A Scripturalist Critique of Libertarianism

WCF 23.3  The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:1 yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemes and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.2 For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.3  (WCF 23:3 WCS)  [Westminster  Confession of Faith.]

“The sovereignty of God is the key to the basic problem of ethics. Why is anything good, right, or obligatory? Neither utilitarianism, nor pragmatism, nor emotionalism can give a rational answer. Calvin has given the answer in very precise language: ‘the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that what he wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because he wills it.’ God establishes moral norms by sovereign decree.”  Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  “Ethics”.  The Gordon H. Clark Foundation.

“….And as for the “inviolability of personality,” man has no “rights” that are inviolable by God. God is the creator; man is a creature. “Who are you that replies against God?” Just return to chapter one on creation. Omnipotence settles the argument. ….”  Predestination.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark

“Thus the first understanding and use of the Law is to restrain the wicked. For the devil reigns in the whole world and drives men to all sorts of shameful deeds. This is why God has ordained magistrates, parents, teachers, laws, shackles, and all civic ordinances, so that, if they cannot do any more, they will at least bind the hands of the devil and keep him from raging at will.”  Martin Luther

A Scripturalist Critique of Political Libertarianism

In an email exchange with another blogger who self identifies as a Clarkian Scripturalist I was informed that libertarianism in his opinion is the best system of political philosophy in regards to government.  Moreover, the American system of government is subject to a right or proper interpretation of the founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Liberals and progressives interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as changing with time and open to new interpretations and applications in regards to changes in culture and the United States’s changing values and mores.  In addition conservative pundits interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a matter of immutable principles that anchor the government to certain and absolute values which cannot change with time, culture or revisionary historical interpretations.  What ultimately matters is what was intended by the founding fathers who wrote and signed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  But in regards to Clarkian Scripturalism the founding document for any political system or philosophy must be Scripture.  According to the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the basis for all knowledge is the beginning axiom of Holy Scripture.  Knowledge does not begin with human reason, empiricism, or solipsistic opinions of individual persons but with the truth of God as He has logically revealed Himself and His preceptive will in the propositional revelation of Holy Scripture.  (2 Timothy 3:16; John 10:35; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 4:4; Romans 13:1-5).

In this paper I intend to examine the beginning axiom of the secular philosophy of libertarianism as that has been adopted and revised by Reformed or Calvinistic libertarians and compare and contrast that dogmatic political philosophy with the Calvinism which is deduced from Scripture and  which is summarized by the system of theology in the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Before I do that, however, I want to discuss Gordon H. Clark’s theology and philosophy of knowledge. 

I.                 Scripturalism and Epistemological Systems of Thought.

According to Dr. Clark, all knowledge must be propositional.  This sounds puzzling to those who are unfamiliar with Dr. Clark’s writings.  However, John 1:1 tells us that in the beginning the second Person of the Godhead, the Word, was with God and the Word was God. Most readers of the Scriptures understand that this is the Pre-incarnate Christ.  The Koine Greek word used for the Word in the text is Logos.  This word can also be translated as rationality, intellectual thought, reason, or logic.  From this verse Dr. Clark deduced the proposition that God is Logic.  In other words, logic is how God thinks.  It should be noted clearly there that logic is not subject to temporality or the passing of one thought to the next in God’s eternally immutable mind because God knows all the propositions that can possibly be known and He knows them all at once.  Furthermore, since propositions can be arranged in systematic form, God knows every possible proposition in every possible combination as these can be arranged into an immeasurable system of knowledge.  God is absolutely omniscient.  The human creature, on the other hand, can only think discursively and sequentially in time.  That is, man thinks one thought after another while God thinks the whole system as one comprehensive whole.  From the human perspective this is immeasurable and incomprehensible but not absolutely beyond understanding since man can know certain propositions God knows at single points of coincidence if not exhaustively and comprehensively.  Only God is absolutely omniscient and never learns anything new.  He knows the end from the beginning in every single detail.  (Isaiah 46:9-11; Ephesians 1:11). 

Furthermore, since man is created in God’s image and the image of God is spiritual (John 4:24), it follows that the image of God is rationality and the ability to think intelligibly.  (John 1:9).  Even the unbelieving reprobate person has the ability to think despite the noetic effects of total depravity.  The fall of Adam means that mankind thinks irrational and sinful thoughts instead of thinking pure and holy and logical thoughts.  (Philippians 4:8-9; 2 Corinthians 10:5).  In fact, it is the inborn depravity of the soul inherited by natural generation that predetermines fallen mankind to a sinful corruption and disposition from birth.  (Romans 1:18-32; 3:10-23; Psalm 51:5; Psalm 58:3; Psalm 11:5).

Moreover, mankind in general is held accountable both as individual men and as collective groups of men in regards to nations and other organizations.  In other words, the propositional system of epistemological foundations applies everywhere as a total worldview rather than simply making mankind only isolated individuals held accountable as individuals.  The idea that Adam acted solely for himself is called the heresy of Pelagianism.  The Bible does not teach that everyone is a sinner because of their own decisions to sin whereby they become sinners by following Adam’s bad example.  Rather the Bible teaches that Adam is our federal representative in regards to original sin being imputed to all of Adam’s progeny.  Scripture teaches that a real corruption of the human soul is spiritually inherited by natural general from Adam and passed on to each successive generation.  (Psalm 51:5; 58:5).  In the same way, sin affects not only individuals who are held accountable to God but nations and churches are also held accountable for their collective sins as a corporate group.  (Westminster Larger Catechism 35, 53; Judges 11:27; Ezekiel 11:8-13).  God judges nations and the Bible overwhelmingly upholds this in both the Old and New Testaments.  (Psalm 67:4; Psalm 82:8; Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3).  In other words, God controls not just individuals but entire nations through His providential governance of all things.  (Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 5).

