In Defense of Rules, Part 1
First posted October, 2009. Discussion here.
Fundamentalists and evangelicals of my generation are generally not fond of rules, especially in ministry settings. Exactly why this is the case is an interesting study in itself. In the case of fundamentalists, perhaps it’s due to the fact that many of them grew up in rules-heavy Christian schools in an era full of glowing idealism about what these highly-disciplined, conscientiously spiritual environments would produce. The inflated hopes of those days were sure to result in some disappointments. And maybe the current rules angst is the result of a generalized disgust with the whole concept and all that seems connected to it. In defense of those who feel this way, it is only too easy to find examples of rules excesses and absurdities.
Whatever the reasons, young fundamentalists are often eager to cast “man-made rules” in a negative light and to argue from Scripture that these rules are dangerous at best, and downright hostile to Christian growth at worst.
My aim here is to offer a perspective that differs from that of many of my peers, but one that I believe answers better to both Scripture and experience.
Points of agreement
I count myself among those who believe any Christian ministry that seeks to grow believers must strive to develop principled and discerning disciples. Young people (or old ones, for that matter) who merely conform to a slate of rules in order to avoid punishments have not arrived at “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (NKJV, Eph. 4:13), no matter how wise and comprehensive that slate of rules might be.
In fact, seeking to instill understanding of the reasons for rules is not aiming high enough either. Since we’re commanded to love the Lord our God with all the heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30), we’re not truly living the life unless we obey in body, intellect and affections. We are not fully obedient until we do the right thing driven by both faith and love.
But should we conclude that “man-made rules” do not contribute at all to walking in a manner worthy of our calling? Is it accurate to say that rules contribute nothing to sanctification? Should we even believe that they are—as some suggest—inherently dangerous and often hostile to growth in grace?
Argument from the nature of sin
Sin interrupts fellowship with God, dulls spiritual senses, weakens resolve, perverts affections, damages body and mind, poisons relationships and forms enslaving habits. I’m taking it for granted that I don’t need to prove that here. We’ve all seen it in our sins if we’ve been paying attention, and finding examples in Scripture is almost as easy as opening the Book at random and reading.
Given that sin does so much harm, may we not conclude that it is always better to do right than to do wrong? To put it another way, isn’t a believer who avoids a sin because of a rule-and-penalty better off than a believer who sins?
Perhaps some confusion on this point is due to binary thinking about the relationship between the inner man—the heart and mind—and outward behavior. Is it true that a believer either obeys with faith and love or sins? What if he obeys without faith and love or—as is more often the case, obeys with incomplete faith (and understanding) and less than pure love? Is this “sin”? Even if it is, is it no better than the sin the rule is intended to prevent?
I believe the dynamic between inner man and outward conduct is far from binary (all or nothing) and looks more like this:
- Best: do right out of faith and love
- Good: do right to avoid punishment, etc. (lacking in faith and love)
- Bad: do right with some evil motive
- Worst: do wrong
Many gradations are possible between these levels, and it’s debatable whether “doing right with some evil motive” is doing “right” at all, but this scale illustrates the complexity of the possibilities.
To make the idea less abstract, suppose a teen is invited to a drinking party. Scenario A: The school has strict rules against this. The teen knows if he attends and is found out, he’ll be expelled from school. He skips the party for no other reason than that. Scenario B: The school has no rule, the teen attends the party, goes on a drunken joy ride that ends in the death of several of his friends. Of course, scenario B doesn’t have to end that way, but that sequence is only too common. Even if he doesn’t drive and doesn’t hurt anyone, sin does its damage. Fellowship with God is interrupted. His desire to live for God is dulled to some degree. His conscience is, in some measure jaded. His resistance to committing the same sin again is weakened. The joy of his Christian experience is sullied. The list goes on.
So has the teen in scenario A been helped along in his journey toward Christlikeness? Absolutely. Would it have been better if he did the right thing out of faith and love without a rule? Definitely.
But this is where an important point comes into focus: the truth is, he can act out of faith and love without or with the rule. If he has the necessary faith and love, the rule is useless (1 Tim. 1:9) but harmless. If he lacks the necessary faith and love, the rule is a lifesaver, and those responsible for his care have done him a great service.
