Christians agree that those who come to Christ in faith and repentance are supposed to behave differently thereafter. We also agree that God’s plan for every believer is to remake him or her in the likeness of Christ. Most also understand that this is a process that continues throughout this earthly life and culminates when “we shall be like Him,” seeing Him “as He is” (NKJV, ). It is God’s great gospel purpose to graciously change sinners into saints.
But what responsibilities do believers have in that plan? What attitudes should dominate our thinking? How does grace relate to effort and struggle?
Some insist that “effort” has no role at all. Beyond preaching the gospel to ourselves, struggle and striving are incompatible with grace and draw our attention away from the gospel and from Christ. Others concede (with evident reluctance) that effort is required, but quickly emphasize tension in the opposite direction. To them, believers are in constant danger of lapsing into “performance based” thinking or, worse yet, “trying harder.”
Both of these views tend to favor language and emphases that are out of sync with the simplicity of the New Testament teaching regarding sanctification. What we find in the NT is that properly understood, “trying harder” (i.e., discipline, hard work, and old fashioned effort) is a vital part of God’s design for the remaking of His saints.
1. The NT puts a strong emphasis on trying harder.
Though it’s true that Jesus presented His lordship as an easy yoke and a light burden (), He also encouraged people to view following Him as a costly and demanding way of life. He warns listeners that those who follow Him must accept the prospect of homelessness () and alienation from family members (). He insists that the life of the Christ-follower involves renouncing all one has (). He demands that disciples hand over their very lives (, ).
How such a life constitutes an easy yoke and a light burden is a question for another study, but this much is clear: Jesus did not intend for His disciples to cherish any delusions that they would be spared from having to do hard things. He said the “way” is “difficult” (ESV, ).
The apostles make the same point, but with a slightly different nuance. Without downplaying the personal cost of following Christ, they place greater emphasis on the personal effort involved. The following is a sample.
- “strive together with me in your prayers” ()
- “that…you may abound in every good work” ()
- “strive to excel in building up the church” ()
- “your labor is not in vain” ()
- “Let your manner of life be worthy…striving side by side for the faith” ()
- “do so more and more” ()
- “To this end we toil and strive because we have our hope set on the living God” ()
- “Remind them…to be obedient, to be ready for every good work” ()
- “Strive for…the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.” ()
What this small sample shows is that the NT calls us over and over to exert ourselves. It’s a constant refrain with occasional full orchestra bursts, such as these:
- “I discipline my body and keep it under control” ()
- “I press on toward the goal” ()
- “let us cleanse ourselves…perfecting holiness” ()
- “self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined” ()
- “train yourself for godliness” ()
- “add to your faith virtue…knowledge…self-control…perseverance” ()
- “In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.” ()
Whatever pitfalls may be involved in teaching believers that they should “try harder”—and there are some—the fact remains that the NT reveals no concern at all that believers might put too much effort into their pursuit of godliness.
2. “Reckoning” and “yielding” are forms of trying harder.
Let-go-let-God advocates (whether of Keswick or Reformed roots) tend to introduce unhelpful complexity into Romans 6, often using language that suggests passivity. But the argument of the passage is not difficult, and Paul is clearly calling on his audience, and on us, to do something. “Consider” (AV, “reckon”) in is an imperative, as is “yield” in 6:13 and 19b. The “know” references in the text are indicative, but our response is consistently imperative. We are commanded to act.
Every little boy who has ever sat still when he wanted to wiggle knows that yielding often requires “trying really hard.” It’s putting down what we want and instead choosing what another wants. Yielding is not fundamentally different from the putting off and putting on imperatives of .
3. Properly teaching “try harder” emphasizes the gospel and humbles us.
One argument goes that calling on believers to exert themselves increasingly in the pursuit of godliness de-emphasizes the gospel, fuels pride, breeds legalism, and robs the Christian life of the joy we’re intended to have in Christ.
But this cannot be the case. Though believers’ personal discipline can indeed go horribly wrong (e.g., , and most of Galatians) the problem cannot lie simply in calls to “try harder.” Two lines of evidence support this analysis.
First, appeals to work harder cannot be inherently anti-gospel and pro-pride because, as the passages above demonstrate, these calls to exert ourselves are the norm in the NT. Second, appeals to try harder cannot be anti-gospel because the gospel itself is repeatedly cited as the very reason for trying harder.
- Because we “know” we must “yield” ().
- Because God works in us, we must “work out our salvation” ().
- Because God has provided, in Christ, all we need, we are to “make every effort to supplement [our] faith” ().
- Because we have been saved “by grace…through faith,” we “should walk” in the “good works” God prepared for us ().
- Following Paul’s example, we should be “struggling” because of “[Christ’s] energy” that “powerfully works within” us ().
