Sanctification and Giving Up
Image
All believers experience spiritual frustration. We desire to live lives that are obedient to our Lord and that grow in likeness to His life of humble service (Mark 10:45). But anyone who is a believer for very long discovers that failure is common. Those who take 1 Peter 1:15 seriously (“be holy for I am holy”; see also 2 Cor. 7:1) and who do not think of themselves more highly than they ought to think (Rom. 12:3), know that they are far from what they ought to be. Transformation into His image (Rom. 8:29, Col. 3:10) never seems to happen quite fast enough.
Sadly, some are so often and so painfully disappointed with themselves and others that they give up on the idea of changing much at all, and many of these take up a theology that supports that response. A recent example appeared in a post by Christianity Today editor Mark Galli.
I doubt the ability of Christians to make much progress in holiness. I look at churches that are committed to transformation and holiness, and I fail to see that they are much more holy or transformed than other churches…. I look at my own life, and marvel at the lack of real transformation after 50 years of effort.
Galli has written along similar lines previously (“If at First You Don’t Succeed, Stop Trying So Hard”) but is by no means alone in de-emphasizing the role of personal effort and obedience in living the Christian life.
A hypothesis
As I’ve read and interacted with several who lean toward Galli’s attitude (and the usually more nuanced views voiced by Tullian Tchividjian), my efforts to understand this perspective have often ended in a fog I can’t seem to penetrate. The case against “outward obedience,” or “trying harder,” or “law,” etc., reaches a point where the chain of reasoning from premises to conclusions becomes untraceable, and even the conclusions grow increasingly vague rather than increasingly clear.
Add to that the fact that writings advocating less focus on personal obedience often speak in reactive terms. Sometimes subtly but often directly, they refer to bad experiences in homes, churches, schools, or other ministries. Allusions to “legalism,” “performance-oriented” and “performance based” views of relationship with God are common, as are references to personal frustration—even despair—during some period of Christian experience under the influence of such views.
These factors have led me to a hypothesis. Much of the current controversy regarding our role vs. God’s in sanctification is not primarily doctrinal. That is, it is primarily experiential and, as a consequence, doctrinal. It is a response to frustration and disappointment, and often—as in Galli’s case, it amounts to basically giving up on continued, real transformation.
My aim here is to consider briefly some reasons we ought not to give up in response to the inevitable frustration and disappointment involved in running the long race (Heb. 12:1) of the Christian life.
Why we should not give up
1. Frustration is normal
Scripture depicts frustration in the faithful life as a normal occurrence. If your interpretation of Romans 7:15-25 doesn’t allow you to see a believer’s frustration there, Paul’s writings elsewhere necessarily imply it. He continued to see himself as “chief of sinners” years after Romans 7 was written (1 Tim. 1:15). The examples of Peter (Matt. 26:75), the Twelve in general (e.g., Matt. 16:8-9), and John Mark (Acts 15:37-18, 2Tim. 4:11) help us see the point as well. And many of the faith-heroes of Hebrews 11 experienced soul vexing failures: Abraham, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Samson, David. Enoch’s experience of walking with God right into glory stands out in the chapter because it is truly exceptional.
Perhaps Jesus Himself offers the weightiest evidence—in Matt. 7:14, for example. If “the way is hard,” we should expect stumbling and frustration to part of the journey.
To be sure, overly rosy depictions of “victorious Christian living” by some groups have added to the confusion. The Bible knows nothing of an all-victory-all-the-time experience for believers. That fact should move us to continue to press on toward the mark, even when real progress feels hopeless.
2. You are probably doing better than you think.
Galli’s post crystallized a growing impression of mine: some believers are discouraged in the struggle, and inclined to give up, because they are overlooking much of the transformation that has truly occurred in their lives. For some, this takes the form of obsessing continually over one area of persistent weakness and failure. As long as victory does not occur consistently (or maybe ever) over this one particular sin, they feel that nothing else matters much. In their minds, they are simply not growing as a Christian should.
But this is foolish. We all know that God does not deal with each believer’s sins at the same rate or in the same sequence. He doesn’t free all believers of sinful anger first, then improper sexual habits second, then lack of generosity third, and so on. So at least one conclusion is unavoidable: the sin we most want to see gone today may well not be the one God is most interested in ridding us of today. Persistent failure in area A is not the same as overall lack of growth. Obsessing over that one problem area may well be a case of not seeing the forest for the manure on the trail.