The argument from the nature of sin, then, is this: sin is so damaging that reducing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers. Not sinning is always better than sinning, even when understanding is lacking and love is not the primary motivation.
Argument from the nature of holiness
Just as sin is inherently damaging and habit-forming, every act of obedience is inherently helpful and habit-forming (1 Tim. 4:8). Obedience deepens fellowship with God (1 John 1:6-7), sharpens spiritual senses, strengthens resolve, tunes affections (1 Pet. 1:22), nurtures body and mind, enhances relationships, and forms liberating habits.
And let’s not undervalue good habits. Habits are simply choices we make repeatedly until they become so much a part of us they no are longer made consciously. Growth in sanctification consists largely of old habits losing out to new ones (this includes habits of intellect and affections as well as habits of body). This is the Lord’s work in us, but our obedience is required and that obedience is frequently the tool He uses to produce yet more obedience (Phil. 2:12-13).
Admittedly, it is possible to obey a rule—even in the sense of “a generalized application of Scripture” (see part 2)—and not obey God in the fullest sense. That is, pleasing God could be furthest thing from the complier’s mind. He is not obeying fully because his affections are not God-ward in the act. But even though he is not obeying subjectively, he is still obeying objectively and making a better choice. By doing so, he is getting a taste of clean living whether he wants one or not. I believe these “tastes” are always at least a little habit forming in the life of a regenerate, Spirit-indwelled person.
The argument from the nature of holiness, then, is this: obedience is so helpful that increasing it by means of rules is a genuine spiritual blessing to believers even when their faith is incomplete and love is not their primary motivation.
Summary
I’ve argued here that rules in ministry settings (especially schools) are not as dangerous or hostile to growing in grace as many suppose. I’ve done so on the basis of the nature of sin and the nature of obedience. But the case is far from complete. It barely scratches the surface.
In Part 2, I’ll offer an additional argument—this time, from the nature of rules themselves, then address a series of objections, including these:
- If what you’re saying about rules is true, shouldn’t we make as many as possible? (We know that leads to disaster!)
- Doesn’t Jesus’ handling of the Pharisees show that rule-making is inherently hazardous?
- Doesn’t Colossians directly forbid rule-making (Col. 2:20-23)?
- Doesn’t 1 Corinthians 13:3 teach that doing good without love is worthless?
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.
- 87 views
I agree, Aaron- and I qualify that by saying learning from our mistakes, and allowing others to learn from theirs, is not the same as ‘sinning so grace may abound’. That is more of a boundaries issue. We can’t live other’s lives for them, and we aren’t qualified to do so if we could, as each of us are just as prone to sin as the other.
On a side note, it’s fair to say that the problem is usually with ‘rules’ themselves, but how we approach and implement the concept. We sometimes associate ‘rules’ with an ‘obey, no questions asked’ policy. Authority should be happy to explain the foundation and purpose of rules, instead of viewing questions as insubordination. Questions are an opportunity to teach, to open the mind to possibilities, to sharpen oneself as well as others. Too often we want to teach people what to think instead of how to think. The way we handle rule-making and rule-enforcing hinges on our objectives.
[Aaron Blumer][Anne] It is a problem if a person puts their hope on rules that it somehow makes them more pleasing to God.Which if these is not “more pleasing to God”?
- good habits
- good reputation
- protection
- the level of maturity expressed in willing submission
To put it another way, how is it possible to use a rule to accomplish good in our lives and that good not be more pleasing to our Lord? …. and if it is not more pleasing to Him, why should we bother?
This is the crux of this issue. In what way does our obedience make us more pleasing to God (if it does) and in what way does it not?
This is the crux of this issue. Charlie can probably write it better than I, but I may take a stab at it later if I can wrap some words around it and children are sleeping.
[Aaron Blumer]Erm, I think you probably know I’m not saying we ought to sin ;) This is the heart of redemption. If I had a miscarriage and learned many incredible things about God through that, would it be better for me if I had never had a miscarriage? If I were imprisoned for my faith and learned many things about God I would never have otherwise thought about, would it be better for me that I never was imprisoned?[Anne] i’m not sure it’s true that it’s always better that we don’t sinI’m not sure what to say to that one. Almost by definition, it is always better to not sin than to sin. By “definition” I mean we can almost define sin as “that which we should never do.” There is no meaningful definition of sin that can allow it to be “sometimes right” or “sometimes better.” But Paul already answered that question. Shall we sin that grace may abound? May it never be!