When we live the Christian dynamic, we pursue the imperatives in light of the indicatives, but we do not minimize the imperatives. In other words, we work hard and then harder, because we understand that we have been bought with a price for the very purpose of becoming holy and have been richly blessed with Spirit-fueled ability to do that very thing.
Properly understood and pursued, “trying harder” humbles us because we know every success is really a gift. Put in its proper context, “try harder” exalts the gospel because we are honoring it—and the Savior who is at its center—by making use of what He bought for us and has already done in us.
My parents once gave me a cordless drill for Christmas. In the days that followed I had some options. I could sit and admire the gift and feel genuine appreciation for the givers and their thoughtfulness and love. I could get to work using the gift and forget all about the heart behind it. Or I could admire the gift, appreciate the givers and also get to work. Which of these options honors both gift and givers most?
It is possible to “try harder” on a small number of superficial spiritual metrics and not really grow much. It’s also possible to “try harder” more comprehensively but do so with little reflection or awareness of why we’re trying, and Who rightly owns the credit for every successful step we take. But the solution to these errors is not to swing to the other extreme and proclaim a confusing, passivity-tinged version of the pursuit of holiness. The solution is to fully grasp the beauty of the gospel and the Savior and therefore try harder.
Discussion
NewBingo!
Thanks, Aaron. You hit the nail on the head!
G. N. Barkman
NewHowever...
This topic has bedeviled (so to speak) me for some time. It’s hard to write about because there are always 35 other things that seem vitally important to say. So I’ve got a growing collection of points for another installment: the pitfalls and joys of trying harder.
I have seen the pitfalls and sometimes experienced them. I think the challenge is to teach ourselves and others in a way that avoids the pitfalls but to do it with a precision that doesn’t create confusion and error in the “nomophobia” direction (to borrow Snoeberger’s term… or whoever he got it from).
And I ran out of room before I could elaborate much on the joy of trying harder. For Christians who experienced only frustration in some version of “try harder” dynamic, it’s not hard to see why they’d want to discard the whole idea of discipline and effort (or maybe try to retain it and reject it at the same time, as I’ve seen some do). But Paul is a fascinating example of rejoicing amid suffering, joy amid frustration, disappointment and grief, and so on. Struggle and joy are supposed to go together.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewWell said, Mr. Blumer
Good balance to the Keswick-like approaches that plague our Fundamentalist sub-culture. Our anti-legalist neighbors will do well to listen to these wise words. Looking forward to reading more from your “pen” on this topic.
Discipling God's image-bearers to the glory of God.
NewGood Summary
Thanks for the good summary, Aaron. It is an area that I seek to emphasize, too. The Christian life is not effortless, but exhausting. It can be wholly done sinfully out of pride and the flesh, but it is necessary to apply effort to work, walk, and yield.
For the Shepherd and His sheep, Kevin Grateful husband of a Proverbs 31 wife, and the father of 15 blessings. http://captive-thinker.blogspot.com
Newchariacature
Maybe chariacature-izing each “side” is unhelpful in this discussion. Because it sounds strangely similar …
There’s more.
I think one would actually have to spend more time in these guys’ writings to root out what is the real issue here, if there is one. He’s not saying Jesus + Nothing = Do Nothing. No one is saying that.
www.annesokol.com
NewWhat's that again?
I’m scratching my head. Did I miss something? Did Aaron say anything about Tchividjian, or about Jesus + nothing = everything?
G. N. Barkman
Newit's just been on the other threads about sanctification
recently :D
www.annesokol.com
NewMore, please!
I agree with Anne. Aaron makes some good points, but he also sometimes portrays the view(s) he is opposing in ways that are probably not recognizable to those who actually espouse those views. It would be more helpful to me (and perhaps others?) for the discussion to be more specific — take Tchividjian’s/Steve Brown’s/Jerry Bridges’s own description of what they’re saying and respond to it in enough detail to be meaningful, rather than merely rebutting a generic/amalgamated description that might or might not include Tchividjian’s/Brown’s/Bridges’s view.
Though I currently have a lot of sympathy for Tchividjian’s/Brown’s/Bridges’s understanding, I am genuinely interested in pursuing this further. I’ve seen and lived firsthand quite a few portions of the spectrum: born and raised Nazarene, where “trying harder” was important both because you could lose your salvation if you didn’t and because you could achieve sinless perfection (albeit with the assistance of sanctification as a second work of grace) if you did; IFB Christian school, BJU, and IFB churches where “trying harder” certainly was necessary evidence of genuine salvation and resulted in various forms of public pats on the back, and where failure (in only some, not all types of sin, which was effectively divided into socially acceptable and socially unacceptable categories) conversely called into question your salvation and/or your value as a person; and now generally Reformed circles where there is no consensus, with Kevin DeYoung (and John Piper?) et al. in disagreement with Tchividjian/Brown/Bridges.