II.               Definition of Libertarianism.

There are likely to be different particular definitions of Libertarianism.  However, for the purposes of this paper I will focus on the definition given by Christians who support the political philosophy of libertarianism.  I will also speculate on their motivations for taking this position and whether or not their reasons accomplish the goals they think Christian libertarianism will accomplish in regards to peace among competing worldviews in the political and civil realm.

In regards to the economic issues, capitalism, free enterprise, and private ownership of property I fully agree with the biblical implications of limited government and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.  It should be noted that much of the founding documents were deduced from the Bible and its influence through the Magna Carta and, in the United States, the Westminster Standards.  The real issue for me here is the alleged “rights” of the wicked to live as they please under the auspices of a secular humanist philosophy of morality and values.  I will further elaborate on this in later sections of this paper.  (See:  “Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933”.)

For now, I will try to give an accurate explanation of the Christian libertarian philosophy of political science as that is espoused by certain Christians who profess to follow the Scripturalism of the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  One of the founders of this point of view was the late Dr. John W. Robbins, who was at one time a theonomist himself but later adopted the political libertarianism of Ron Paul.  Robbins also served as one of Ron Paul’s advisors during Paul’s presidential campaign.  Other advocates of this point of view are C. Jay Engel, Doug Douma, and Sean Gerety.  

What is the most basic axiom of Christian libertarianism?  This is difficult to ascertain but I will attempt to pull together a few stated propositions from the Reformed Libertarian website.  However, it should be noted the site does not follow the logical implications of the law of contradiction since it seems to continually use fallacious arguments that contradict both the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith.  It should be noted that Dr. Gordon H. Clark was a strict subscriptionist to the WCF and that nowhere does the Bible or the WCF advocate moral libertarianism as it is defined by libertines and antinomians.   The problem is that most often these Christian libertarians conflate the issues of economic liberty, personal property, and free enterprise with the issue of moral anarchy as if the two are two equally ultimate implications of a generic “liberty”.  But is it so?

If the so-called Reformed libertarian view was restricted to the economic and capitalist point of view that private property and free enterprise are the foundations of free society I would have no objections.  But the problem is that the Reformed libertarian view is not biblical and it is therefore not Reformed either.  In short, the point of libertarianism in general is not political freedom but moral license and the libertine position of antinomianism and moral relativism.  To each of these points of view and propositions anyone even remotely familiar with Dr. Gordon H. Clark’s writings should know that equivocation and dissimulation is being used to justify a point of view that Clark himself would have strongly opposed.  Appealing to Clark as an authority for an antinomian point of view is also a logical fallacy called appealing to authority.  Unfortunately, Clark would have opposed moral anarchy as advocated by all forms of libertarianism.

But to show that my accusation against Reformed libertarianism is accurate I will quote from a primer on Reformed libertarianism.  I do not know who wrote the piece since the author is not named on the page.  But the article flatly states that the government should not enforce any moral point of view whatsoever:

Thus, there is a hard and fast rubric for determining where the libertarian thinker will stand on a variety of so-called “policy issues.”  If a given action in society is not a violation of the above principle, then no aggressive force is required to address it.  The “aggressive force” that addresses crimes in society can also be referred to with the phrase “The Sword.”  Those who legitimately “wield The Sword” must do so justly, that is, in response to an actual crime or in self-defense.  The sword-bearer has been referred to in history as a “magistrate” or “government,” and we think it is monumentally helpful to make a distinction between the just sword-wielder and sword-wielder that thrives in corruption and criminality.  We have explained the logic of this distinction here and here (in which we cite Augustine).

The purpose of “civil law” (as opposed to moral law —which details what is required of man to be right with God) is to make men right with each other by seeking the avoidance of actual conflict in society, given our world of scarce resources and mutually exclusive wants.  We agree with J. Gresham Machen when he wrote:

There are vast departments of life with which they [civil laws] should have nothing whatever to do.  They are exceeding their God-given function when they seek to enforce inward purity or purity of the individual life, since theirs is the business only of enforcing –and that in necessarily imperfect fashion — that part of righteousness which concerns the relations between man and man.

In all this, we understand precisely what is meant when society advocates for something to be “illegal.”  And thus we also know what it means when we say something should be “legal.”  All we are referring to, once we honestly consider the situation, is that “illegal” means that the use of aggression is justified against a given activity and “legal” means that the use of aggression is not justified to prevent it.  As we have stated before in a review of an essay,

Baptist Isaac Backus who, opposing the  “interrelation of church and state” of a certain paedobaptist, stated: “Therefore the dignity of [Christ’s] government is maintained not by carnal but by spiritual weapons….

The rubric by which we determine the legitimacy of punishment against the criminal is the criminal’s transgression against the person and property of another individual.  Beyond that, in our estimation, the Christian ought to use all sorts of “spiritual weaponry;” that is, we must use persuasion and instruction to speak truth into the life of those around us, especially those in sin.  To use Backus’ vocabulary, “The question between us is not whether it be the duty” to act ethically and obey God’s commands, but rather, the question is “whether that duty ought to be enforced by the sword.”

This serves to address the concern that, in allowing a variety of immoral deeds to go unpunished, we are in effect refusing to make it plain that these deeds are wrong. But in the same sense that most would agree that lying is both immoral yet should not be illegal, so there are many things which require “spiritual weaponry” and not the sword of the state. God will have his own vengeance in due time.

[From:  “What Is Reformed Libertarianism?”]