The fact is that we do sin every day. We shouldn’t try to sin and we should pray not to enter temptation and put ourselves to look at Christ. But God does use it to teach us deeper truths about Him and to know Him experientially. He does redeem it.
[Aaron Blumer]Simple. If the unintended or unforeseen side-effects of such a rule end up causing more trouble than the good that looked like it would come from the rule, then I would still argue that the rule is bad in spite of the fact that some good came from it.We don’t have to worry about the side-effects of God’s rules laid out for us in scripture — we know they are perfect, regardless of the consequences. We can’t say that about our own, no matter how good-seeming or well-intentioned. That’s why they have to be carefully crafted, and used with much wisdom, and we have to be ready to replace them if they don’t work or have outlived their usefulness.To put it another way, how is it possible to use a rule to accomplish good in our lives and that good not be more pleasing to our Lord?
Dave Barnhart
Some of this is relevant, and the wording an clarity of thought is very compelling:
5._____ The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations and the corruptions of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself; and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for other just and holy ends. So that whatsoever befalls any of his elect is by his appointment, for his glory, and their good.
( 2 Chronicles 32:25, 26, 31; 2 Corinthians 12:7-9; Romans 8:28 )
6._____ Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man’s doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.
( Romans 6:14; Galatians 2:16; Romans 8:1; Romans 10:4; Romans 3:20; Romans 7:7, etc; Romans 6:12-14; 1 Peter 3:8-13 )7._____ Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
( Galatians 3:21; Ezekiel 36:27 )
3._____ And though they may, through the temptation of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein, whereby they incur God’s displeasure and grieve his Holy Spirit, come to have their graces and comforts impaired, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded, hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves, yet shall they renew their repentance and be preserved through faith in Christ Jesus to the end.
( Matthew 26:70, 72, 74; Isaiah 64:5, 9; Ephesians 4:30; Psalms 51:10, 12; Psalms 32:3, 4; 2 Samuel 12:14; Luke 22:32, 61, 62 )
Chapter 16: Of Good Works
1._____ Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word, and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions.
2._____ These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life.
3._____ Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ; and that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet they are not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit, but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.
4._____ They who in their obedience attain to the greatest height which is possible in this life, are so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, as that they fall short of much which in duty they are bound to do.
5._____ We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come, and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom by them we can neither profit nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins; but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants; and because as they are good they proceed from his Spirit, and as they are wrought by us they are defiled and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s punishment.
6._____ Yet notwithstanding the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight, but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
7._____ Works done by unregenerate men, although for the matter of them they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others; yet because they proceed not from a heart purified by faith, nor are done in a right manner according to the word, nor to a right end, the glory of God, they are therefore sinful, and cannot please God, nor make a man meet to receive grace from God, and yet their neglect of them is more sinful and displeasing to God.
God’s desire is that we be in relationship with him. The reason that sin is a problem is that it interferes with that relationship. Focusing on SIN is a problem because it tickles our fallen desire to be in control of our salvation.
Rules focus on sin rather than on relationship, which is why standards/rules can be both helpful AND harmful. In some instances standards/rules help remind us to focus on things besides our desires, and at other times standards/rules take our focus off of God and on to ourselves. God can use our sin to help us “wake up” to the fact that our relationship with God is weak/non-existent — would it be better to NOT wake up to that realization? Of course not! So if my sin can be used by God, then I am thankful for it.
I’d much prefer this conversation be titled “In Defense of Relationship: How Rules Can Be Both Helpful and Harmful.” ;-)
Authority should be happy to explain the foundation and purpose of rules, instead of viewing questions as insubordination.
This is true when a question is a question. What complicates life for authority figures is that a question often is insubordination—because the questioner has already decided the requirement is daft and is not seeking understanding, only protesting. So there’s substitute for discernment on the part of the authority figure. In any case, it’s his or her call to make.
About the theology of obedience and pleasing God. Though there’s a lot of confusion on these matters, these days, the Bible has answered that question already, too …
2 Co 5:9 Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him.
1 Co 7:32–33 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife.
Php 4:18 Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God.
Col 1:10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God;
Col 3:20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.
