In Defense of "Trying Harder"

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.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

Thanks, Aaron. You hit the nail on the head!

G. N. Barkman

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.

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.

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

Maybe chariacature-izing each “side” is unhelpful in this discussion. Because it sounds strangely similar …

Here in these early chapters of Colossians, where gospel indicatives and gospel declarations are paramount, we also see Paul blending in an implication of the kind of imperatives that appropriately flow from gospel truths.

In fact, the same thing is observed in Paul’s prayer for the Colossians even earlier in this opening chapter, where he asks God to fill them with full spiritual apprehension of his will, so they can “walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work” (v. 10). Clearly, the liberating truths of the gospel are meant to lead us to a liberated life of action, of stepping forth in faith and doing the good works he directs and enables us to do.

Paul’s words in Colossians 1:23 about continuing in the faith, stable and steadfast, are a reminder to us that our Christian walk isn’t meant to be characterized by feebleness and shakiness, much less by doubt, distrust, and defiance. Thankfully, the gospel makes it possible for us to avoid all that.

Paul is talking here about the great Christian doctrine of the perseverance of the saints—that once God saves us, we will persevere to the end because Jesus persevered for us to the end.

WHAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT

As we continue working out our life of obedience in light of Christ’s obedience, one thing is clear: the issue is never whether or not to obey. We know the Bible has plenty to say about keeping God’s commands. That’s indisputable. But what motivates our obedience, what animates our obedience, and what prompts us to obey? Is it fear or faith? Is it guilt or gratitude?

Paul says that when we divorce obligations from gospel declarations, then our obedience becomes nothing more than behavioral compliance to rules without heart change. But when God’s amazing grace in the gospel grips our hearts, the motivational structure of our hearts is radically changed, and we begin to obey out of faith not fear, gratitude not guilt.

When I begin analyzing and evaluating my own heart and the motivations behind what I do, I begin to discover a lot of moralistic tendencies. That’s why, as I’ve said so often, we need to be making a beeline for the finished work of Christ every day, because only the gospel can crush the moralistic tendencies that are the natural default mode of our hearts.

from part 5: Everything, in Tullian Tchividjian’s Jesus + Nothing = Everything

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.

I’m scratching my head. Did I miss something? Did Aaron say anything about Tchividjian, or about Jesus + nothing = everything?

G. N. Barkman

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. :)

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

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.

[Joshua Caucutt]

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?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

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.

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.

[Rob Fall]

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.

[Joshua Caucutt]

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?

Ah. So nothing, really.

formerly known as Coach C

[Aaron Blumer]

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.

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

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.

But what motivates our obedience, what animates our obedience, and what prompts us to obey? Is it fear or faith? Is it guilt or gratitude?

Paul says that when we divorce obligations from gospel declarations, then our obedience becomes nothing more than behavioral compliance to rules without heart change. But when God’s amazing grace in the gospel grips our hearts, the motivational structure of our hearts is radically changed, and we begin to obey out of faith not fear, gratitude not guilt.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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

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?

Being told to cut your hand off rather than enter hell with two hands seems like “afraid of something bad happening,” doesn’t it?

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.

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?

And what kind of fear do you think TT is referring to in his quote?

I have no idea. I am not talking about TT, but about what the Scriptures say. I referenced TT because you did.

how would you rightly motivate someone by fear?

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.

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)

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?

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

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.

Do I take it that your position is that salvation can be lost?

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.

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.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

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.

So if that is not motivation for purity from sin, then what is it?

where do you see God using fear in a way that we should replicate?

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”?

I don’t think God wants us to be motivated by fear.

So why did he use it then?

If we are obeying out of fear, we need to see why.

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.

[Anne Sokol]

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.

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

[TylerR]

Do I take it that your position is that salvation can be lost?

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.

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.

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

[Joshua Caucutt]

[Anne Sokol]

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.

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.

well, is fear what is motivating me to be faithful to my husband? no. it’s love for him, for God. just because one is motivated by love do I also need to be motivated by fear?

[Larry]

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.