The basic error of this position is that the government is said not to enforce moral values whatsoever and everyone is free to make their own moral decisions without any interference from the government.  But this implies moral relativism at best.  How can the government not enforce values of any kind whatsoever?  One only needs to see the enforcement of the LGBTQ agenda on the nation as a whole to see that there is no such thing as moral neutrality.  Is abortion a non-issue for Christians since Christians are only morally accountable for their own individual actions?  Does the Christian have a moral obligation to resist the government enforced immorality of laws that encourage and promote licentiousness and immorality?  (Acts 5:29).  According to the premise of the above post, Christians should only be concerned with their own personal morality and leave society to its own amoral, moral or immoral values.  But if the basic principle of libertarianism is do no one no harm, is it harmful to allow a society to self-destruct by defying God’s moral law and using widespread propaganda to undermine traditional Christian family values in order to seduce your children and family members into immorality and licentiousness?  Should government run education be teaching communism, socialism, homosexuality, sexual promiscuity, and moral relativism at tax payers’ expense?  And further, does propagating gambling and other moral vices undermine the moral fabric of a safe community?   The basic error of libertarianism is its hostility to the Christian worldview.  It is my contention therefore that libertarians are not advocating freedom of conscience but another form of totalitarianism that basically accepts the propaganda of the left that homosexual marriage should be the moral norm of a “free” society.  The subtilty of this deception makes it sound convincing on a superficial examination but the implications of endorsing a society that endorses moral relativism is that it enforces an immoral system of values on the Christian and attempts to undermine the very liberty of conscience that Reformed Libertarians claim to support.

Futhermore, what is the motivation for libertarianism?  Reformed Libertarians seem to think that the secular humanist manifesto is more authoritative than the moral law of God and that following secularist axioms which place the rights of individuals above God’s moral law is the way to achieve peace in society.  But it is my contention that both the Bible and the Reformed Confessions deny this.  Even worse, the idea that government can be neutral seems to imply the common grace position, not the confessional teaching that all mankind is totally depraved and fallen in Adam.  There is no one who does good, not even one.  (Romans 1:18-21; Romans 3:10-12).  The thoughts of the wicked are continually wicked all the time.  (Genesis 6:5).

To make things even worse, some of those who claim to be confessionally Reformed openly advocate New Covenant Theology, not the confessional and covenantal theology of the Westminster Standards.  One Baptist who advocates for the NCT is Brandon Adams who mistakenly says that the Old Covenant is abolished:

2) The civil penalties that were given to Israel were given as part of the Old Covenant, specifically as covenant curses (Deut 27:26; 21:22-23). Its purpose was to create a holy, earthly kingdom as a type of the holy, heavenly kingdom of Christ. Israelites were given explicit authority to execute God's judgment upon sin with the iron sword in order to purge the physical holy land where God physically dwelt, of evil. They were thus not violating the moral law when they executed adulterers because God is free to judge as He pleases. However, the Old Covenant has been abolished. No one is under it today.   [Stated in the comments under the article, “What Is Reformed Libertarianism?”]

The WCF in contradistinction from Brandon Adams’s view says that there is one covenant of grace that is revealed under various and sundry dispensations of the one covenant of grace:

WCF 7.6  Under the gospel, when Christ the substance1 was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper,2 which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,3 to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;4 and is called the New Testament.5 There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.6 (WCF 7:6 WCS)

……6.   Gal. 3:14,16; Acts 15:11; Rom. 3:21,22,23,30; Ps. 32:1; Rom. 4:3,6,16,17,23,24; Heb. 13:8.

[Addendum:  The covenant of works is also binding since the time that the moral law was given to Adam in the garden of Eden.  The moral law is forever binding on all, although believers are not under the moral law as a means of justification before God or as a covenant of works.  See:  WCF 7:2; 19:1, 6; WLC 30; WLC 97.]

To avoid becoming too distracted with other details I will now move on to the next section of this paper and compare and contrast the biblical and confessional view of political philosophy with the secular view that the Reformed libertarians are endorsing.  Although I consider the term Reformed libertarian an oxymoron and an outright contradiction of the Reformed and confessional view of the civil magistrate, I will retain this term for the sake of an easier identification of what I am refuting.

III.              Comparison and Contrast.

How does libertarianism compare to Reformed theology and how do the two differ in regards to a political philosophy of government?  It should first be noted that that the Westminster Confession of Faith was written during a time when there was no secularist attack against the free exercise of religious freedom and no attempt to relegate Christianity to the closet or private practice.  The WCF upholds the civil magistrate as a legitimately appointed authority to prosecute heresies as defined by Scripture and the church:

WCF 23.3  The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:1 yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemes and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.2 For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.3 (WCF 23:3 WCS)

WCS Notes (WCF 23:3)

Notes: 

1 2 Chron. 26:18

2 Matt. 16:19; 1 Cor. 4:1,2

3 John 18:36; Mal. 2:7; Acts 5:29

4 Isa. 49:23

5 Ps. 105:15; Acts 18:14-16

6 2 Sam. 23:3; 1 Tim. 2:1; Rom. 13:4

It logically follows therefore that the Westminster divines were opposed to libertarianism as defined by the so-called Reformed libertarians above.  Even if we concede that the American version of the WCF amended and revised this section, the American version does not advocate an absolute separation of church and state in regards to morality and religious freedom.  In fact, the religious freedom advocated by the American revision only advocates the freedom of Christian churches to differ with one another within the framework of a Protestant and Christian denominationalism within the broader Evangelicalism of Protestant denonominations.  This would exclude churches like the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church which advocate that there is only one true church or communion of faith.  Even the Eastern Orthodox Church rejects papal supremacy, the main issue underlying the Great Schism of the 11^th century.

The American revision of chapter 23 reads:

Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and Sacraments;1 or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven;2 or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith.3 Yet as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger.4 And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief.5 It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever; and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.6 (WCF 23:3 WCS)

Notice that the American version does not endorse libertarianism but rather an interdenominational tolerance between Evangelical and Protestant churches.  Nowhere does this revision advocate atheism, secular humanism, or religious pluralism among world religions such as Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, or various other religious sects such as Mormonism.  In fact, it is the duty of the civil magistrate to protect the church from society and from the government which would make totalitarian laws that interfere with or suppress the public expression of religious beliefs.

