Grace by admonitions?

What is the place of admonitions both among the saints and in the preaching? Should we be dismissive of admonitions for fear that telling people about their calling will not increase their ability or motivation to carry it out?

When Canons III/IV:17 says "For grace is conferred by means of admonitions" it certainly does not mean that admonitions by themselves are of any value, as much as sacraments in and of themselves are also of no profit. These means of grace are only empowered when the light of the Gospel illuminates them. And further, that illumination is only seen through the eyes of faith: "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." (Hebrews 4:2)

The very same can be said of admonitions--to the unregenerate and unbelieving, they are of no value. But to those who believe the Gospel, as the knowledge of the Gospel has been preached to them, "grace is conferred by means of admonitions". And this is why the preaching may not merely consist of admonitions--since these admonitions not only ought to be connected to the Gospel as the motivation, power, and freedom to do them, but also for any who may be present who have as yet no living knowledge of the Gospel (without which the admonitions are fruitless).

Notice how in this passage, "the word of God which ye heard of us" is specifically the exhorting, comforting, and charging them to walk worthy of God, and that this word of God, including these admonitions, effectually work in the believers:

"As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children, That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:11-13)

Yet the Gospel is similarly vain if it is not connected to admonitions. The Gospel does not produce the fruit of holiness and righteousness spontaneously of itself if not connected to admonitions. And yet the purpose of the Gospel is our salvation from sin to the glory of God in Jesus Christ. That purpose is not achieved without our sanctification in this life, and our glorification in the next. And God always accomplishes His purposes. Therefore wherever the Gospel is preached, admonitions are also heard.

"This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel." (Canons II:5)

To take Paul's letters to churches as an example, almost every letter could be divided into a more theological and more practical section--yet even this division is artificial, since the two are so closely intertwined and connected that it is impossible to separate them. Try, if you can to separate the admonitions from the Gospel in these verses--we can identify and distinguish them very clearly and distinctly, but we cannot separate them:

"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee." (Titus 2:11-15)

Let us not despise the Gospel or the admonitions of the Gospel.

"In my flesh dwelleth no good thing"

There is a popular saying in some Reformed circles. It is an evil saying which is detrimental to the promotion of holiness and the glory of God. I hesitate to say Reformed circles, because the saying is neither Reformed, nor even at all common in Reformed circles. The saying is simply, "I am totally depraved." That is, "I, a regenerated believer, am totally depraved." Although on the face of it, this saying seems an irreconcilable contradiction, it might sound orthodox to some, since it uses specifically Reformed terminology. After all, doesn't the "T" in "TULIP" (the five points of Calvinism) demand it? Doesn't the "T" mean "total depravity," in the sense that everyone without exception is totally depraved?

Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to reformation. (Canons III/IV:3)

Even this description of "total depravity" from the original "five points of Calvinism," the official confessional standard for Reformed churches, indicates that there is in fact an exception. Every man (but for Adam and Christ) were indeed "totally depraved" from their very conception and by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:1-10; Rom. 5:12-21), but the Heidelberg Catechism also highlights this exception:

Q. 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?

A. Indeed we are, except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God. (LD3)

In fact, the original "five points of Calvinism" (the Canons of Dordt), in order to present the contrast and wonder of it, deliberately combines the treatment of "total depravity" with the treatment of the "I" in "TULIP": "irresistible grace."

[God] opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised, infuses new qualities into the will, which, though heretofore dead, He quickens [i.e. makes alive]; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that like a good tree it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.

And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture and denominated a new creation: a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. (Canons III/IV:11-12)

So in fact, to say "I, a regenerated believer, am totally depraved" is not an affirmation of the "T" in "TULIP," but a denial of the "I." The description of the changes made (since, God "infuses new qualities into the will") in the one who is regenerated are completely contrary to the description of the one who is totally depraved, and this difference is underscored further in Canons III/IV:R4. For example, the regenerate has a "good" will, where before he had an "evil" will (Canons III/IV:11). The bondage of the will in those who are totally depraved to evil is underscored also by Canons III/IV:1 with Canons III/IV:R2 and Canons III/IV:R3. But what does Scripture say? Some insist that Scripture teaches that the regenerate are (still) totally depraved, by appealing to such passages as this:

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. (Romans 7:18)

Notice the following:

1. Paul deliberately qualifies in what sense no good thing dwells in him - not generally, but "in his flesh".
2. By "flesh" he does not mean the totality of his human nature (which would include his will), since he confesses: "for to will is present with me".
3. It is actually his (regenerated) will, and not merely Christ's will or the Spirit's will in or through him, since he says later "the good that I would".
4. By "flesh" he also does not mean the totality of his (regenerated) mind, since he says "I delight in the law of God" (notice again qualified: "after the inward man", his inward man, not merely Christ or the Spirit in him, that is, his regenerated inner spiritual life).
5. His (regenerated) mind is distinguished from his "flesh" since he says in the same passage "the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" whereas he delights in the law of God.
6. The distinction between his regenerated life, involving mind, will, and affections in which there does dwell good things, and his "flesh" is not a case merely of the soul or spirit vs. the body, since in his members, when attempting to perform what is good, he finds another principle warring against the good.
7. He does not mean that his members are the source of this sinful principle (which would be nonsense, since Christ teaches that sin comes from the heart (Mark 7:18-23), and sin necessarily involves not merely the body, but the mind and will and affections--some sins are specifically sins of the heart, such as covetousness which is the specific sin Paul is considering), since he confesses that he, not merely his body, is responsible for his sin: "what I hate, that do I".
8. He makes clear that despite the sinfulness of his "flesh" and despite the fact that he takes responsibility for it, and longs all the more for final deliverance because of it, he no longer identifies with it, but considers his new spiritual life and his certain future full deliverance as ultimately his new identity in Christ: "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." And "with the mind I myself serve the law of God"
9. Not being thus "carnally minded" he walks "after the Spirit" which does not mean the Spirit or Christ merely walks in or through him, but he walks, and he walks according to the Spirit.
10. Because of the "carnal mind", he says "they that are in the flesh cannot please God". Yet he concludes: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." So although he confesses that he has the "flesh" in which dwells no good thing, he denies that he is "in the flesh". When he says "in the Spirit" here, he specifically refers to what he just said about being "spiritually minded" and therefore walking "after the Spirit".

In conclusion, there is no way Paul would say without qualification that he is totally depraved, he does not do so in this passage, and in fact teaches very strongly against viewing ourselves in this way, urging us instead to consider ourselves to be "spiritual" and not "carnal" so that therefore we may all the more walk "after the Spirit" as true Christians, depending always upon God's grace which works so powerfully in us (Phil. 2:13). And he leaves no room for doubt, those who do not walk this way are not true Christians.