So if that is not motivation for purity from sin, then what is it?

where do you see God using fear in a way that we should replicate?

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”?

I don’t think God wants us to be motivated by fear.

So why did he use it then?

If we are obeying out of fear, we need to see why.

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.

but God isn’t saying, ‘I will cut off your hand, so be afraid and stop.” He’s expressing the extent of seriousness toward dealing with sin.

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.

[Anne Sokol]

well, is fear what is motivating me to be faithful to my husband? no. it’s love for him, for God. just because one is motivated by love do I also need to be motivated by fear?

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

[Anne Sokol]

but God isn’t saying, ‘I will cut off your hand, so be afraid and stop.” He’s expressing the extent of seriousness toward dealing with sin.

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.

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

[Joshua Caucutt]

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.

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.

[jhowell]

Josh, if you are going to make a claim like you did above about justification being lost, which is outrageously heretical according to Rom. 8:28-30, then it is time for you to do the hard work of writing an article and submit for peer review and forum interaction. Such nonsense!

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

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.

[Aaron Blumer]

… 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.

and I want to say that this is important. i don’t think any of these writers are dismissing every type of fear there is—respect towards God, fear of consequences…. but I think God does want us to be motivated by love—and isn’t love married to respect?, in case one is wanting to argue.

[Joshua Caucutt]

[TylerR]

Do I take it that your position is that salvation can be lost?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Aaron Blumer]

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.

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.

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

This passage is remarkable; and from it we first learn, that the expiation of Christ, effected by his death, does then properly belong to us, when we, in uprightness of heart, do what is right and just for Christ is no redeemer except to those who turn from iniquity, and lead a new life. If, then, we desire to have God propitious to us, so as to forgive our sins, we ought not to forgive ourselves. In short, remission of sins cannot be separated from repentance, nor can the peace of God be in those hearts, where the fear God does not prevail.
Secondly, this passage shews that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God.

formerly known as Coach C

[Larry] Being told to cut your hand off rather than enter hell with two hands seems like “afraid of something bad happening,” doesn’t it?

[Joshua Caucutt] 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.

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

[dmyers]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Indeed, the attempt to solve the problem of right sexual behavior by a law or laws that govern specific behaviors is what Jesus is addressing in Matt. 5: 29– 30: “If your right eye makes you sin, gouge it out and fling it from you. Better that one of your bodily parts rot than that your whole body rot in gehenna” (v. 29). And likewise for your right hand (v. 30).

Jesus is saying that if you think that laws can eliminate being wrong you would, to be consistent, cut off your hand or gouge out your eye so that you could not possibly do the acts the law forbids.

Now, truly, if you blind yourself, you cannot look at a woman to lust after her, because you cannot look on her at all. And if you sufficiently dismember yourself, you will not be able to do any wrong action. This is the logic by which Jesus reduces the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees to the absurd.

In their view, the law could be satisfied, and thus goodness attained, if you avoided sinning. You are right if you have done nothing wrong. You could avoid sinning if you simply eliminated the bodily parts that make sinful actions possible. Then you would roll into heaven a mutilated stump.

Of course being acceptable to God is so important that, if cutting bodily parts off could achieve it, one would be wise to cut them off. Jesus seems to have made this very point on some occasions (Matt. 18: 8– 9; Mark 9: 43). But so far from suggesting that any advantage before God could actually be gained in this way, Jesus’ teaching in this passage is exactly the opposite. The mutilated stump could still have a wicked heart. The deeper question always concerns who you are, not what you did do or can do. What would you do if you could? Eliminating bodily parts will not change that.

If you dismember your body to the point where you could never murder or even look hatefully at another, never commit adultery or even look to lust, your heart could still be full of anger, contempt, and obsessive desire for what is wrong, no matter how thoroughly stifled or suppressed it may be. “From within, out of the heart of men, the thoughts of evil proceed: fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, acts of greed and iniquity, as well as deceit, lewdness, the envious glare, blasphemy, arrogance and foolishness— all of these evils come from inside and pollute the person” (Mark 7: 21– 23).