Secular humanism, secular libertarianism and Reformed libertarianism are all agreed that in the public realm the church should not advocate Christian morality or values and that atheist and secular government should be the norm instead.  Reformed libertarians are in full agreement that God should be divorced from a secular government and that only concern is pragmatic peace between all parties on an amoral and values neutral playing field.

The axiom of secularism is do no harm to others.  The problem with this is who decides what is harmful to others and who enforces these moral norms?  Also, since Scripturalism advocates the view that epistemological knowledge begins with Scripture, why are so-called Scripturalists advocating a form of liberty deduced from a secular philosophy of political science rather than from the Bible or from a propositional system of knowledge deduced from the Bible and the propositional revelation in Scripture?

Conclusion.

Much more could be said.  However, in regards to the libertarian view that man has certain rights independent of God it should be pointed out that even Thomas Jefferson rejected this view when he said that men are endowed with certain unalienable rights from their Creator.  The moral law of God is innate in man such that man is without excuse even when he denies God and God’s morality.  (Romans 1:18-21; Romans 2:1-16; Romans 3:4-8).  Although it is impossible in such a short paper to give quotes and references to everything Clark said in rejection of licentiousness and libertine philosophy the fact is Clark absolutely rejected libertarianism.  According to Clark, before God man has no rights that he can demand of his Creator:

Jeremiah 32:17 reads, “Ah, Lord God,…there is nothing too hard for you.” Ten verses later the text uses a rhetorical question, “Behold, I am the Lord,… Is there anything too hard for me?” Come to think of it, this sentiment is a familiar one, not original with Jeremiah, for Genesis 18:14 reads, “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” Now, what does “anything” include? Of course it includes Sarah’s bearing a son at an old age. It also includes the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans; for these two events are those specified in the contexts. But the principle itself is far wider. When God wanted to convince Abraham and Sarah that they would have a son, he did not say, “I can give you a son”; he said, “I can do anything.” Therefore, the general principle applies to anything and everything. It follows, therefore, that God can control the will of man. And as for the “inviolability of personality,” man has no “rights” that are inviolable by God. God is the creator; man is a creature. “Who are you that replies against God?” Just return to chapter one on creation. Omnipotence settles the argument. Therefore, God can control man’s will, and the examples show that he does.

Gordon H. Clark. Predestination (Kindle Locations 1803-1811). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

It logically follows that if God cannot do anything that violates man’s “rights” as a creature then surely God would not violate man’s rights by causing a nation to advocate a system of government that upholds the general principles of Christianity in regards to morality and ethical values.  The idea that the wicked are morally neutral has more in common with atheism or the Arminian doctrine of common grace than with the biblical doctrine of God’s sovereignty over the nations.  Even Martin Luther, the father of the Protestant Reformation and the advocate of justification by faith alone, did not reject the authority of the civil magistrate to enforce the morality of the Decalogue:

Here one must know that there is a double use of the Law. One is the civic use. God has ordained civic laws, indeed all laws, to restrain transgressions. Therefore every law was given to hinder sins. Does this mean that when the Law restrains sins, it justifies? Not at all. When I refrain from killing or from committing adultery or from stealing, or when I abstain from other sins, I do not do this voluntarily or from the love of virtue but because I am afraid of the sword and of the executioner. This prevents me, as the ropes or the chains prevent a lion or a bear from ravaging something that comes along. Therefore restraint from sins is not righteousness but rather an indication of unrighteousness. Therefore just as a rope holds a furious and untamed beast and keeps it from attacking whatever it meets, so the Law constrains an insane and furious man lest he commit further sins. This restraint makes it abundantly clear that those who have need of it—as does everyone who is outside Christ—are not righteous but unrighteous and insane, whom it is necessary to tame with the rope and with prison to keep them from sinning. Therefore the Law does not justify.

"Thus the first understanding and use of the Law is to restrain the wicked. For the devil reigns in the whole world and drives men to all sorts of shameful deeds. This is why God has ordained magistrates, parents, teachers, laws, shackles, and all civic ordinances, so that, if they cannot do any more, they will at least bind the hands of the devil and keep him from raging at will. Therefore just as ropes and chains are bound upon men who are possessed and in whom the devil is ruling powerfully, to keep them from harming someone, so the whole world, which is possessed by the devil and is being led headlong into every crime, has the magistrate with his ropes and chains, that is, his laws, restraining its hands and feet lest it rush headlong into all sorts of evil. If it does not permit itself to be restrained this way, it will pay with the price of its head.

This civic restraint is extremely necessary and was instituted by God, both for the sake of public peace and for the sake of preserving everything, but especially to prevent the course of the Gospel from being hindered by the tumults and seditions of wild people. Paul is not discussing that civic use here (Galatians 3.19); it is indeed very necessary, but it does not justify. For as a possessed person is not free and mentally balanced just because his hands and feet are bound, so when the world is most restrained from external acts of disgrace by the Law, it is not righteous on that account but remains unrighteous. In fact, this very restraint indicates that the world is wicked and insane and that it is driven by its prince, the devil; otherwise there would be no need for it to be kept from sinning by laws.

#MartinLuther LW26:308-309

Quoted in, “Martin Luther:  The Role of the Government in Hindering Sin”.