Galli’s thoughts do not reflect that kind of monomania, but they do reveal a similar mistake:
[T]here is a larger part of me that really is patient and understanding. But the more I get to know myself, the more I see layers and layers of mixed motives. I’m gracious in part because I am filled with grace. And in part because I don’t want to stir up an argument. And in part I need my friend to do me a favor. And in part, I’m fearful that if I don’t act graciously, God will not be pleased. And in part, I want people to think of me as gracious. On it goes, one selfish motive after another, all mixed up together with the righteous motive.
A habit of seeing ordinary self interest as an evil is certainly a recipe for spiritual frustration. The Bible does not depict the desire to avoid quarrels as a faulty motive (Rom. 12:18, 1 Pet. 3:11). Nor does Scripture depict quid pro quo interactions as inherently evil (Prov. 16:11); a bit of extra patience with a companion in exchange for some help from him is not manipulative or “selfish.” It’s simply ordinary. As for the fear that God will not be pleased—this is, in fact, a virtue (1 Pet. 1:17) as is the desire for a good reputation (Prov. 22:1).
Galli makes the same error that many frustrated believers do: that of replacing God’s standards with ideals of our own imagining. The result is that we fail to see how much positive change God has actually produced in us.
3. The fruit of our efforts is not where our responsibility lies.
Most believers I know are able to see that in evangelism, we labor but God produces the fruit (1 Cor. 3:6). So why do so many find it difficult to see a similar dynamic in sanctification? There is no pride or idolatry in embracing our responsibility to work hard at “bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1) while recognizing that the results of our labors are entirely in God’s hands.
It’s called the “fruit of the Spirit” for good reason (Gal. 5:22). Though Jesus says we bear “much fruit” (John 15:5), He is quite clear about where it really comes from. (Note, by the way, that though Jesus identifies abiding in Him as our part in bearing fruit, He does not say abiding is our only responsibility.)
What does this tell us about our attitude toward the amount of transformation we see in ourselves and others? Certainly, Galli is right that no matter how much we grow in this life, most of the transformation occurs later. Creation groans for the revealing of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19-22). But even if we suppose that Galli is right that the prospect of real transformation in this life is unimportant, it doesn’t follow that we should expend little effort pursuing it. Our calling is to join God in the work (Phil. 2:12-13) regardless of whether that seems to be yielding the right outcomes.
4. We are not given permission to give up.
It’s odd that confusion persists on this point when the NT speaks to it so directly. Even in the good ol’ days of the first century church, believers grew weary in doing good (2 Thess. 3:13, Gal. 6:9). They grew tired of “striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4) and of experiencing God’s corrective discipline (Heb. 12:5). The response of the apostles was to assure the saints that they must endure and “abound more and more” (1 Thess. 4:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:58) in obedience. They were to find courage in the fact that He who had begun the good work in them would continue it—not just at but until the day of His return (Phil. 1:6). They were to understand that God has generously and thoroughly equipped them for living the life (2 Cor. 9:8, 2 Pet. 1:3, Eph. 6:13, 1 Cor. 10:13).
The Scriptures leave no room for the attitude that says “Well, I’m about as good as I’m ever going to be in this life, so I think I’ll just relax and rejoice in grace.” Rather, the consistent—and I think clear—message to believers is to faithfully and actively participate in God’s work of transformation.
For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (ESV, 2 Pet. 1:8-11)
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.
- 172 views
I’ve never said the believer is fundamentally no different from an unbeliever when it comes to obeying the instructions of the NT, nor anything remotely similar. The believer is night and day different from the unbeliever. He has a new nature. He has a new status (adopted). He has the Holy Spirit. As a result, among other things, he has an ongoing consciousness of sin that the unbeliever cannot have and an inclination (albeit imperfect) to know and glorify God.
That’s good. I’m glad to hear it. So in other words, the NT believer can and should be expected to obey the Lord’s commands? And the believer can do works that are pleasing to God (albeit imperfectly)? So it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that at no point should a believer be okay with disobedience to Christ (or not being okay, as TT calls it)?
