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.
- 210 views
[Joshua Caucutt]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?[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.
[Larry]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 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.
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]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.… 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.
[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.
Discussion