2 Ti 2:3–7 You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4 No one engaged in warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who enlisted him as a soldier. 5 And also if anyone competes in athletics, he is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules. 6 The hardworking farmer must be first to partake of the crops. 7 Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things.
As for “emphasizing sin.” The term is too vague to say much about beyond the fact that the Bible has a great deal to say about sin. We’re called to emphasize it as much as Scripture does. There is no incompatibility between ‘emphasizing sin’ and ‘emphasizing relationship,’ because without the former, we cannot understand the latter. Grace (and the gospel) has no meaning where there is not an enormous debt to be freed from.
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 complicates life for authority figures is that a question often is insubordination—because the questioner has already decided the requirement is daft and is not seeking understanding, only protesting. So there’s substitute for discernment on the part of the authority figure. In any case, it’s his or her call to make.
Even when someone is protesting, it is a great time for mature authority to use that opportunity to teach instead of hitting the “How dare you question me!” button. A soft answer does turn away wrath, and in my experience, there is more to many protests than meets the eye. If an authority truly has the good of his students/congregation at heart, he will have the discernment, patience, and fortitude to seek out the underlying issues and address them. As leadership, we are also providing a template for handling conflict and disagreement when we are longsuffering, kind, and charitable, and don’t assume that the reason someone is asking questions, regardless of their apparent attitude, is because they are rebellious. Confusion, pain, and discouragment can present as anger. If after the authority has exhausted reasonable, compassionate responses, and the person is still being obstinate, at that point one could probably declare them ‘insurbordinate’.
Of course, I am not talking about obviously necessary or Biblical rules such as “Don’t commit adultery” or “No spittoons in the auditorium”.
Other than my kids, I don’t encounter protest much. But since authority figures are outnumbered, I have to think there are serious practical problems if you let everybody question/protest the decisions you make. Even with two kids, we endure far too much of that. It’s part of the foolishness bound up in the heart of the child that they think they know better than the parent who, though far from perfect, has learned a few things.
So while, often enough, there is truth in a protest, it’s usually about “I just don’t want to do what I’m supposed to do.” It’s the deep seated rebellion problem in the human spirit. I don’t know what you can say in answer to a protest when the only answer the rebel will accept is “You’re right; I’m wrong.” Authority figures have to make a judgment as to whether they are hearing an honest objection to something wrong /an honest seeking of understanding or a whitewashed effort to be in control.
I don’t think I can generalize that leaders need to be more accommodating toward protest… though I can agree that anger is often unhelpful. (But that gets complicated too. There are times when it’s morally wrong not to be angry and conveys the impression that egregious behavior is not as bad as it really is… which helps no one in the long run)
I think the better emphasis is to stress to authority figures that we have enormous responsibilities to be wise, good and not overstep our sphere of responsibility, and emphasize with those under authority (all of us, in one situation or another) that we should strive to not give those over us grief.
The Golden Rule is huge in all this, too, in both directions. As one under authority I have to ask “What would I want to know if I were the decision maker and what kind of response would I need?” As the authority figure, I have to ask “If I were the one under my direction, what would I need to understand? What would I find difficult?” It’s interesting that we’re really talking about the same thing here as in the thread on spiritual abuse… and maybe another somewhere (kind of all blurs together). It’s a huge challenge of our times.Hebrews 13:17 (ESV) Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.
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.
[Dave] Simple. If the unintended or unforeseen side-effects of such a rule end up causing more trouble than the good that looked like it would come from the rule, then I would still argue that the rule is bad in spite of the fact that some good came from it.
Oh yeah, there’s always the problem of unforseen side effects. But these are not always the fault of the rule. Even perfect rules have unforseen side effects when they encounter sinners. First half of Romans 7 is fascinating on this point—in reference to “the law” of God.
But my point was to deny that there is a distinction between spiritual benefit and pleasing God. I was reacting to the teaching that takes the truth of our unchanging position as “accepted in the beloved” and extrapolates the argument that “we don’t need to worry about doing right because it doesn’t make us more pleasing to God,” ergo rules cannot be helpful in sanctification. The argument is ultimately a passive-sanctifcation one where our responsibilities in growth in godliness exactly parallel our responsibilities in conversion: believe.
But I don’t accept that view of sanctification and I don’t think it answers well to the NT either. Once we are a new creation, indwelled by the Spirit, and well equipped for “all things that pertain to life and godliness,” God is working in us and we are indeed called to work our our salvation with fear and trembling.