One angle that would help: what do the competing positions say about how God views me during the day or week or month that I am free of my besetting sin and actively (and sincerely) involved in my local church vs. how He views me during the day or week or month (or six months) that I am mired in my besetting sin and apathetic about church? In both cases, I am trusting in Christ alone for my salvation, I am convinced that God is sovereign and that I am not, etc., and in the latter case I know that the “bad” season is temporary, not permanent. Is it appropriate to speak in terms of being more pleasing to God, being more acceptable to God, being more glorifying to God, being more used of or usable to God? Which understanding is more likely to motivate me to stay in the “good” place and to move out of the “bad” place? Complicating all of the above, how is my daily life in the “good” place objectively better as far as God is concerned when in fact I’m still sinning in numerous conscious and unconscious ways even on my “best” days?
I could probably come up with more questions if there’s not enough above to work with. :)
NewThe question is: Why try?
and What if I don’t try? Is there any consequence if I don’t try? Or am I just fine in terms of eternity as long as I have faith?
formerly known as Coach C
NewThe Old Hebrew Professor
I think it’s kinda like what very senior professor of Hebrew told his class of beginners. “Y’all can start learning Hebrew now or you can spend the first few years in Heaven doing so.” Not trying means a person is that much less mature when he\she walks the streets of gold.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
NewSo many...
One of the reasons I’m not interacting all that specifically with the other views is that there are so many variants. Another is that I find their language so confusing. I suppose that invites the charge, “See, you just don’t understand them.” But that’s really my point. The NT is not hard to understand regarding sanctification and the believer’s responsibility… ergo, a view of sanctification that is hard to understand is, well, not doing it right.
About Gal. 2:19-20 vs. passages that call us to action and discipline. There is actually no paradox at all.
If we read Gal. 2:19-20 (“I am crucified with Christ… Christ lives in me…. the life I live I live by faith…”) in light of passages such as Gal. 6:15 and 2 Cor. 5:17, clarity emerges. Romans 6 helps as well if we don’t force mystical meanings onto words like know, consider/reckon, and yield.
When we connect what these passages teach, we see that every believer at least positionally died with Christ (I say “at least,” because it’s not entirely clear to me yet if there is more) and has some kind of union with Him in His life as well. The result is that each of us is already a “new creation,” even though we are not yet perfected. That new creation is “created in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 2:10).
So, for all the parts of that union that remain mysterious, our responsibilities are not mysterious. We are new creations with a radically altered relationship to Jesus Christ. His righteousness is credited to us, and His power fills us. We live in a union in with Him. So when we press toward the mark, discipline our bodies, train ourselves for godliness, strive, struggle, labor, yield (and all those other biblical terms), we do so in union with Him and through the power He has given us—and continues to give us.
So we work in humble dependence, glorying in the cross and what it secured for us. We work as new creations, so it is no longer just “we” but “we and Him.” But we still work.
(Or at least we’re supposed to. This sort of writing is always convicting for me because my nature is to not try harder!)
So what about T.T. and Martin Luther (allegedly) et. al. ? Well, let’s say my approach to this is pastoral rather than scholarly. Pastorally, you can’t systematically answer every error out there, so you teach the Scriptures as clearly as you can and let that do the answering. Sometimes to select specific errors to work through in detail, but often it’s not possible. (I’m not a pastor currently, but I think there will always be a bit of pastor in me)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewWhat if....
What if we don’t try. It’s a great question. If I stick w/the NT, I just have to say “then we are being disobedient.” But does God still accomplish His plan to change us? Absolutely. We just miss out (to some extent) on the opportunity to partner with Him in that. (I say “to some extent” because I’m convinced every believer tries harder to some extent, though he may call it something else. And there is also much blessing that comes to us just by hangin’ out with God’s people, worshipping, etc. even at the completely effortless level. It’s all good)
It’s sort of like the way the “glory of God” works. Even sinners ultimately bring glory to God, even through their evil. But they forfeit the chance to glorify God on purpose.
Another question someone raised: How does God see me when I’m doing well vs. when I’m failing? This does touch on one of the pitfalls I’ll probably try to handle in the next installment. We all “stand” in grace (Rom. 5:2) and in union with Christ. Justified. So when I’m not trying or my trying isn’t “working,” I am still “accepted in the beloved,” still standing in grace, still justified, still adopted, all that. Fellowship is disrupted (what 1 John 1:9 and context are all about). I’m a bit unhappy, because I know He deserves better from me. But I can still rejoice because God’s plan is not deterred in the least. He is still moving me forward even when I’ve taken steps backward.