The goodness of the kingdom heart, by contrast, is the positive love of God and of those around us that fills it and crowds out the many forms of evil. From that goodness come deeds of respect and purity that characterize a sexuality as it was meant by God to be.

Willard, Dallas (2009-02-06). The Divine Conspiracy (p. 167-168). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

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.

[Marsilius]

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)

Or 5, I sure wish I had my hang glider with me so I could jump off!By the way, my reaction is not really different — if I’m strapped into my glider, I see the cliff a lot differently than I do when hiking along the edge of one without it, so I would guess that as you put it, it becomes a reasoned fear. So in that sense I could agree with your take on this. Fear should not control us, and I agree with those who say that love is a higher and much better motivation for obeying God, but fear is still useful and can help us when we are not doing the right thing for a better reason.I heard someone speak once (don’t know if he was a Christian), who said we do right things for basically 3 reasons: fear, duty, and love. Love is the best motivation, and duty will suffice, but even fear as a motivation is better than not doing what is right, and thus still has a useful place, even if we should be doing right for better reasons.

Dave Barnhart

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.

…Then He went a step further. He said the standards for My kingdom must exceed the standards that you are now living by, verse 20, “1 say unto you that except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes: and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven.” Now there was the basic standard that Jesus gave. That He required for His kingdom a righteousness beyond that of the scribes and Pharisees, and by the way they were the most righteous people in the Jewish society. And so He’s saying, what I ask is more than they asked, but not more than Moses asked, and not different than Moses. I have not come to alter the law or to change the law but to fulfill the law, and the law in itself demands more than you are now giving. It is a higher standard.

As far as the people knew the scribes and the Pharisees were the most righteous so this was a very hard saying for them to understand. They did not understand how He could require a higher righteousness than that of the scribes and Pharisees. And still accept Mosaic law because they thought the scribes and the Pharisees lived the law of Moses to the hilt. And so their question is, if You believe in Moses, the question in their minds, and You believe in the law of Moses how can You require a greater standard than the scribes and Pharisees who teach us the law of Moses? And as we’ve been learning in past weeks the fact is, though the scribes and the Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses, and though they claimed to be the proponents of the law of Moses, the truth was they themselves had lowered the law of Moses to their own design and were not even keeping that which God originally intended. And so Jesus comes to lift the standard back where it was in the beginning.

Now this is hard for the people to understand and so point by point the Lord goes through verses 21 to 48 giving them illustrations of how the scribes and the Pharisees and the people as well fell short on every aspect of God’s absolute standard. He wants them to see that the people were not living up to God’s standard they had lowered the standard and He wants to raise it back to where it really should be.

Now the Pharisees had their own viewpoint, verse 27, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” And because they didn’t do that they thought they were righteous, they thought they’d go right into the kingdom and have the chief seats. Maybe you’re like that, maybe you say to yourself, I’m not so bad, I’ve never actually gone out on my wife, I’ve never committed adultery, I, I’ve never done that kind of thing. But Jesus says if you ever look on a woman to lust after her you’ve done it in your heart, and that’s enough to damn you to hell forever. That’s the implication of verses 29 and 30. So your self-confidence is shattered here, you see. The external system of law isn’t going to cut it because God is after the attitude. And you see what Jesus wants to do is show them they can’t, they can’t help themselves. You see they could deal with the outside, sure. They could not commit adultery but they couldn’t do anything with the inside. And so Jesus hits them where they’re helpless, hopeless, powerless, which should drive them in desperation to God, who alone can change the heart. They desperately wanted to believe they were okay, Jesus shows them they weren’t.