In part 2, I argue that rules are often just applications of Scripture and it’s not possible to reject the spiritual potential of a rule without rejecting the spiritual potential of application in general… which nobody rejects.
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.
But since authority figures are outnumbered, I have to think there are serious practical problems if you let everybody question/protest the decisions you make. Even with two kids, we endure far too much of that. It’s part of the foolishness bound up in the heart of the child that they think they know better than the parent who, though far from perfect, has learned a few things.
I don’t think authority can prevent ‘protest’ without in essence saying “My way or the highway”. And my point is more about assuming that protests stem from a rebellious spirit. There are often other underlying reasons for protests, and if we are going to treat people as individuals and not a mob, I believe we are obligated to hear people out on a case by case basis and help them deal with their heart problems. Does this take time and energy? Yep- so anyone not willing to take the time and energy to do what is necessary to teach and train kids, students, or congregants, shouldn’t sign up for the position. IMO the Biblical model is mentoring, not lecturing.
As far as kids go- what rules are they protesting? That they are not allowed to hit their siblings? That they can’t have a cookie before dinner? Or jump off the garage roof with a trashbag parachute?
I have alot of fun with questions like that. If brother #1 hits his sibling and thinks he deserves it, I just ask him if he thinks it’s ok for brother #2 to hit him whenever #2 thinks #1 deserves it. Well, of course not. Duh. If he is stupid enough to say “Sure”, then guess what happens? Oh yeah- kids are a ton of fun.
If a kid has enough money in savings to pay for an emergency room visit and possible hospitalization, then they are welcome to jump off any roof they’d like. And what’s a cookie but flour and butter and sugar? I don’t make a big deal about that stuff, since it isn’t an issue of morality or ethics. They know we have a limited number of cookies, that each person gets a certain amount, that if they indulge now they won’t have any for later, and amazingly enough, they have learned to self-regulate. Ditto bedtimes. They can stay up as late as they want, as long as they can get up in the morning and meet their school/chore obligations. It takes about 2-3 days for them to learn what their bodies can/can’t do. They understand why getting a good night’s sleep is important to their health and well-being, and it isn’t because “Mom said so”. This plants roots that benefit later with The Big Questions of morality and ethics come up. IOW, it’s a ‘safe’ way to let them experience making mistakes and learning self-control without anyone getting pregnant or arrested for armed robbery.
The bottom line is that authority has the responsibility to teach and train those they are responsible for. Part of that is being able to wisely address protest and help folks internalize truths instead of just taking our word for it.
[Aaron Blumer]But my point was to deny that there is a distinction between spiritual benefit and pleasing God. I was reacting to the teaching that takes the truth of our unchanging position as “accepted in the beloved” and extrapolates the argument that “we don’t need to worry about doing right because it doesn’t make us more pleasing to God,” …
I am not sure that is the point of being accepted in the Beloved. The point of being accepted in the Beloved is that God’s gracious pleasure with my obedience is really His pleasure in Christ’s obedience through/in me and the Holy Spirit’s working in me. My righteousness is filthy rags, Christ gets all the glory for any obedience.
[Aaron Blumer]Rules are neutral and it is a personal matter (between a person and God’s work in him) whether or not they help a person in sanctification.… ergo rules cannot be helpful in sanctification.
Also, very important point: if you mean God’s laws, then of course those are helpful. But do you mean rules as in man’s rules? Like defining music or dress or activities or hair length?
What happens is, men make rules extrapolated from principles, and then in that atmosphere, people begin to judge their own and others’ “spirituality” or spiritual maturity based on conformity to those extrapolated rules.
Then the extrapolated rules often become more of the focus because they are more numerous, more exact, and visible. And then people get the idea that because s/he conforms to those extrapolated rules, s/he is “more pleasing” to God than the poor someone who doesn’t conform or doesn’t know that this is the more pleasing way in God’s view.
… I think this is what people are trying to talk about when they talk about “rules.”
[Aaron Blumer]The argument is ultimately a passive-sanctifcation one where our responsibilities in growth in godliness exactly parallel our responsibilities in conversion: believe.
? I would like to explore that statement more …
Well, we’ve kind been over all this several times.