It is my contention therefore that it is not wrong for the civil government to restrain all kinds of evil, including the moral evils of pornography, gambling, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, and various other vices which violate the moral law of God.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Rom. 13:1-5 KJV)

Abortion Doctor Found Guilty of Murdering Newborn Infants With Scissors

Score one for the moral law of God.  Of course, in this case. Kermit Gosnell was found guilty of violating criminal law.  The criminal law of the United States of America allows for a doctor to kill a human baby if the baby is still inside the womb.  After the baby is born it is illegal to kill a living and breathing baby.  The jury in this case saw the truth and Gosnell was found guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

Unfortunately, this case points to the "paradox" of murder.  Killing the unborn in the womb is not murder, while killing the baby seconds after it is born is murder.  Logic and propositional truth would require that this contradiction be resolved in the United States Supreme Court.  (2 Corinthians 4:2; John 17:17).  Of course, for those judges committed to irrationalism and relativistic moral law this will make no difference.  Truth for them is whatever suits their fancy at the moment.  (Isaiah 5:20; 8:20) Democratic freedoms cannot long endure when godless men and women sit in judgment on the lives of the unborn who are created in the image and likeness of God.  God alone has the authority to give and take human life.  The sacrifice of the unborn child to the idols of convenience and the government's endorsement of a Machiavellian right to choose is nothing more than outright rebellion against God.  (Exodus 20:13 KJV).

Click here to read the story at CNN:  Doctor Found Guilty of Murder

Scotty Becomes a Vulcan: Logic Requires that We Recognize the Humanity of the Unborn

Over at the Heidelblog Mr. Scott has come to his logical senses, if only briefly.  It looks like the woman's right to choose is not a paradox after all.  In fact, killing an unborn "fetus" is a matter of deontological and apodeictic moral law.  Without logical propositions there is no possibility for knowledge in general, and there is no possibility for morality in general or in particular.  R. Scott Clark nails down the logical reasons that we ought to reject the infanticide we call abortion.  Of course, religious, political and philosophical liberals are not bound by the laws of logic or by the moral law of God as it is revealed in Holy Scripture.  (Exodus 20:1-17; Romans 3:20; 7:7).  Van Tilians love to exploit the idea that logic is a creation of God rather than the very architecture of the ontological being of God.  John 1:1 makes the logical propositional truth claim that "God is Logic."  If only R. Scott Clark were consistently logical!  His comments below are apropriate:

What of those humans who are killed, in utero, before viability? I’ve had this discussion with some ardent pro-abortion types in recent months. They seek to deny that humanity is inherent to pre-natal humans and they seek to make the humanity of the pre-natal infant contingent upon the will of the mother. This is the Nietzschean “will to power.” As a matter of fact and logic, humans conceive, gestate, and give birth to humans. We don’t magically become human at 23 or 24 weeks of gestation. We were human before viability and we are human afterward. Remember that viability is a shifting standard that depends on technological developments. So, logically, viability is an arbitrary standard. Human life develops organically.  (See:  Heidelblog:  Killing Infants Is A Crime).

If there are two or more kinds of logic, then logic would itself be contradictory.  The problem with R. Scott Clark and other Van Tilians is that they contend that logic means something different for God and for men.  That is, truth and logic are two-fold.  Nothing we know as creatures is the same thing God knows.  But here Van Tilians beg the question.  As Arthur Holmes once said, "All truth is God's truth."  So if we as creatures know anything that is true, it logically follows that God as an omniscient and personal Being knows that same truth as we know it.  Of course, God knows much more than we know as creatures.  But if we know anything at all that is true, then on that single proposition God knows that same truth.  My point being that if we know that killing unborn human babies is murder, God knows that exact same logical proposition and thus God and man know the exact same proposition univocally.  (Exodus 20:13 KJV).  Truth is not up for negotiation via the doctrine of theological or moral paradox.  That view is the view of neo-orthodoxy and liberalism, not biblical Christianity.  Scott Clark ought to come clean and admit that Van Til's theology is ambiguous and contradictory.

The real question here is whether or not humans are merely "carbon units" and fetuses while in the womb or are they human beings who are created in the image and likeness of God?  Since God is sovereign and gives life at His sovereign will, it logically follows that humans should not usurp the place of God by claiming to have the power of life and death over the most vulnerable human beings of all:  unborn infants.  (Exodus 20:3 KJV; Psalm 82:6-8 KJV).

A. A. Hodge: The Judicial Law of Israel

I ran into another theonomist on Facebook.  Unfortunately, they cannot read the Westminster Confession for what it plainly says in Chapter 19 on The Law of God, paragraph:

4.  To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require. (Exod. 21, Exod. 22:1–29, Gen. 49:10, 1 Pet. 2:13–14, Matt. 5:17, 38–39, 1 Cor. 9:8–10)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

A. A. Hodge's commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith says this about paragraph 4:

That the judicial laws of the Jews have ceased to have binding obligation upon us follows plainly, from the fact that the peculiar relations of the people to God as theocratical King, and to one another as fellow-members of an Old Testament Church State, to which these laws were adjusted, now no longer exist.

Hodge, A.A. (2011-02-17). A Commentary on The Westminster Confession of Faith With Scripture Proofs (Kindle Locations 3844-3846).  . Kindle Edition.

There is absolutely no mention of the moral law in relation to the judicial law or the ceremonial law.  If, as the theonomists assert, the judicial law is the same thing as the moral law, then surely the Westminster divines would have said so?  But instead the different paragraphs distinguish between the three types of law, namely the ceremonial law, the judicial law, and the moral law.  Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law by sacrificing Himself as a propitiation for the sins of the elect individuals who belong to God.  The judicial law passed away with the Old Testament nation of Israel.  The moral law is forever binding, however.

As for the "general equity" clause, this is by no means meant to conflate the moral law with the judicial laws of the Old Testament nation of Israel.  Whatever it means, it cannot mean, therefore, what theonomists say it does.

Of course, it must be admitted that at the time the Westminster Confession was written there was no separation of church and state.  The state enforced both tables of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1-17).  But even so it should be remembered that Geneva was not a theocracy.  The commentary by A. A. Hodge above makes that clear.

See also:  Article VII

Westminster Larger Catechism: Question 14

Question 14

How doth God execute his decrees?

God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will. (Eph. 1:11)


The Westminster Larger Catechism: With Scripture Proofs. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996).