Now, with that in mind I wanna digress for a minute and, and just cover some things and next week we’ll get back to the specifies of the passage. But notice the beginning of verses 27 and 28, the beginnings again kicked me off into this and I think you’ll find it help­ful. Jesus starts “Ye have heard.” Then verse 28, “But I say.” Now this contrast is tremendously important, and I’m gonna give ya a les­son in, in kind of an overall Biblical theology tonight so I want you to get this because this will answer a lot of your questions. You have heard, but I say. This is the same formula, verse 21, “You have heard,” verse 22, “But I say.” Verse 31, “It has been said,” verse 32, “But I say.” Verse 33, “You have heard,” verse 34, “But I say.” It’s all the way through here. It points to their misunderstanding of God’s law, you have heard from the rabbis, from the traditionalists, from the scribes and Pharisees, from those who interpreted the law, but I’m telling you the truth of the law, what you have is not right, it’s not sufficient. They have reduced the law of God to a simple external, and they haven’t given ya the whole story, they’ve told you that you don’t have to commit adultery and that’s it you’re okay, but I’m telling ya there’s more to this than just that.

Now you see again I say what I said at the beginning, you can always, you can always invent a system that you can live up to and then convince yourself you’re righteous. They could avoid committing adultery, but they couldn’t do anything about their secret life. And so they missed the whole point of the Old Testament. When God said, “Thou shalt not kill,” when God said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” when God gave any other precept in the Old Testament, He was talking about far more than the deed itself and that’s what Jesus wants them to understand.

Now let me show you what I mean. Just stay with me in this. The basic revelation of God’s message to man came through Moses, alright? In fact the Pentateuch, the five Books of Moses, are basically the, the heart, the center, the core of the Old Testament. The Prophets and the writings that follow the Mosaic writings are simply explanations, commentaries, elaborations of what is contained in the Law of Moses. Many, many times as you read through the Prophets you find the prophets indicting the people because they didn’t keep the Law of Moses. You find the prophets going back and saying, “Moses said unto you.” “Or have you forgotten what Moses said?” “Have you forgotten what God did during the time of Moses?” In other words the Pentateuch sets the pace, there you find the Gospel of Moses, the Gospel of God given through Moses. The rest of the Old Testament elaborates on the Pentateuch, it elaborates on that law of God; that set of standards which God laid down through Moses. Now, the whole thing it goes this way then, God gives the basic definitions of what He requires through Moses, He elaborates on it in the law and the prophets, He consummates it in Jesus Christ. So that Christ comes not to change anything but to clear up the issue that the law, the Gospel of Moses hasn’t changed.

Now, the, the essence or the heart of the Gospel of Moses is found in the Book of Deuteronomy. Now let’s look at it together. Deuteronomy is the 5th and last of the five Books of Moses, and in this Book we have a summarate…summary of the law of God. I believe, I don’t know if you agree with me on this but stay with me and maybe you will, I believe that Deuteronomy is the most important Book in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy is coming from two Greek words, deutero meaning second and nomos meaning law. It is the second law, it is the reiteration of the law given by God, it is the summation. As the Book of Deuteronomy opens the people are ready to enter the promised land, they are about to go into Canaan, they have been delivered from bondage in Egypt, they are God’s people, they have been identified as God’s people and now they’re going to take their land, they’re going to take the possession of the land God gave them…

Now by the way, I believe the summary of the entire Old Testament, in fact I believe the summary of the entire Bible is in Deuteronomy chapter 6 verse 5, “And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, with all thy soul, with all thy might.” That is the pinnacle of the whole Bible. Elsewhere in Deuteronomy it says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Now there you have the consummation of all of God’s truth. In fact Jesus said, “Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength. (ah-hh) And thy neighbor as thyself. On this hang all the law and the prophets.” The law is what’s in front of Deuteronomy the prophets what comes after and the whole thing hinges right here.

Now then listen, I want you to listen to this, really critical, as we go to the Old Testament we find the key is in the Pentateuch, as we look at the Pentateuch the key is in Deuteronomy, as we look at Deuteronomy the key is in chapter 6 verse 5, “Thou shalt love the LORD.” Now listen to me, the Old Testament is not building a relationship on law, it is building a relationship on what? Love. And people do not understand this. They think the Old Testament economy was an economy of law. It is not, it is an economy of love. It is a relationship that God is after. Love is the key to a relation to God, and all throughout Deuteronomy God continues to say, I want you to love Me, I want you to love Me, I want you to love Me, I want a heart commitment, I want a heart devotion, I want a wholehearted kind of genuine affection for Me.