OK, that part seems paradoxical, I suppose, but it isn’t really. Imagine walking through boggy territory toward a village. You’d love to just go in a straight line, but you keep running into swamp and backtracking. It’s all part of the progress. God graciously uses the failures to deepen our humility and our awareness of how much we need Him—and how blessed we are, etc. So, should we sin that grace may abound? Well, that would still be disobedient and we don’t want to do that, do we? So He graciously uses even disobedience ultimately for His purposes, but we should not disobey, because the whole point of His work in us is to make us more obedient.
Yes… if that’s hard to understand, it’s because I’m not doing it right. (and I’ll need a better way to say it. Probably the best way is stringing the biblical phrases together)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewRob Fall wrote: I think it's
Ah. So nothing, really.
formerly known as Coach C
NewAaron Blumer wrote: What if
I think that there are some clear NT texts with very dire consequences for a lack of disobedience - if we have the courage to face them. I’m hoping that you consider them in the next installment.
formerly known as Coach C
Newif you're not going to actually read or listen to them,
then maybe it’s pointless to write about it as if you’re answering a position that someone(s) is promoting. I don’t think the position you’re speaking to really exists.
??? it’s just kind of frustrating and confusing maybe.
dmyers has the right questions going …
Last night, after posting on here, I was talking with V—he’s reading Bridges on holiness/sanctification, preaching about the sanctification point in the 1689 London BCF right now, and counseling someone with serious issues, and working on starting a counseling program in the church. (He’s thinking of using Bridges’ book for the rehab center too [which, BTW, Tullian recommends at the end of his book—he has a list of recommended reading].)
There was a definitive time in Vitaliy and I’s lives together that we definitely shifted our views. In 2009, I think. V got into all this just by sharing the gospel over and over and over, and it all started dawning on him, and then he started Martin Luther ….
So, I asked him last night: What is the real difference in these views? It’s not law, effort, grace, gospel. Because we all agree on the importance of those things. It’s got to be in the way we mix them, emphasize them. What is the difference in the way we used to view this all, and how we do it now. Because now I feel like I’m running in sanctification, whereas before I felt like I was crawling. Though at the time I was crawling, i didn’t see it that way.
And he said that Jerry Bridges uses this example in his book to explain it where we put our effort/emphasis:
A boy is playing soccer. He is all dirty, goes home, his mom says to go clean/wash himself.
What does the boy do? Can he really wash himself?
No.
He can put himself under the water that can wash him.
Point being, to fulfill the commands, do we focus on what we are doing—how we hold the soap, etc.— or do we focus on getting under the water that can actually clean us?
TT even talks about the blood, sweat, tears of effort. But he talks a lot about other stuff too.
I may look into some of dmyers questions next—people are asking Vitaliy about that stuff right now too.
www.annesokol.com
NewBut what motivates our
And yet Jesus uses fear, as does Paul, Peter, and others, even warning of eternal hell (to answer Josh’s question about why it matters: Because you might go to hell).
Why is it, then, that the Bible uses fear to motivate us to holiness and some today are reticent to do so? Are we that much more knowledgeable about the biblical means of sanctification than Jesus and Paul were? Or has mankind changed in the last two thousand years making the methods of Jesus and Paul outdated? Or is there another option?
Newfear
I don’t think these people are denying a fear factor. It’s more like, wow, if that’s what you need to keep you from wrecking stuff, ok. But there’s a much better way.
www.annesokol.com
NewFear / Love
The major theologians - Augustine, Gregory Palamas, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin - insist that there can be different levels of obedience, but that sanctification is accompanied by a change in motivating factors. For instance, Augustine says that the obedience and repentance motivated by the threat of divine punishment is actually only preparation for the real obedience that takes place through the virtue of charity. Fear at best clears the ground for love. Calvin distinguishes between “servile fear,” which is ultimately unacceptable to God, and “filial reverence,” which obeys out of the relationship of union, new birth, and adoption. Eastern Orthodox theology stemming from Gregory Palamas aims at theosis, which is being filled with the divine life to the point that all action derives from love, transcending even self-interest. Aquinas teaches that “meritorious” obedience is only that obedience flowing from faith, hope, and love, virtues infused by the Holy Spirit. Luther taught that people are simul iustus et peccator, and that the law is for sinful people, and thus the threat of the law remains relevant to people insofar as they are sinful— but only as one side of a dialectic in which the new person is free from the law.
So, there appears to be a consensus even among divergent traditions:
1) Only properly motivated obedience is truly pleasing to God. This proper motivation is a recognition of God’s action toward us and the love that results from that.
2) Improperly motivated obedience can be a stepping stone to obedience.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
NewI don't think these people
But that is the contrast you quote above (fear vs. gratitude). Fear is such a common thing in both the OT and the NT. How can we minimize it in the way that you appear to be doing?
Charlie says that only properly motivated obedience is truly pleasing (I suppose that is contrasted with some other kind of pleasing). But that too seems to minimize, at least to some degree, the consistent use of fear in the Scripture.