As far as the questions you pose concerning Paul’s pursuit of the prize of the upward call of God, it would probably be better for you to find the answers you seek by asking them of Paul, himself. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote what he wrote. He didn’t say that he was reaching for Christ, but for a prize, and I simply choose to believe what he wrote. While it may be possible that the words “prize” and “crown” are just a substitute for Christ or even his righteousness which is graciously conferred rather than striven for, I just don’t see it. And as far as self-evaluation goes, all I can say is that Paul offers us a glimpse of that as well in the verses I already quoted. When he wrote to the Corinthian and Philippian churches, he was convinced (and writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that he had not already arrived at the finish line, and indeed he had not for his ministry was not complete. However, when he wrote to Timothy at the end of his life, he was confident that he had run his course well and was prepared to receive the reward of his faithful obedience to the Lord, yet his confidence does not betray even the slightest hint of arrogance or self-righteousness. And even there we don’t hear Paul saying anything like, “I’m not okay, but I’m okay with that.”
[pvawter]That’s good. I’m glad to hear it. So in other words, the NT believer can and should be expected to obey the Lord’s commands? And the believer can do works that are pleasing to God (albeit imperfectly)? So it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that at no point should a believer be okay with disobedience to Christ (or not being okay, as TT calls it)?
As far as the questions you pose concerning Paul’s pursuit of the prize of the upward call of God, it would probably be better for you to find the answers you seek by asking them of Paul, himself. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he wrote what he wrote. He didn’t say that he was reaching for Christ, but for a prize, and I simply choose to believe what he wrote. While it may be possible that the words “prize” and “crown” are just a substitute for Christ or even his righteousness which is graciously conferred rather than striven for, I just don’t see it. And as far as self-evaluation goes, all I can say is that Paul offers us a glimpse of that as well in the verses I already quoted. When he wrote to the Corinthian and Philippian churches, he was convinced (and writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that he had not already arrived at the finish line, and indeed he had not for his ministry was not complete. However, when he wrote to Timothy at the end of his life, he was confident that he had run his course well and was prepared to receive the reward of his faithful obedience to the Lord, yet his confidence does not betray even the slightest hint of arrogance or self-righteousness. And even there we don’t hear Paul saying anything like, “I’m not okay, but I’m okay with that.”
Yes and no. The NT believer can and should be expected to desire to obey the Lord’s commands, and he can and should be expected to imperfectly obey some of the Lord’s commands sometimes — all of which is signficantly different from the unbeliever. But the NT believer can’t and won’t obey all of the Lord’s commands, nor will he perfectly obey any particular command (among other things, his motives will always be mixed at best). Do you disagree with these clarifications? Do you contend that the NT believer can and should be expected to perfectly obey all of the Lord’s commands all of the time? If not, what clarifications would you make to your own statement?
”And the believer can do works that are pleasing to God (albeit imperfectly)?” To be precise, no, not unless you’re saying that God adjusts his standards for believers as compared to unbelievers. (Where’s that in the Bible?) If the believer’s works are imperfect (as they certainly are), then by definition they aren’t pleasing to a God whose standard is perfection. The only way a believer’s works are pleasing to God is that Christ has already done all those works perfectly, and His perfection is imputed to us.
“So it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that at no point should a believer be okay with disobedience to Christ (or not being okay, as TT calls it)?” Depends on what you mean. Is the believer happy that he doesn’t (and can’t) obey Christ perfectly? No, because his heart has been changed and his (imperfect) desire is to obey and to obey perfectly. But neither is the believer despondent, defeated, or out of fellowship with God due to the realization that he doesn’t and can’t obey Christ perfectly, because he knows (or should know) that (a) neither his salvation nor his sanctification nor his glorification depend on his obeying Christ perfectly because (b) Christ has already obeyed perfectly, and His obedience is imputed to us, by the grace of God. In that sense (and this is what TT means), he is “okay with not being okay” — he is praising, glorifying, and loving God for doing what he could never do and for not holding against him his inadequacy.
“[W] e don’t hear Paul saying anything like, “I’m not okay, but I’m okay with that.” Yes, we do, and repeatedly. I’ll give two examples, but there are more. 1 Tim. 1:15 — “Christ came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief [“am,” not “used to be”].” Romans 7:15-8:1 — “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I… . For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do… . I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” [All present tense, not past tense.]
[dmyers]Dmeyers, I am reading through this thread and you are kind of confusing me here. You say in this post that the same standard applies to believers and unbelievers in regards to doing works that are pleasing to God. Neither group can do works that are pleasing to God since God demands perfection, and neither group can produce perfection, so there really is no difference in regards to whether their works can please God. Yet just two posts ago you wrote, “I’ve never said the believer is fundamentally no different from an unbeliever when it comes to obeying the instructions of the NT, nor anything remotely similar. The believer is night and day different from the unbeliever. He has a new nature. He has a new status (adopted). He has the Holy Spirit. As a result, among other things, he has an ongoing consciousness of sin that the unbeliever cannot have and an inclination (albeit imperfect) to know and glorify God.” So does the new nature and the Holy spirit just give the believer the knowledge of sinfulness and the inclination to glorify God, the believer himself never does have any ability to actually please God?“And the believer can do works that are pleasing to God (albeit imperfectly)?” To be precise, no, not unless you’re saying that God adjusts his standards for believers as compared to unbelievers. (Where’s that in the Bible?) If the believer’s works are imperfect (as they certainly are), then by definition they aren’t pleasing to a God whose standard is perfection. The only way a believer’s works are pleasing to God is that Christ has already done all those works perfectly, and His perfection is imputed to us.
In I Thessalonians 2:4, Paul seemed to give the impression that giving out the gospel was pleasing to God. “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.” John also talked about doing things that please God in I John 3:22 “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.”
[Kevin Miller] Dmeyers, I am reading through this thread and you are kind of confusing me here. You say in this post that the same standard applies to believers and unbelievers in regards to doing works that are pleasing to God. Neither group can do works that are pleasing to God since God demands perfection, and neither group can produce perfection, so there really is no difference in regards to whether their works can please God….The conversation has mixed a few ideas. Objectively, we can’t produce the perfection God requires, neither as believers nor unbelievers.… So does the new nature and the Holy spirit just give the believer the knowledge of sinfulness and the inclination to glorify God, the believer himself never does have any ability to actually please God?
But there is a subjective-ish sense that God is pleased with believers and the “good” we do because we are in Christ and because of our faith.
[Kevin Miller]Dmeyers, I am reading through this thread and you are kind of confusing me here. You say in this post that the same standard applies to believers and unbelievers in regards to doing works that are pleasing to God. Neither group can do works that are pleasing to God since God demands perfection, and neither group can produce perfection, so there really is no difference in regards to whether their works can please God. Yet just two posts ago you wrote, “I’ve never said the believer is fundamentally no different from an unbeliever when it comes to obeying the instructions of the NT, nor anything remotely similar. The believer is night and day different from the unbeliever. He has a new nature. He has a new status (adopted). He has the Holy Spirit. As a result, among other things, he has an ongoing consciousness of sin that the unbeliever cannot have and an inclination (albeit imperfect) to know and glorify God.” So does the new nature and the Holy spirit just give the believer the knowledge of sinfulness and the inclination to glorify God, the believer himself never does have any ability to actually please God?
In I Thessalonians 2:4, Paul seemed to give the impression that giving out the gospel was pleasing to God. “But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.” John also talked about doing things that please God in I John 3:22 “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.”
Kevin, I’m afraid I don’t see any contradiction or reason for confusion between the two statements you reference. There clearly are significant spiritual differences between believers and unbelievers, of which I provided a partial list. But that list of differences doesn’t include the ability for or the actuality of perfection (or complete holiness or whatever equivalent term you want to use). Supposedly, no fundamentalist would disagree with me about this, except someone who describes himself as a fundamentalist and comes from one of the holiness denominations, such as the Nazarenes (which I used to be). It’s my understanding that Baptists don’t claim that sinless perfection is achievable in this life, while Nazarenes do. I didn’t think I was saying anything controversial in denying the possibility of sinless perfection; I would have expected near unanimity on that issue here at SI. Are you taking the position that sinless perfection is possible prior to our glorification? Are you interpreting the two passages you mentioned as supporting something other than God’s condescension to be pleased with us because He has adopted us and imputed Christ’s righteousness to us?
[dmyers]I was confused because I was understanding one section of your wording to be saying that God CAN’T be pleased with US, but can only be pleased with Christ, not us. I do agree that God condescends to be pleased with US, in spite of our imperfection. The works we do as adopted, Spirit-filled people can be pleasing to God, even though we will never reach sinless perfection in this life.Are you interpreting the two passages you mentioned as supporting something other than God’s condescension to be pleased with us because He has adopted us and imputed Christ’s righteousness to us?
[dmyers]Yes and no. The NT believer can and should be expected to desire to obey the Lord’s commands, and he can and should be expected to imperfectly obey some of the Lord’s commands sometimes — all of which is signficantly different from the unbeliever. But the NT believer can’t and won’t obey all of the Lord’s commands, nor will he perfectly obey any particular command (among other things, his motives will always be mixed at best). Do you disagree with these clarifications? Do you contend that the NT believer can and should be expected to perfectly obey all of the Lord’s commands all of the time? If not, what clarifications would you make to your own statement?
Why would I make any clarifications to my statement? It does not need any clarifying. The NT believer can and should be expected to obey the Lord’s commands. You keep implying that there are only two alternatives - complete inability to obey the Lord’s commands or total perfection in this life - and that is why you cannot accept such a simple and biblical statement without clarification (see John 14:15).
[dmyers]“And the believer can do works that are pleasing to God (albeit imperfectly)?” To be precise, no, not unless you’re saying that God adjusts his standards for believers as compared to unbelievers. (Where’s that in the Bible?) If the believer’s works are imperfect (as they certainly are), then by definition they aren’t pleasing to a God whose standard is perfection. The only way a believer’s works are pleasing to God is that Christ has already done all those works perfectly, and His perfection is imputed to us.
There is an interesting statement in the book of Revelation concerning the Bride of Christ, “Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints” (Rev. 19:8). Notice that he doesn’t say that the fine linen is the “righteous acts of Christ which are imputed to the saints.”
[dmyers]“So it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that at no point should a believer be okay with disobedience to Christ (or not being okay, as TT calls it)?” Depends on what you mean. Is the believer happy that he doesn’t (and can’t) obey Christ perfectly? No, because his heart has been changed and his (imperfect) desire is to obey and to obey perfectly. But neither is the believer despondent, defeated, or out of fellowship with God due to the realization that he doesn’t and can’t obey Christ perfectly, because he knows (or should know) that (a) neither his salvation nor his sanctification nor his glorification depend on his obeying Christ perfectly because (b) Christ has already obeyed perfectly, and His obedience is imputed to us, by the grace of God. In that sense (and this is what TT means), he is “okay with not being okay” — he is praising, glorifying, and loving God for doing what he could never do and for not holding against him his inadequacy.
“[W] e don’t hear Paul saying anything like, “I’m not okay, but I’m okay with that.” Yes, we do, and repeatedly. I’ll give two examples, but there are more. 1 Tim. 1:15 — “Christ came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief [“am,” not “used to be”].” Romans 7:15-8:1 — “For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I… . For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do… . I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” [All present tense, not past tense.]
It is interesting that you point to 1 Timothy 1, since Paul is speaking of salvation rather than sanctification. Just prior to the verse you cited, Paul makes this important statement, ” I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry. (v.12)” Christ has enabled Paul and has put him into the ministry. Of course the operative question would be, “Enabled him for what?” Well, I can tell you that he wasn’t enabled to be okay with not being okay, since he exhorts Timothy in v.18 to “wage the good warfare” and in v.19 to do so with “faith and a good conscience.”
Then you brought up Romans 7:15-8:1 and I wish you would have kept reading past where you stopped. It would be wrong to think that Paul was saying he’s okay with not being okay when he makes statements like,
- “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors—not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live” (v.12-13).
- “Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body” (v.23).
Now if Paul was groaning within himself, waiting for the redemption of his body, how can that be construed as being okay with not being okay? Instead it sounds like he was constantly disciplining himself, exercising his faith through obedience, putting to death his flesh, and longing for the day when he would become perfected in Christ.
Discussion