Now listen, Moses throughout Deuteronomy, and if we had time we’d go right through the book, and you can do it yourself, over and over and over he says to the people as they enter the land, you must love the Lord, you must love the Lord, you must love the Lord, why? Because it is a relationship of love that God has always sought with man, always.

Now let me tell you something that’ll help you. Before God ever gave the law as we know it, the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue and all the other statutes and commandments, listen to this, before God ever did that He established a relationship with Israel. He first loved Israel. Chapter…well we’ll see it later in chapter 10 but, He first loved Israel. And because He loved Israel He called Israel out of Egypt, He saved Israel, He redeemed Israel and it was only after the loving relationship and redemption that He gave them the law, do you understand? The law was not the cause of the relationship it was the result of it. It is the relationship God was after. You have to understand this and I’m gonna build on it so I hope you getting it. God’s love had been exhibited to generations earlier when they were freed from Egypt, and when they were freed from Egypt God had redeemed them, God had saved them as it were, God had made them His people, and because they had a relationship He then said, this is how you live.

And so the New Testament says the same thing, the Gospel of Moses, the Gospel of Jesus, the Gospel of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James, and the Gospel of John are all identical. We love Him because He first what? Loved us. God loved Israel, that’s how it all began. God loved us; that’s how it all began. First we had a relationship of love and then we had a response of obedience to His law.

Look with me now at the 10th chapter of Deuteronomy and I’ll show you this. I read it this morning in the service, I’m gonna go over it again. And what Moses is saying is, alright people you’re going into the land, you’re gonna go in the land and I want ya to re­member this one thing, “Love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.” Now what I’m saying to you people is that it is the attitude that God has always been after. Listen to me, it is not that God wanted them to keep a bunch of external laws; it is that God wanted them to love Him on the inside. And that’s why Jesus says it isn’t an issue that you don’t murder and it isn’t an issue that you don’t commit adultery, what is the issue is what’s in your heart, you see.

It’s always been that way, this isn’t anything just New Testament. Look at chapter 10 verse 12, “And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee,” what does God want out of you? And you might say, well, boy we better get those Ten Commandments straight. Well that isn’t what he starts with, “fear the LORD thy God, walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul.” And then, “To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?” That’s no different than the Gospels, that’s no different than Paul, that’s exactly what the New Testament says, love God and do what He says. Why, First John even tells us that if you say you love God and you don’t keep His commandments, you’re a liar, right? But the love comes first and then the obedience. It’s a relationship, and that’s what He talks about all the way through this passage.

Verse 19 He adds the second dimension. Not only love God but, “Love, therefore the stranger; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” And so this is the whole sum of everything. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. “Fear the Lord, (verse 20) serve him, cleave to him.” I love that. Verses…verse 1 of chapter 11 listen to it, “Therefore, thou shalt love the LORD thy God, keep his charge, his statutes, his ordinances, his commandments, always.” You see? It’s, it’s love, it’s the love that He’s after. The key is verse 16, “Circumcise, therefore, the foreskin of your what? Your heart.” Your heart. That’s what He’s after. He was always after a heart relationship, always after a heart attitude. Never, never was He satisfied with something external, it was love from the heart. So the sum of it all in the first 11, the first 11 or first 10 and 11 chapters of Deuteronomy, you could see the whole sum of this first 11 chapters is this, love God and love your neighbor, that’s what God requires of you. And that is exactly what Jesus said in the New Testament, that is exactly what the Epistles say, love the Lord, love Him so that you’re obedient, love one another, love one another, it’s the same message, nothin’ different.

And then in Deuteronomy chapter 12 through 26, that next big section, you don’t need to follow, just listen. In Deuteronomy 12 through 26 Moses interprets and applies these two basic principles. He then takes the principle of loving God and the principle of loving your neighbor and applies them to every daily situation, to every kind of living matter, to everything that goes on in life. He does that all the way through chapter 26.

"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