So while we should obey out of love, it seems that Scripture holds forth fear as a proper motivating factor in obedience. Otherwise, why use it? Would God use an improper motivation for obedience?
NewSome of this does not make sense
So … how do I know if my motivation is “acceptable” to God? Paul tells the Corinthians to submit and obey and if they don’t, he was going to “bring a whip.” 1 Corinthian 4:21 Paul was not so concerned that their obedience needed to be motivated by love, he was concerned that they obey.
There is a real threat here and I think that Larry touched on it: eternal hell. And this warning of eternal hell extends also to those who were at one point justified. That is the warning of all of the passages that Aaron has laid out for us: The writers of Scripture are saying over and over, just because you happen to be justified right now, don’t assume that you will remain so, unless you faithfully keep the commandments of God.
formerly known as Coach C
Newsee the whole picture
are we talking about general respect? or are we talking about just plain old “I am afraid of something bad happening; I feel threatened” fear?
Where does God say he wants us to be motivated by fear of something bad happening/punishment? how do you reconcile this with him also saying he calls us friends (doing his will from love), not servants (who can love, but it’s not obligated). And 2 Tim 1:7 and I John 4:18.
And what kind of fear do you think TT is referring to in his quote?
how would you rightly motivate someone by fear?
www.annesokol.com
NewNot Difficult
This is basic Christian teaching:
But the aim of our instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith. (1 Tim. 1:5, NET)
There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love. (1 John 4:18, NET)
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Neware we talking about general
Being told to cut your hand off rather than enter hell with two hands seems like “afraid of something bad happening,” doesn’t it?
To quote someone, Why do we have to reconcile friends? The question, to me, is this: Did God use fear to motivate us to obedience? If so, then what exactly does that tell us?
I have no idea. I am not talking about TT, but about what the Scriptures say. I referenced TT because you did.
Through the pattern of Scripture, I would say. Where and how the Scripture uses fear, then we are free to, and in fact, probably should. That’s all I am saying.
NewThis is basic Christian
All true, Charlie. But this doesn’t really address the point I am asking about, which is this: If the Bible uses fear to motivate us to obedience (and does anyone doubt that it does), then aren’t we also to use fear in the same way? That does not in any way contradict love, so far as I can see. But again, what do we do with the passages that use fear as a motivation for obedience? This, as you say, is basic Christian teaching, isn’t it?
Perhaps to put it more directly, how would you teach or preach the passages that use fear as a motivation to obedience?
NewKeeping the commands of God = Love.
1Jn 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” 2Jn 1:6 “And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, so that you should walk in it.” In the Gospel of John, Jesus makes it clear that those who keep his commandments will “abide in his love.” Those who do not keep his commandments will be removed from the vine and cast into the fire.
The writer of Hebrews tells his readers that they need to strive against sin nearly to the point of shedding blood because because without holiness, no one will “see the Lord” Furthermore, he goes on to say that persistent, unrepentant disobedience will result in a failure to obtain the grace of God. (Hebrews 12)
Yes, love is a motivator, but it is not the only motivator. Furthermore, this is the consistent warning of Scripture in both the Old and New Testaments:
Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit, one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, ‘I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.’ This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike. The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. - Deuteronomy 29:18-20 Which is then quoted in Hebrews 12.
formerly known as Coach C
Newfear motivation is not the goal
love and fear are not equal motivators. they are not friends in that sense.
we can use fear, it’s just not the goal of the relationship. we should be getting out of that where we can and moving into love.
i don’t think the cut-your-hand-off verses are teaching that it’s Ok to be fear motivated. it’s not talking about motivation.
where do you see God using fear in a way that we should replicate?
part of it is a balance thing, too, in relationships. my husband and I don’t have “fear” motives in our relationship, that I can think of. But i’m sure our children feel it when they have to think about consequences for disobedience, but even then, i certainly don’t want it to be the overriding tone of our relationship.
I don’t think God wants us to be motivated by fear. though He will use it if we won’t accept obeying in a nicer way. If we are obeying out of fear, we need to see why.
www.annesokol.com
NewJoshua
Do I take it that your position is that salvation can be lost?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Newi don't think the
So if that is not motivation for purity from sin, then what is it?
Anywhere he uses fear, right? If we are to preach the Bible, we are to say what God says. Therefore, where God uses fear, should not we? How can we faithfully preach what God says unless we actually preach what God says? Can we say, “I know God uses fear here, but we have a better way”?
So why did he use it then?
Because Scripture commands it.
I am trying to understand your point here. It seems like you want us to discount certain things from Scripture, and ignore the consequences of sin that Scripture lays out as a motivation for obedience. It seems to me that we are bent on making a distinction that Scripture does not seem to make. Life is complex in all areas, and these kinds of fine distinctions don’t seem to work.
