Kierkegaard, Charlie Ray, and sanctification “versus” justification

[essius]

The other day I cited a line from Kierkegaard and incurred the wrath of a Reformed Anglican 5-point Calvinist named Charlie Ray. Writes Kierkegaard,

It is very dangerous (and very seductive for those concerned) if a religious speaker capable of exercising great influence upon others does not himself in the deepest sense give the impression of being bound by the same with which he binds others.” (Søren Kierkegaard’s Journals and Papers I, p. 308, §658)

At first, Charlie merely retorted, “Kierkgaard is responsible for modern subjectivism. Liberalism leans heavily on his theology.” I explained to him that such common misinterpretations of Kierkegaard-which depict the Dane as a subjectivist about truth, an irrationalist about religious knowledge, and a voluntarist about ethics-are contradicted by a close reading of his texts. Instead of listening to my defense, he added another unfounded claim, namely that Arminians and semi-Pelegians “love Kierkegaard because he’s an expert in pietism and the moral law.” (I’m not actually an Arminian or a semi-Pelagian, but Charlie refuses to understand Thomism’s rejection of the false dilemmas set up by the Calvinist-Arminian debate.) Charlie went on:

Did it ever occur to you that no one measures up to God’s absolute moral standards? I disagree with the quote for one simple reason: the minister is a sinner like everyone else. The minister should be preaching justification by faith alone and including himself in the fact that the moral law leaves everyone without exception without any excuse before God. This is precisely why justification can never be reached through pietism or lawkeeping.

I addressed his newest charge against Kierkegaard (another misunderstanding of his thought), as well as his non sequitur about God’s absolute moral standards. I then observed that if “a pastor preaches justification by faith alone and yet lives a life that shows he does not believe what he preaches, that is certainly going to have a disturbing effect on his flock.” I then gave Charlie another chance to respond to my criticisms of his picture of Kierkegaard, but he must have decided his hermeneutical malice was a minor offense (it wasn’t). Before abandoning the very one-sided discussion and running away with his tail between his legs, Charlie finally summed up his position (my emphasis): “The emphasis on transformation always compromises the doctrine of justification by faith alone and the doctrine of imputed righteousness.”

Now my question for our community, one I think is quite pertinent for everyone to consider in the development of his or her understanding of the full breadth of salvation, is this: Why should a preacher, or anyone attempting to witness to the truth of Christianity, stop at the doctrine of justification and not stress the much bigger picture of the New Testament gospel? Paul emphasizes justification, but he also emphasizes spiritual transformation. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus and Paul stress transformation again and again and again. Why should we not follow suit? And why on Earth would an emphasis on sanctification have to “compromise” proper emphasis on justification as well? (Besides, don’t Calvinists believe in Perseverance of the Saints?)