OK, I just cannot resist the temptation to slam once again those who push the doctrine of common grace as if it were somehow a "Reformed" distinctive which was "implicitly" taught by John Calvin or at least anticipated by him.  Some scholars, like Dr. R. Scott Clark of the Heidelblog, insist that common grace is just "general" providence.  But the Larger Catechism defines God's decrees as relating to "whatsoever comes to pass," not just a "general" providence.  (See Westminster Larger Catechism, Questions 12 and 13).  Those who have a high view of human reason advocate "natural law" as the Lockean understanding of ethics and morality by which the worldly kingdom is governed and only the church is obligated to abide by God's moral law.  

R. Scott Clark seems to hold this view since he believes that natural revelation in the divine image and likeness in humans constitutes a knowledge of good and evil and is sufficient to rule the worldly kingdom.  (Cf. Romans 2:1-29; Romans 3:9-20).  Anyone reading Romans 1:18-3:20 can see that Paul is not advocating the idea that salvation is possible apart from special revelation.  The Law reveals everyone to be utterly sinful (Romans 3:23).  N. T. Wright's contention that Romans 2 refers to Christian Gentiles who keep God's law by nature flies in the face of Romans 3:9-23.  Romans 3:23 makes it clear that none are righteous and the law can only point out the lostness of all mankind (Romans 6:23; 7:7).  The Gospel is therefore only of free grace (Romans 3:20-26).

Additionally, the Westminster divines seem to hold a different opinion.  The doctrine of providence is particular and not general.  "Whatsoever comes to pass" is ordained by God, including the evil actions of nations against other nations.  That would include wars.  If war is a part of "common grace," which no Calvinist I know of would advocate, then you could say that providence is the same thing as "common grace."  Otherwise one has to question the sincerity and the deductive powers of those who say that common grace and "general" providence are the same thing.  I would never call providence a "general" providence in the first place because God is sovereign over "whatsoever comes to pass."  (WLC, Question 12).  He "unchangeably foreordains" everything that happens "in time," according to the WLC, Q12.  That's not "general" providence.  It is "particular providence."  Providence is not general anymore than the atonement is general or universal.  The doctrine of God's sovereignty means that absolutely every detail of every detail down to the most minute detail of what happens in real time is in God's control and is foreordained to happen just exactly as it comes to pass.  If you do not believe that then I would suggest that your views are more in line with Arminianism or Molinism or Semi-Pelagianism.

The bottom line here is that due to man's total corruption there is no knowledge of God or God's will and only by special revelation will human societies and nations obey God (Romans 1:18-21).  Of course, human reason maintains some vestiges of truth.  For whatever reason, God has ordained modern nations as they exist, and there is some semblance of morality evident in the criminal law codes.  But on the other hand much evil is tolerated by society today and some evil is encapsulated and sanctioned by the laws of modern nations.  The blatant endorsement of homosexuality is one example of that.  I guess, following the logic of the advocates of common grace, that civil laws which approve of civil unions and gay marriage are part of God's "common gifts" to humanity?  What a gift!  Such gifts are not gifts but are in fact evidence of God's hardening of the reprobate.  (Cf. Romans 1:18-32).  So much for common grace.  (Romans 9:11-13).

Addendum:  For a good sermon on Romans 1:18-32 click here:  Covenant Presbyterian Church

Martin Luther's Commentary on Galatians: The Purpose of the Law

Martin Luther points out that the moral law of God can only reveal us as sinners (Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7).  It cannot make us right with God even after our conversion.  Although we are no longer under the law as condemnation, Christians ought to be reminded that even after conversion the law does not make anyone right with God.   Luther rightly says:

That we might be justified by faith. The law does not lead us to another lawgiver requiring good works, but to Christ, our justifier and Saviour, so that we might be justified by faith in him, and not by works. But when we feel the force of the law we do not understand or believe this; that is why we say, “I have lived wickedly, for I have transgressed all God’s commandments, and therefore I am guilty of eternal death. If God would prolong my life for a few years, or at least a few months, I would amend my life and live a holy life from now on.” This is an abuse of the proper function of the law. Our reason is overtaken in these troubles and boldly promises God to fulfill the whole law. From this come many sects and many ceremonies designed to merit grace and forgiveness. Those who devised these things thought that the law led them not to Christ but to a new law, or to Christ as a lawgiver and not as one who has abolished the law.

The true function of the law is to bring me to the knowledge of my sin and to humble me, so that I may come to Christ and be justified by faith. But faith is neither law nor work, but an assured confidence that lays hold of Christ, who is the end of the law (Romans 10:4). How? It is not that he has abolished the old law and given us a new one, or that he is a judge who must be pacified by what we do. He is the end of the law to all those who believe; that is to say, everyone who believes in him is righteous, and he will never accuse such people. The law, then, is good, holy, and just if we use it as we should.

Now Paul, as I have already said, is speaking about those who are to be justified, and not about those who are already justified. Therefore, when you try to reason about the law, you must take the material that the law works with—namely, sinners. The law does not justify them but sets sin before their eyes, casts them down, and brings them to self-knowledge. It shows them hell and God’s wrath and judgment. This is the real function of the law. The point of this is that sinners may know that the law does not reveal their sin to them and humble them so that they should despair, but so that by accusing and bruising them it may drive them to Christ, the Saviour and comforter. When this is done, they are no longer under the law. The whole world is overwhelmed with sin and needs this service of the law, so that sin may be revealed; otherwise no one would ever attain righteousness. But what does the law do for those who are already justified by Christ? Paul answers by adding to what he has already said.


Martin Luther, Galatians, Crossway Classic Commentaries (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1998), 186-87.

Soft Peddling God's Moral Law: A Better Conversation about Homosexuality | Christianity Today

 ". . . the church has mistakenly given primacy to ethics over the narrative functions of doctrine and ministry." -- Christopher Benson

By Charlie J. Ray

Just when I thought Christianity Today could not get any worse I'm surprised by an article that introduced relativism and ambiguity to the issue of human sexuality.   As if there is any question whatsoever about God's original intentions in creation?  The Scripture lays out clearly the condition of humankind prior to the fall of Adam:

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:27-28 NKJ)

Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31 NKJ)

Jesus reaffirmed the original creation when He said:

And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning`made them male and female,' 5 "and said,`For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh '? 6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6 NKJ)

Combine these statements by Jesus with the prohibitions in the moral law against homosexuality and all sexual immorality and it becomes obvious that  Christopher Benson wishes to push "Evangelical" Christians to accept homosexuality as "moral" and "good" and not a perversion of God's purposes in creation.  God literally created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Laverne and Shirley!   (See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; Genesis 19:5; Deuteronomy 23:17; Judges 19:22).

But Mr. Benson would have us to believe that God's moral law does not "really" condemn homosexuality as immoral and a violation of  God's law, does it?  I am reminded of Satan's temptation of Eve when he said, "Has God really said...?"

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said,`You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" (Genesis 3:1 NKJ)

Deceivers always come in the guise of ministers of the light.  (2 Corinthians 11:14-15).  Benson is no different and neither is Christianity Today.  At one time Christian Century was considered a liberal periodical.  Now Christianity Today is right up there with the best of them along with Tony Campolo and other false prophets who wish to question the plain teaching of God's Word and the logical propositions of the Holy Scriptures. 

A good example of this is reframing the moral issues of Scripture in terms of situational ethics rather than the deontological, apodictic law as it is expressed in the Decalogue: 

Keeping with the church’s traditional consensus on the sin of homosexuality, Paris, O’Donovan, and Hill view the moral status of homosexuality as important but not all-important. Paris recounts an experience in graduate school when a bisexual, atheist classmate asked if she could handle going to a gay bar, even though she had never been to any bar before. Feeling “like a fish out of water or, more to the point, a conservative Christian out of church,” nothing about it shocked her. When this friend tested her—“Jenell, now that we’re on my turf, let me ask you this: Does Christianity really condemn homosexuality?”—she answered as most of us have answered with a simplistic message that affirms the sinfulness of homosexuality. Seeing the hurt and anger in her friend, regret followed. “I had stood up for my faith,” she writes, “so why did I feel like my faith had let me down?”

Maybe because she was thinking in terms of pleasing men rather than obeying God's law and pleasing God?  (Colossians 1:10; 2 Corinthians 5:9; Galatians 1:10).  The true Christian is not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  (Romans 1:16).  And even though the moral law reveals all men and women to be miserable sinners who fall way short of God's glory and holiness (Romans 3:10-23), the true Christian cannot shirk his or her duty to stand for the truth and not sell out to paganism or the immorality of the world.  (Ephesians 6:11, 13; 1 John 2:15-17; 1 John 3:1, 13; 1 John 4:1).

Perhaps the Arminian idea that we can persuade with human arguments the wicked and the reprobate to convert to Christ is the impetus behind such compromises of God's final Word on all matters of faith and practice?  But the Bible clearly teaches that God either hardens the reprobate (Romans 9:18-21) or softens the hearts of the elect (Acts 16:14).  No amount of persuasion can change the spots of the leopard or the skin of the Ethiopian and neither can the sinner convert himself by "free will".  (Jeremiah 13:23; John 3:3-8; John 6:44, 65).  The odds of persuading a homosexual or a trans-sexual into changing their self-deception is next to nil, particularly when society, the world, and even false churches and false prophets are all endorsing their immorality and agreeing with them.  (Romans 1:32).  Unless God regenerates and effectually calls the sinner and the homosexual and the trans-sexual there will be no change of mind, no repentance, and no true conversion.  Christianity Today has once again confirmed that that the editors and promoters of the magazine have forsaken Christ and gone into outright apostasy.

Click here to confirm the opinion of this writer:

Soft Peddling God's Moral Law:  A Better Conversation about Homosexuality | Christianity Today

A Confusion of Sanctification with Justification: Institute for Nouthetic Studies Blog » Blog Archive » On Preaching the Gospel to Yourself

Unfortunately, The Institute for Nouthetics Studies appears to endorse a view of the Gospel that confuses Gospel with Law and that confuses sanctification with justification. Although the article tries to sidestep the issue, the fact that the author of the article thinks "mature" Christians no longer need to look to the cross for their salvation but rather to their own good works shows that he just does not get it. From the beginning to the end of the Christian life we are imperfect in our subjective experience of sanctification. (Philippians 2:12-13; 3:12; 2 Peter 3:18).

I get weary with having to reiterate the Gospel so often on the blog but when obvious errors like these statements by Lou Priolo over at The Institute for Nouthetic Studies blog are made then I feel compelled to respond:

To my way of thinking, the place of the doctrine of justification in the believer’s life is much like the operating system on a computer. I’m a PC guy. My personal computer operates under a Windows operating system. Windows is always up and running, but most of the time, it runs in the background. I don’t see it. I can go for days without looking at it (although I know it is functioning as long as the other programs are operating properly). Occasionally, I have to go to the control panel to troubleshoot a problem, make some minor adjustments, or defrag my hard drive, but I don’t give it another thought because I have faith that it is doing what it is supposed to do. So it is with my justification. It is always up and running.

Well, so far so good. That does not sound so bad, right? The trouble is that Priolo is taking justification for granted. Like most Pharisees he has forgotten that the objective basis for our faith is the cross, the atoning sacrifice of Christ, not our own level of sanctification or goodness.

The trouble is that taking justification for granted and forgetting about it unless and until we fall into a major sin leads to self-righteousness and an attitude of superiority over those who struggle with sins which are more obvious. How can we counsel others if we have become practical Pharisees?

To show that Priolo has this air of superiority it is not necessary to read very far:

But what about the growing number of those who say that we must (or should or ought to) “preach the Gospel to ourselves every day?” If by Gospel they mean the entire ordo-salutis: effectual calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification,[1] and glorification—the whole enchilada—there is not a problem (other than the fact that the Bible doesn’t exactly command us to do this). But if, like so many seem to be espousing today, they take a reductionist view of the Gospel—reducing it to justification (or to adoption) alone—there is a problem.

So Priolo has a problem with the Gospel! He is basically saying that sanctification is part of the Gospel, which is to confuse the moral law with the Gospel. It is a confusion of sanctification (infused righteousness and subjective in the heart/mind of the believer) with justification (the objective work of Christ in His sinless life and His substitutionary, atoning death on the cross for the elect). Since the Nouthetics site claims to be Reformed in theology I will respond with the view of the Gospel espoused by the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, and the Anglican Formularies.

The Westminster Confession defines the Gospel via the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace:

2. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,1 wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity,2 upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.3

See also: WLC 20 | WSC 12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Gal. 3:12.
2 Rom. 10:5; Rom. 5:12-20.
3 Gen. 2:17; Gal. 3:10.

3. Man, by his fall, having made himself uncapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,1 commonly called the Covenant of Grace, whereby He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;2 and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.3

See also: WLC 30 | WSC 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Gal. 3:21; Rom. 8:3; Rom. 3:20,21; Gen. 3:15; Isa. 42:6.
2 Mark 16:15,16; John 3:16; Rom. 10:6,9; Gal. 3:11.
3 Ezek. 36:26,27; John 6:44,45.

4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Heb. 9:15,16,17; Heb. 7:22; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 7

Basically, those who depend on their own works are obligated to keep the law with absolute obedience and to justify themselves by law keeping. That is true of the unconverted and of everyone who names the name of Christ. If works are to justify us, then perfect and absolute obedience is necessary (Matthew 5:17-21, 48; Romans 10:1-6). The trouble is that this is impossible since we have all failed from birth onward. (Romans 3:23; Psalm 51:4-5; Romans 3:10-18).

The ordo salutis or "logical order of salvation" begins with unconditional election, not with sanctification. As Ulrich Zwingli noted, unconditional election shows clearly that salvation is absolutely a gift of God, not something that we "choose" when you boil everything down to the bottom line:

Since Paul wishes to show that God’s election is born of his free purpose, and not from those whom he is about to elect, he says that the free purpose is the cause why all things work for good to those who love God. Nothing is ascribed to man’s merit. For he adds: For whom he foreknew (pronunciavit) he also predestinated to be conformed to the image of his Son, etc. I have translated προέγνω by “pronunciavit,” which word has the same force as if you should say predetermined or foreordained. This is then the apostle’s meaning: I said that all will result in good for those who according to God’s purpose are of the called. This I would have understood thus: God freely with himself settles upon, prejudges and foreordains (for by this word the word for “purposing” is expounded) whom he will, even before they are born. Whom he thus foreordains he marks out beforehand, i. e., destines them to be conformed to the image of his Son. As if he should say: No one can be conformed to Christ unless he has been destined for this. ( On Election, Ulrich Zwingli).

Of course, we are free moral agents and we are fully accountable for our actions and choices. But that does not mean that salvation is ultimately based on us or our choices. No, salvation is predestined from before the foundation of the world and we get no credit for our obedience since even that is a gift of God. (Philippians 2:13; Ephesians 2:8-9).

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion are the confession of the Anglican Communion--albeit very few actually follow its literal and plain teaching today. The Gospel is stated several times in the Articles:

VII. Of the Old Testament. HE Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory promises. . . . (2 Corthinians 1:20).

XI. Of the Justification of Man. E are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works. LBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Obviously, to forget that salvation is a monergistic work of God alone (Soli Gloria Deo!) is to become self-righteous in attitude and in theology (Romans 3:20-22). The Dutch Three Forms of Unity is in agreement with the other two Reformed traditions:

Heidelberg Catechism: Lord's Day 6

Question 18. Who then is that Mediator, who is in one person both very God, and a real righteous man?

Answer: Our Lord Jesus Christ, 5"who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."6

Question 19. Whence knowest thou this?

Answer: From the holy gospel, which God Himself first revealed in Paradise;7 and afterwards published by the patriarchs and prophets,8 and represented by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law;9 and lastly, has fulfilled it by His only begotten Son.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Rom. 5:12, 15;

2 1 Pet. 3:18; Isa. 53:11;

3 1 Pet. 3:18 Acts 2:24; Isa. 53:8;

4 1 John 1:2; Jer. 23:6; 2 Tim. 1:10 John 6:51;

5 Matt. 1:23; 1 Tim. 3:16 Luke 2:11;

6 1 Cor. 1:30

7 Gen. 3:15;

8 Gen. 22:17-18; Gen. 28:14; Rom. 1:2; Heb. 1:1; John 5:46;

9 Heb. 10:7-8;

10 Rom. 10:4; Heb. 13:8;

Basically, the Gospel is not about what "we" have done. It is about the finished work of Jesus Christ and what He has done once and for all! (John 19:30; Hebrews 9:24-28).

Click here to read the post by Lou Priolo at: Institute for Nouthetic Studies Blog » Blog Archive » On Preaching the Gospel to Yourself

See also, Jack Miller's excellent response to this issue:

This broad understanding of the gospel is a potential recipe for weakening faith and increasing works-righteousness as one seeks to measure up in thought, word, and deed to "the good news" he is supposed to be exhibiting. It inserts progressive sanctification into the “gospel proper” by considering everything in the Word (promises, laws, threats, admonitions, works) as the good news of the gospel. Certainly we agree it is “good news” that the Spirit is working in us, conforming us to Christ as God predestined. But that is not part of the good news that the New Testament writers proclaimed. (The World's Ruined: The Gospel, Sanctification, and Faith).