NewAnne Sokol wrote: part of it
You don’t fear the consequences of unfaithfulness in your marital covenant? Not at all? I’m not saying that you are considering unfaithfulness, neither am I. But some of my worst fears are divorce and all of the heartaches, emotional, physical negatives that would arise from acts of unfaithfulness.
Read Revelation 2,3. Does Christ use fear to motivate obedience in those passages? Fear is a good thing. Fear keeps me from doing a lot of stupid/dangerous things. Read Acts 2, does Peter use fear to motivate there? Yes, and 3,000 souls were baptized into the church.
formerly known as Coach C
NewTylerR wrote:Do I take it
No, those who are elected to salvation before the foundation of the world will be saved. However, justification can be lost. (I can supply biblical support if needed.) The other thing that has added to the confusion is that most people assume that justification = salvation. This is a biblical fallacy.
formerly known as Coach C
Newwell ....
www.annesokol.com
Newcutting off
i’m confused by your point too. God clearly says He wants us motivated by love. that love and fear-of-punishment don’t peacefully co-exist.
www.annesokol.com
NewTrying to see your point
I’m trying to see your point … originally you seemed to say that “fear” as a motivator was illegitimate motivation. You seemed to imply (and maybe I have this wrong) that obedience motivated by fear was somehow wrong and would not be accepted by God. Is that what you are trying to show?
As to your immediate question above - you really don’t fear divorce or the consequences of unfaithfulness at all? You view them as what? Something to look forward to? You seem to be denying something that is pretty self-evident. In fact, it seems as if you fear to admit that you fear something. :)
formerly known as Coach C
NewAnne Sokol wrote: but God
Uhh … He is saying to be afraid and stop, because if you do not, you will go to hell. Otherwise, there wouldn’t be any seriousness to dealing with sin. It would be like the old Hebrew prof above who said - eh, if you don’t obey, your status in heaven will be a little less, but you’ll still go to heaven, so no big deal.
Love and fear of punishment surely do peacefully co-exist. Have you read Hebrews 12 or John 15 where love, commandments, abiding and removal from the branch are all explained together?
formerly known as Coach C
NewLove and obedience
Only have a second at the moment, so I’ll have to support this claim more fully later, but there are several passages of Scripture that talk about love being expressed in obedience. This is what Jesus means. He does not teach that Love equals keeping commandments but that love shows in keeping His commands.
A key to understanding how it all fits together is Jesus’ very strong statement about the Greatest Command… Mark 12 around v.30. Matthew 22:37-40. Jesus is clear that loving God is top priority and what we do is the expression of that.
… about fear. It’s really only very modern thinking that sees fear as incompatible with love. The angels in Isaiah 6 clearly adore God yet cover their faces. Whether this is “respect” or “fear”… not sure it matters, but “perfect love casts out fear” of judgment, not fear of awesome power, fear of chastisement, fear of disappointing our Savior, etc.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewProbably for another thread . . . but . . .
I’m willing.
Can I just put a couple of verses out there for you to explain how that are not teaching the loss of justification?
Galatians 5:4 - note the term “severed from Christ” Justification is when one is in union with Christ, but Paul threatens the Galatians with the loss of justification.
Hebrews 6:1-7 - note especially the fact that one has at one time benefitted from the crucifixtion of Christ (been justified), but now they are attempting to “crucify Him again.” Clearly, they were once justified and are no longer such.
there are more
formerly known as Coach C
New...
sheesh, where to jump in. …
i think there are fear motivations.
And I want to be clear. I am talking about fear of punishment. ear of consequences.
the marital faithfulness example. let’s say i’m motivated to be faithful to my husband in order to keep my job. i fear losing my job if I am unfaithful.
that can, to a small extent, motivate me to not cross any boundaries where I could lose my job.
would it motivate me to keep my thoughts pure? does it motivate me to keep my relationship with my husband full of happiness, joy, forgiveness, friendship? NO. I could fear to lose my job but still be a terrible person to be married to and full of hate and bitterness.
It is love that fulfills God’s commandment. Not the fear of the consequences.
www.annesokol.com
Newtype of fear
www.annesokol.com
NewJoshua's comments are for a completely different arena
Joshua: Even assuming there is a distinction between salvation that cannot be lost and justification that can be (which I think can be dismissed out of hand; is this a new “middle way” between Wesleyans and Baptists or Calvinists?), I have bad news for you: to the extent your justification depends on you, you’ve already lost it (as have I, repeatedly). It would be impossible to have a meaningful dialog with you about sanctification. Aaron’s article and the teachers/authors to whom he is responding are at varying places on the infield, while you’re out in far left field or somewhere else. You are necessarily going to be talking past the rest of us. Really, the conversation you want to have should be in the context of your forthcoming article, not here where it’s a confusing distraction.