I keep coming back to the fact that the NT is full of imperatives and the positional truths do not erase the imperatives. There is no way to passively obey a command. Though it is arguable that through our union with Christ our obedience is really His, the fact remains that He is not the one who reads a biblical command and decides to obey or disobey it. Things quickly dissolve into nonsense if we take union with Christ to mean “He is actually me and I am actually Him.”
That was never the intent. Rather, through union we are credited with His righteousness (e.g., terms like “reckon” and “accounted” in Romans). Because of what is credited to us/imputed to us, we have responsibilities—an active role in making the positional actual. This is the whole point of Romans 6.
In other words, Christ’s righteousness imputed to us is not a substitute for our actual, real-world obedience. God’s agenda is to make actual in us what He has credited to us.
No glory of God is dimished by our genuine exertion in the process because it is only His working in us that makes our efforts effective (Php. 2:12-13) and it’s only His transformation of us that makes us interested in this pursuit of holiness in the first place.
Nonethelss He does not obey for us. We obey or disobey. It’s impossible to make sense of the NT imperatives with Christ as the actual subject of the verbs involved.
A few examples to make this less abstract.
- In Rom. 6.13, Christ is not the one who must yield His body to righteousness (it’s a present tense command written to real people who were supposed to obey it)
- Rom.13.14, Christ is not the one who is supposed to put on Christ and not make provision for the flesh.
- 1 Tim. 4.7, Christ is not the one who must train himself for godliness.
- John 14.15, Christ is not the one who is supposed to obey Christ and, by doing so, show that he truly loves him.
There is no escaping the fact that in conversion we do not have work to do, but in sanctification we do.
About the protest topic... I think we’re not understanding the difference between legitimate exercise of authority within its proper bounds vs. other. When the former is true, a person under that authority has no right to protest and doing so is inherently rebellious. It’s like the Israelites telling Moses they don’t want to go into Kadesh Barnea.
To use another real world example, as a school teacher, it’s my role to assign work and student’s role to do it without complaint. If I overstep my bounds and assign something wrong or truly excessive, I’m open to resistance because I don’t have the authority to assign them all to do that. So what I’m saying is that whenever authority is legit. and within it’s bounds—whenever it’s actual authority vs. merely/falsely claimed authority—protest is rebellion.
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.
I think I’ve been over this one in this thread already, but maybe it was in the other.
Let’s be more concrete.
I have a rule that I do not buy lottery tickets. This is a self-governing rule, but it’s a rule. I have the authority to make the rule and enforce it. As head of my home, I also have a rule that nobody under my roof buys lottery tickets. Again, it’s my call to make. So it’s a family rule.
Is it God’s law? No. It’s an application of God’s law.
It’s actually just about impossible to make specific applications of Scripture without making a rule. I say “just about” because there are roughly two application scenarios:
- One-time situations when a biblical principle calls for a single act: a long-lost cousin calls me and asks if I’ll help finance his human-cloning project. Not likely to happen at all but if it does, only once.
- Generlized applications that should govern my choices every time the conditions occur: whenever someone at the bank drops a thousand dollar bill, I should return it to him.
It’s pretty hard to dream up one-time applications that aren’t actually generalized (whenever someone wants financing for human cloning, I should say no).
And guess what: a generalized application is a rule. Just try to live the Christian life without them.
So to get back to the question of God’s rules vs. ours, it is impossible to live out God’s rules without making our own. It’s true that our own are not inspired, often need adjustment, often don’t need to be formalized into a handbook or something, etc. Nonetheless, applications of God’s word are indeed instrumental in sanctification.
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.
[Aaron Blumer]This is a very interesting discussion. I re-read through Luther’s “Concerning Christian Liberty” piece yesterday. I really, really wish you would read that. It is not that long, and it would be very helpful to this discussion.I keep coming back to the fact that the NT is full of imperatives and the positional truths do not erase the imperatives. …
Nonethelss He does not obey for us. We obey or disobey. It’s impossible to make sense of the NT imperatives with Christ as the actual subject of the verbs involved.
There is no escaping the fact that in conversion we do not have work to do, but in sanctification we do.
He actually would not agree that in sanctification we have to work in the way you are saying, but you also have to understand the entire truths he is explaining. And I think that this is where we lack today in our understanding of faith and the gospel and why we are having this discussion about the necessity of “rules” or not.
