faith and works to be actually the same thing, covenant faithfulness is doing the law, but this is about faith and trusting the Spirit to work in and through us to obey. Not faith the open hand that grasps Christ, but faith, which is itself working. This incorporates works into the definition of faith and conflates sanctification with justification.
Compare his statement on “the doers of the law” (Rom. 2:13) to that of literally any Protestant:
“Will be pronounced just before God's judgment seat: which is true indeed if anyone could be found that had fulfilled the law: but seeing that Abraham was not justified by the law, but by faith, it follows that no man can be justified by works.”
— Geneva Bible
“Now we do not deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of having fulfilled the law.”
— Calvin
“The scope of the apostle is not simply to show how sinners are now justified in the sight of God; but to show what is requisite to justification according to the tenor of the law, and that is, to do all that is written therein, and to continue so to do. And if there be any man that can bring such perfect and constant obedience of his own performing, he shall be justified by God; but inasmuch as no man, neither natural nor regenerate, can so fulfill the law, he must seek for justification in some other way.”
— Poole
The unified voice of everyone standing in opposition to the false gospel of Rome understands and declares that the doers of the law will never be justified since there are none. Leithart et al. take the road to Rome and mix faith and works in justification, not merely as a forensic declaration but also a lifelong process ending in the final justification of Rome.
For another example, Doug Wilson states that justification is by faith alone, yet he says this faith is a “living faith,” and elsewhere he defines works as the “life” of faith, which make works part of faith. So his justification by faith alone is actually justification by faith and works, according to his own definitions of those terms.
Paul Liberati: Nathan Beatty,
// You accused people of worshipping at the altar of reformed tradition and denominationalism. I'm curious who does that. I don't think I actually know anyone like this //
Just keep reading this conversation, and you'll see that you do.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson,
// Living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer makes works part of the definition of faith, rather than a product of faith //
No, it doesn’t. It simply acknowledges that the faith of believers varies in maturity. If you look at the FV statement, it says (explicitly) that there are three things that are part of the definition of faith: Assent, Knowledge, and Trust. This is standard Reformed doctrine.
They call it a “living trust” just to emphasize that faith must be "itself" and “in its own nature” a living principle of obedience. And this is precisely what our Divines have argued. Read Owen again:
// Yea, we allow no faith to be justifying, or to be of the same kind with it, WHICH IS NOT ITSELF, AND IN ITS OWN NATURE, a spiritually vital principle of obedience and good works //
As far as the Leithart quote, you are showing your desperation. There is nothing un-Protestant about saying that covenant faithfulness is “the way to salvation.” Obviously, what he has in mind is the aspect of final salvation since he mentions the final judgment. That much should be obvious.
What’s even more obvious (and now I’m doing your homework) is that saying obedience and good works are “the way of salvation” is thoroughly *Reformed. I mean, Which Reformed theologian has not taught that good works are necessary in order to obtain salvation? And not just as an incidental means, but as an active instrumental cause? Here are just a few:
“Good works are an instrumental cause of the possession of life eternal, for by these as by media, and by the legitimate path, God leads us into the possession of eternal life.”
– Jerome Zanchi, Whether Good Works are the Cause of Eternal Salvation
“Are [good works] required as the means and way for possessing salvation? This we hold. For although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it, so that no one can be saved without them.”
— Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology
“Good works are understood to have a causative power for eternal life in three ways… 2. That they might have an inferior and causal instrumental power conferred upon them by the grace of God, just as running is a cause of the crown which is received, contending a cause of the victory, and diet a cause of health. Neither may one be said to distinguish accurately here between a means and a cause, or between a way and a cause: for while good works are means, they are not passive, but active: a means here is an inferior cause.
– Samuel Rutherford, Whether good works are necessary as causes of justification, and therefore also of salvation
“Suppose a person freely justified by the grace of God, through faith in the blood of Christ, without respect unto any works, obedience, or righteousness of his own; we do freely grant: (1) That God doth indispensably require personal obedience of him; which may be called his evangelical righteousness. (2) That God does approve of and accept, in Christ, this righteousness so performed. (3) That hereby that faith whereby he is justified is evidenced, proved, manifested, in the sight of God and men. (4) That this righteousness is pleadable unto an acquitment against any charge from Satan, the world, or his own conscience. (5) That upon it he shall be declared righteous at the last day, and without it none shall so be.”
—John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Vol. 5
Now, the Leithart quote you provided is much more careful and reserved than were any of the above men. With Philippians 2:12-13 in mind, he carefully qualifies our covenant faithfulness in several ways. First, he puts the term “our” in scare quotes. Second, he describes the faithfulness we exhibit as being “all done in union with Christ” and “dependent on the work of the Spirit of Christ in us.” And third, he shows that the faithfulness that he’s referring to is the result of “faith” itself when he says that we are “trusting the Spirit to will and to do according to His good pleasure.”
Clearly then, your attempt to substantiate the charge of “heresy” is an exercise in desperation and futility. It’s clear that you need to study primary source material for yourself instead of assuming that the criticisms that you’ve read online are accurate. By regurgitating what other men have said, you are displaying a sinful party spirit (Mk. 9:38-41) rather than the spirit of a Berean (Acts 17:11).
// Compare his statement on “the doers of the law” (Rom. 2:13) to that of literally any Protestant //
This is irrelevant. A man can substantiate his theological position by any combination of proof texts. The important thing is what he is affirming, not which passages he uses to support what he is affirming. That’s why not all Reformed denominations require their ministers to subscribe to the proof texts of their confessions.
// Doug Wilson states that justification is by faith alone, yet he says this faith is a “living faith,” and elsewhere he defines works as the “life” of faith, which make works part of faith //
No, it doesn't. You're only seeing what you want to see. I also find it curious that you didn't provide the quote itself. But honestly, I have to say: You should probably quit while you’re ahead. You’ve already embarrassed yourself enough on this thread by showing that you’re more interested in toeing your party line than anything else. Unfortunately, that’s caused you to commit the grievous sins of slander and false accusation against your brothers in Christ.
Colin Pearson: Paul, it defines “trust” as “living trust in accordance with the age and maturity of the believer.” This means there are different levels of faith, that grow and mature. This maturity includes works, as shown explicitly by Leithart.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, wanna bet? Why don't you write to Leithart and ask him?
Colin Pearson: Paul, No thanks. I’m comfortable in submission to the judgment of the faithful ministers who identified FV as heresy.
Paul Liberati: Colin Pearson, why don't you rather submit to the Church Courts that exonerated Peter Leithart from all charges of heresy? By refusing to do this, you show your hypocrisy and twisted party spirit.
Nathan Beatty, there you have it. Nothing more needs to be said in defense of my original comment.
I bid you men Farewell.