NewLooking forward to the next installment
Fair enough, Aaron. I’ll look forward to the next installment. Your reference to 1 John 1:9 raises some questions that might be appropriate to incorporate into that next installment, such as: (1) If God forgave all my sin (past and future) when I was saved (or at Calvary) on the basis of Christ’s payment for that sin and my reliance on that payment, how is it that we speak of my needing His forgiveness for my subsequent sins? (2) Is the popular exposition of 1 John 1:9 (which I understand you to be incorporating in your reference to that verse) erroneous, because there John is speaking not to or about Christians (who by definition have confessed their sins/sinfulness) but to non-Christians who are denying that they are sinners in need of a savior (cf. 1 John 1:8)? (3) Apart from the popular exposition of 1 John 1:5-10, what is our basis for teaching that “[f] ellowship is disrupted” by post-salvation sin? Analogies to the human parent-child relationship are common, but I think misplaced: for one thing, as a human parent, I don’t generally freeze out or refuse to fellowship with my child when he misbehaves, even badly (and when I do, it’s because I’m acting in the flesh and not in love); more importantly, my child doesn’t have a mediator with me who has already atoned for any and all infractions my child will commit, allowing me to view my child always as perfect on the basis of the mediator’s perfection.
This is a very interesting topic, Aaron.
NewIronically,
this will carry more weight with some than the clear teaching of Scripture that one’s justification can be lost such as what we find in Matt. 18:21-35, the story of one who was forgiven (justified) and then at a future point (unforgiven) unjustified.
But I will post it anyway. Here is Calvin’s reason for why we faithfully obey from his commentary on 1 Jn 1:7
formerly known as Coach C
NewFear, and then Fear of the Lord
My wife and I are listening to John MacArthur on the Beatitudes right now (the series is called Christ and the Law, but I’m not sure which sermon we’re actually in). His take on the whole ‘cut your hand off’ and fear is that Christ needed to put the right kind of fear into them - the healthy fear that they can not and will not ever be able to meet the mark outlined in the OT. Jesus is demonstrating that their sense of righteousness needs to be recalibrated away from the artificial standards that they set up for themselves (esp. the Scribes and Pharisees), and to realize that all of the laws and rules are there to prove that they can’t be righteous before God (cf Romans 7:7-25, Galatians 3:21-29).
So I do think that there is a right kind of fear - the fear of the Lord. But is Christianity based on that failure to obey the law, or is it predicated on the two great commandments - to love the Lord your God and to love your neighbor as yourself? MacArthur makes the point that Israel in the OT is commanded to Love the Lord first - to have a faith relationship (and I don’t like that term) with God, and then the rules/laws in Deut. flow out of that. The violations of the Law documented in the Prophets demonstrates that there was no real love for God, something that squares up with I John and John 14:15-17.
It’s a different take, and one I’d never heard before, and it makes more and more sense the more I think about it. Think about Adam and Eve - perfect beings, in a perfect environment, with a perfect relationship with God. Only they didn’t really love God - they loved themselves more than God, and selfishly took from the tree because they thought they knew better.
Just wanted to put that out there for discussion.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Newdmyers wrote: Joshua: Even
dmyers, how do you explain the words of the Apostle Paul who says in 1 Corinthians 6:11 “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
And then in his second letter to the exact same group of people, he says things such as:
2 Corinthians 5:20 “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled [justified] to God.” and 2 Corinthians 6:2 “we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” and “Behold, now is the favorable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”
Does he then betray a lack of theological knowledge here? Or is it at least plausible that this group of people, who were once declare to be justified, had been removed from the Vine and lost that state of a right relationship with God? The way in which this relates to Aaron’s article is to give a logical, biblical explanation for the “why” we must try harder to live in faithfulness (not perfection) to the commands of the covenant. Paul sums it up this way: “what matters is keeping the commandments of God.” 1 Corinthians 7:19 - for what? for eternity.
I am quite happy to see Aaron’s exploration of this topic. Too much of modern Christianity just skims over these texts without really wrestling with their implications.
formerly known as Coach C
NewJoshua, you're missing my
Joshua, you’re missing my point. This isn’t the place to debate Dr. Rainbow’s new interpretation of Paul. This is (or is supposed to be) a thread about *sanctification*. Your posts are arguing a different view of *justification*, one that you have acknowledged is non-standard; as a result, your comments aren’t helpful on this thread but instead are confusing. When you first started posting, I was certainly confused about how what you were saying related to sanctification, and it seems to me that others were too. Please move your debate about justification to a new thread. I may or may not engage you there — I’m quite familiar with all your proof texts, because I used them all as a Nazarene attending a Baptist high school, debating Baptist students and Bible teachers all day long on eternal security. I was wrong then and you’re wrong now. But the critical thing is that this isn’t the right thread for this discussion, and this thread’s discussion of sanctification is a vital one — too vital to get hijacked onto something else.
NewGood job, Aaron.