Luther makes the point very extensively that works—outward works and even spiritual works like meditation, etc—cannot touch the soul. All these things can be done by hypocrites, unbelievers, or true Christians. All the needs of the soul are provided only by faith in the word of God. And what is that faith?
1. He says that God gives the commands, God fulfills the commands, and only God can fulfill them.
Now, since these promises of God [how He fulfills the commands] are words of holiness, truth, righteousness, liberty, and peace, and are full of universal goodness, the soul, which cleaves to them with a firm faith, is so united to them, nay, thoroughly absorbed by them, that it not only partakes in, but is penetrated and saturated by, all their virtues. For if the touch of Christ was healing, how much more does that most tender spiritual touch, nay, absorption of the word, communicate to the soul all that belongs to the word! In this way therefore the soul, through faith alone, without works, is from the word of God justified, sanctified, endued with truth, peace, and liberty, and filled full with every good thing, and is truly made the child of God, as it is said, “To them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name” (John i. 12).
He calls that the first virtue of faith. Then he goes on to explain 2 more virtues of faith.
2. Right faith holds God to be true, righteous, and honors Him above all (my wording). “In doing this the soul shows itself prepared to do His whole will; in doing this it hallows His name, and gives itself up to be dealt with as it may please God. For it cleaves to His promises, and never doubts that He is true, just, and wise, and will do, dispose, and provide for all things in the best way. Is not such a soul, in this its faith, most obedient to God in all things? What commandment does there remain which has not be amply fulfilled by such an obedience? What fulfillment can be more full than universal obedience? Now this is not accomplished by works, but by faith alone.”
3. The 3rd virtue of faith—“It unites the soul to Christ.” Christ takes all the sin, death, and hell of our believing souls and makes that His own and conquers them. We gain, by belief, His grace, life, salvation, and righteousness.
He talks about how we are all priests and kings (in this life) through Christ and what that means. And how all this should be constant themes in preaching.
Then, he transitions and talks about good works and the outward man: “Here we shall give an answer to all those who, taking offence at the word of faith and at what I have asserted, say, “If faith does everything, and by itself suffices for justification, why then are good works commanded? Are we then to take our ease and do no works, content with faith?” Not so… . To this part belongs the fact I have stated before: that the Christian is the servant of all and subject to all. For in that part in which he is free he does no works, but in that in which he is a servant he does all works.”
1. “Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; here he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is not kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such blessings have been conferred on it, and hence has only this task before it: to serve God with joy and for nought in free love.”
2. There must be no idea of good works justifying us before God, but for subjecting our bodies so we can be well-pleasing to the One we desire to obey.
3. Every man needs to instruct himself how he should chasten his own body to keep it in subjection and able to obey.
“His works are to be done freely, with the sole object of pleasing God. Only we are not yet fully created anew in perfect faith and love; these require to be increased, not, however, through works, but through themselves.”
I’ll skip a bunch of good stuff … then, outward works—we do them because we live as the servants of others in the example of Christ’s life toward us on earth. We are free from works, but we subject ourselves to them as Christ did in order to love others.
Here is the truly Christian life, here is faith really working by love, when a man applies himself with joy and love to the works of that freest servitude in which he serves others voluntarily and for nought, himself abundantly satisfied in the fulness and riches of his own faith.
This is the ideal we move towards … I have to go, but i will include one point he makes towards the end:
Since then we cannot live in this world without ceremonies and works, since the hot and inexperienced period of youth has need of being restrained and protected by such bonds, and since every one is bound to keep under his own body by attention to these things, therefore the minister of Christ must be prudent and faithful in so ruling and teaching the people of Christ, in all these matters, that no root of bitterness may spring up among them, and so many be defiled, as Paul warned the Hebrews; that is, that they may not lose the faith, and begin to be defiled by a belief in works as the means of justification. This is a thing which easily happens, and defiles very many, unless faith be constantly inculcated along with works. It is impossible to avoid this evil, when faith is passed over in silence, and only the ordinances of men are taught, as has been done hitherto by the pestilent, impious, and soul-destroying traditions of our pontiffs and opinions of our theologians. An infinite number of souls have been drawn down to hell by these snares, so that you may recognise the work of antichrist.
Discussion