Good job, Aaron. This is a subject that needs to be brought forward. The discussion here is interesting as well, and no doubt healthy.
Funny how we have trouble talking about fear nowadays, unless we get into politics - then it is legit. Suppose I unexpectedly come to the edge of a cliff, that plummets a few hundred feet below me. Would my immediate response be
1) love?
2) grace?
3) faith?
4) FEAR? (check here please)
Is it possible that I respond this way because God made me this way? Is it possible that this is part of how God created man and beast to survive? Is it possible that this reaction of fear becomes a reasoned fear, when in physical safety we contemplate serious, even perilous matters? Today we bear the burden of an heritage of over 100 years of modern psychology, which has turned all fears into hundreds of medical phobias (and therefore bad). Thus we tend to squirm at biblical statements about fear and work to give them a good, modern or post-modern twist. But in fact, no one (Evangelical, Buddhist, or atheist) is consistent with the application of this tradition against fear. The Hebrew writers of the Bible had no such indoctrination, nor did they have serious problems with confessing seemingly contradictory truths. You will find the phenomenon all the way from Genesis to Revelation. Because Bible-writers knew the living God, they knew that love and fear co-exist very well.
NewSanctification before salvation...
I appreciate Aaron’s article and have skimmed the comments. A large issue, I believe, is for second and third-generation believers. They have made “professions” and prayed prayers, but really have not trusted Christ. As a consequence, they are being taught progressive sanctification without truly knowing God.
I’m a first-generation believer, but was raised in a religious background. The assumption was that because of infant baptism, I was a believer. So that particular church was teaching me to live the Christian life, but without Christ. When I did come to know Christ, the Christian life made sense. The commands of Scripture were not burdensome, but it was based on knowing the God who can relieve our burdens.
It is important for future generations to rub elbows with those who have been involved in sin if they make professions early in life. It is also important not to assume a young child who makes a profession knows what they are doing. They grow up, and may do so with or without Christ.
Newyou all really need to read sources
before getting into all this. really you do. they are not downplaying obedience, etc. It’s terrible to accuse them of that and assume it just because you are too lazy or cheap to actually do your research. they know, once you understand all this, obedience will be like never before. do your research. Im saying that to everyone. I’ve spent my pittance trying to research out some of you guys’ claims about stuff; you could at least do the same. shucks, youtube is free. don’t just pull a sentence or book tittle out of context. and i have kids crawling all over me, and endless stuff to do, too.
be the intelligent fundamentalists we all claim we want to be.
Steve, I agree with you one the one hand, but Vitaliy my husband, is a first generation believer and came from a horribly sinful lifestyle and he has had the same experience here as most of us, including me, who comes from a long line of christian heritage.
marsilius: not all fear is equal.
Jay, I’m including the section from dallas willard’s book The divine Conspiracy here—it’s all about the sermon on the mount. you might find it similar to what macarthur is saying—bolding is mine.
www.annesokol.com
NewFear...
It’s a bit of a rabbit trail, the fear question. Personally I wouldn’t characterize the modern taxonomy of phobias quite as Marillius did. There’s a fundamental difference between being afraid of something powerful and dangerous vs. being afraid of elevators or water or crowded places. All of the latter can be scary at times in perfectly normal ways, but a phobia has to do with elevated irrational fear of extremely unlikely scenarios… and, usually, unhealthy avoidance behaviors, too.
But we’ve lost something in the modern era. I think it was pretty common in the middle ages to both love and fear your king or your lord. Even more common to fear and not love, I suspect.
In any case, my beef w/much of the currently popular sanctification rhetoric is that its emphasis is quite different from that of the NT, which reveals no concern that believers will try too hard. It does reveal concern that they will try without proper attitudes/understanding. That’s where the real problem is, not in discipline, striving or setting firm boundaries for conduct. (Just be sure to never call these “rules”… which we are supposed to believe now are antithetical to growth)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
NewReasoned fear...
Dave Barnhart
NewAnne
Anne,
Thanks for sharing that. I’ve heard a little bit about The Divine Conspiracy, so maybe now I have an impetus to go read it. :)
I think one of the bigger (biggest?) problems that someone touched on is that so often we present Christianity as an escape from Hell or God’s wrath (wrong start) and then there’s all this stuff we do as a result (wrong outworkings). Then we read things like “Come unto me, for my yoke is easy, and my burden is light”, and we think “What?” In short, we presented a works based salvation (predicated on a selfish desire to avoid hell) even though we claim we agree with Ephesians 2:8-9. What we should maybe present is that God loves us, but we ruined that relationship with Him and consequently are separated from Him as a result. I’m still chewing on this, but it’s taking me down all kinds of paths that I’d never thought about before. It’s some heavy lifting and thinking.
The message that I mentioned before is “Who Is An Adulterer?, Part One”, from 1979.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells