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(link is external) (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary(link is external) (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

The Scriptures are clear, and we don’t need Luther to tell us what they mean. I also have no problem at all with saying Luther was wrong where he clearly was.

All the same, I’ve read On the Freedom of a Christian (aka Concerning Christian Liberty). Luther does not teach that we are passive in sanctification or that union with Christ eliminates the need for our active obedience.

For him, at least in Freedom, the struggle of the Christian life is between a completely transformed inner man and a not yet transformed body. In Freedom, he describes at least three reasons why vigorous effort toward obedience remains important though we are justified entirely by faith.

a. He argues that we have to work in order to subdue the flesh/body

b. He argues that we have to work for the benefit of others

c. He argues that we have to work to please God

Admittedly “c” is not his emphasis in Freedom but it’s there.

Obedience for the sake of pleasing God

[Luther] So it is with the works of a believer. Being by his faith replaced afresh in Paradise and created anew, he does not need works for his justification, but that he may not be idle, but may keep his own body and work upon it. His works are to be done freely, with the sole object of pleasing God. p.120-121

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/luther-freedomchristian.asp(link is external)

Obedience for the sake of subduing the flesh

[Luther] Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough justified by faith, having all that [he] requires to have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day, even till the future life; still he remains in this mortal life upon earth, in which it is necessary that he should rule his own body, and have intercourse with men. 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 moderate 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. On the Freedom of a Christian, aka Concerning Christian Liberty, p.119 http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/luther-freedomchristian.asp(link is external)

Obedience for the sake of helping others

(This one is all over in the second half of the document, and not in dispute in any case so I’ll skip the lengthy quote)

Keep in mind that this is the same Luther who wrote…

[Luther] Whoever is convinced that Christ is his righteousness works cheerfully and well in his vocation, and also submits through love to the magistrates and their laws even if they are severe and cruel. If necessary, he will submit to all manner of burdens and dangers in this present life, because he knows that this is God’s will and that this obedience pleases him. (Preface to commentary on Galatians)

And note the sort of relationship with God indicated in this portion from the Shorter Catechism:

[Luther] God threatens to punish everyone who breaks these commandments. We should be afraid of His anger because of this and not violate such commandments. But He promises grace and all good things to those who keep such commandments. Because of this, we, too, should love Him, trust Him, and willingly do what His commandments require.” Smaller Catechism (on the Ten Commandments. http://www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/l…(link is external))

Luther was apparently not of a mind to say that man-made rules have no value in Christian living/Christian growth.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Yes, Luther certainly teaches good works—we do them in the model of Christ’s servanthood, who did them freely for us out of love.

So here’s the question: Do our works increase our sanctification? Do they add to it?

You are saying yes. I believe Luther would say no. Sanctification is all by faith. Works are the love-fruit of it—So we can please the one our soul is united to by faith. And as we are in Christ, the self-made servant of all, they are necessary for us because we are following His example in that service.

www.annesokol.com(link is external)

Now we’re getting somewhere. I plan to read some Luther this weekend and hopefully I’ll be able to join the conversation. Here are some suspicions I have:

1. The distinction between righteousness before God (iustitia coram Deo) and righteousness before men (iustitia coram hominibus) will play an important role here, since Luther would not affirm that all the same principles apply in both cases.

2. Regarding obedience, distinctions need to be made between the responsibility to obey, the power to obey, and the purpose/result of obeying.

3. Faith will take on an active but still Christ-centered character in its role empowering obedience.

4. Luther’s insistence on repentance as a way of life is vital, but needs to be understood in a specific manner.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com(link is external)

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

I don’t know why we’re “getting somewhere” now and weren’t before. I don’t attach much importance to Luther. But I’m not in a hurry to dismiss him either.

It’s just that we’ve had something far better all along: the Word itself. And I’m sticking by my claim that it’s not unclear on these questions.

[Anne] You are saying yes. I believe Luther would say no. Sanctification is all by faith. Works are the love-fruit of it—So we can please the one our soul is united to by faith. And as we are in Christ, the self-made servant of all, they are necessary for us because we are following His example in that service.

I don’t know what Luther teaches about sanctificaiton. Concerning Christian Liberty is not about sanctificaiton at all. Luther repeatedly rejects the idea that he is against good works but insists that he is against trusting in works for justification. He returns to the term “justification” in nearly every paragraph. He says,

It is not from works that we are set free by the faith of Christ, but from the belief in works, that is from foolishly presuming to seek justification through works.

This quote is lengthy but helpful (though I think Rom. 14.3 has little to do with his point)

Finally, for the sake of those to whom nothing can be stated so well but that they misunderstand and distort it, we must add a word, in case they can understand even that. There are very many persons who, when they hear of this liberty of faith, straightway turn it into an occasion of licence. They think that everything is now lawful for them, and do not choose to show themselves free men and Christians in any other way than by their contempt and reprehension of ceremonies, of traditions, of human laws; as if they were Christians merely because they refuse to fast on stated days, or eat flesh when others fast, or omit the customary prayers; scoffing at the precepts of men, but utterly passing over all the rest that belongs to the Christian religion. On the other hand, they are most pertinaciously resisted by those who strive after salvation solely by their observance of and reverence for ceremonies, as if they would be saved merely because they fast on stated days, or abstain from flesh, or make formal prayers; talking loudly of the precepts of the Church and of the Fathers, and not caring a straw about those things which belong to our genuine faith. Both these parties are plainly culpable, in that, while they neglect matters which are of weight and necessary for salvation, they contend noisily about such as are without weight and not necessary.

How much more rightly does the Apostle Paul teach us to walk in the middle path, condemning either extreme and saying, “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth” (Rom. xiv. 3)!

There is little evidence in Concerning Christian Liberty/On the Freedom of a Christian that Luther held that we are passive in sanctification… and I guess by “little” I really mean “none.”

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 luther is talking about sanctification in that piece a lot, not only justification.

His whole first sections argue why good works cannot touch the soul of man, cannot save or sanctify him.

Therefore the first care of every Christian ought to be to lay aside all reliance on works, and strengthen his faith alone more and more, and by it grow in the knowledge, not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who has suffered and risen again for him, as Peter teaches (1 Peter v.) when he makes no other work to be a Christian one. Thus Christ, when the Jews asked Him what they should do that they might work the works of God, rejected the multitude of works, with which He saw that they were puffed up, and commanded them one thing only, saying, “This is the work of God: that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent, for Him hath God the Father sealed” (John vi. 27, 29).

Hence a right faith in Christ is an incomparable treasure, carrying with it universal salvation and preserving from all evil …

Martin Luther. Concerning Christian Liberty (Kindle Locations 224-230).

I think the issue we have as our need today is that we do not know how to strengthen our faith. That would be an amazing topic to discuss.

www.annesokol.com(link is external)

Haven’t finished my reading yet, but I think this term “passive sanctification” isn’t helping. It hasn’t really been introduced or explained at length. I take it that you, Aaron, have heard/read certain statements or presentations of Christian living and judged them to be promoting a passive ideal. I think you offer a definition or at least a description when you say, “one where our responsibilities in growth in godliness exactly parallel our responsibilities in conversion: believe.”

Now, I think we can tie that back into our discussion. We’ve been using the terms “responsibility,” “obedience,” and some variations on “grow in godliness.” As I understand Anne, and she may be accurately relating Luther here, obedience is a responsibility, but it does not contribute directly to growth in godliness. That is, I do not become more godly by obeying better, but I do obey better by becoming more godly, which is a matter of faith and love. That’s a big statement; there’s a lot to be unpacked there, and I need some more time to read and think.

I will try to offer one contribution not from Luther, but I’m not giving up on Luther! Perhaps “believe” itself is a mutable responsibility. Sometimes belief causes me to act or think in a certain way; sometimes it causes me to stop doing so. Sometimes belief enables me to do something on my own; sometimes it allows me to let someone else do something for me. I think WCF 14.2 brings this up, as it alludes to a continuity between all acts of faith, but insists on a distinction between the principal acts and the others. (If I understand correctly, “saving” in the title refers not just to “how to get saved” but to the qualities which distinguish a saving faith from a spurious one.) The first part of the paragraph asserts that faith in fact causes us to act in certain ways. However, the principle acts are worded passively and refer not only to justification, but also to sanctification. These principle acts, I believe, are chronologically prior, but also persist in time and remain logically prior to the other acts. In some sense, then, the WCF asserts that active acts of faith are rooted in logically prior passive acts of faith.

On Saving Faith

2. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com(link is external)

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

I’d say you’re both partly right about Luther and sanctification, at least insofar as Concerning Christian Liberty is the source. I don’t know what he says when he’s actually on that topic. What’s in CCL on sanctification is ancillary at best—part of his argument on the relationship of faith to justification.

But he does argue from a kind of dualism. As I mentioned a few posts up, in CCL, Luther has the inner man entirely transformed, and what remains is only for the body to be subdued (and to serve others with the body). He does say that our faith and love need to “increase” (and, incidentally, calls on us to work toward that end, though I think he avoids the word “work” in that context… Still, there is no way to make sense of imperatives without effort​ or intentional action, which is the meaning of “works” in my lexicon. Only faith itself is excluded.).

But here’s the important part: for him, works are things only the body can do. There is no such thing as a “work” of the inner man, and in any case, to him all of the change there is done already. Consequently, he is able to say that works do nothing to change the inner man, but only makes that statement in the context of two prior premises:

  • a. The inner man is already changed completely
  • b. The inner man is incapable of “works”

On both counts I believe he is in error. The NT is full of commands to correct attitudes and, in various ways, grow in the inner man. And these commands are obeyed by intentional effort.

Colossians 3:5 (ESV) 5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

The old self is indeed dead, as Luther affirms, but the remaining sin problem (which is what sanctification is really all about) is misunderstood in CCL.

Scripture calls us to act to put to death sinful remnants (of some sort) in our inner man. Of course, there are lots of views of sanctification that take one position or another on what the continuing sin problem is and “where it lives,” so to speak. These variants are not all that relevant to my rules thesis.

It’s enough to group them under a couple of headings:

a. Passive sanctification views (views in which our role is only to believe… and perhaps “yield”).

b. Active sanctification views (views in which progress against the continuing sin problem requires real, intentional effort on our part).

It’s hard to put Luther under either of these headings because, at least in CCL, he sidesteps the remaining-sin problem except to deal with the bodily part of it only. But when he talks about the bodily part of it, he advocates hard work. I think’s that quite significant. If he accurately understood that the sin problem remains in the inner man as well (in some form) would he have argued for “works” in response to that? Hard to say. Probably not in so many words, because his dualism does not allow works to be internal.

His dualism (neo-platonic?) is a problem for developing a view of 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.

I think the issue we have as our need today is that we do not know how tostrengthen our faith. That would be an amazing topic to discuss.

This is a great question and does relate to my rules/applications thesis.

But the Bible tells us how to increase our faith… but you won’t like the answer, I don’t think.

2 Pe 1:4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness,

To me, the conclusion is inescapable that the transformation of the inner man at conversion is such that we are now capable (as partakers in the divine nature) of working productively toward godliness, including working toward increasing our faith.

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 where Luther’s view of sanctification comes from is all tied up with his view of salvation. We differentiate our emphases in the two events: We emphasize belief in salvation and work in sanctification.

Luther says, the only thing that can effect the soul is faith in the gospel—this is the same for salvation and for sanctification in his view. I tend to think he is right. If we think it all out (which we are trying to do), it’s the only way that is sensible.

Also, we have this thing about progressive and positional sanctification. I think we need to see ourselves more in the positional sanctification. It is more effective for the practical outworking of Christlikeness.

But that in no way means that we ignore, or dismiss as unimportant, our deeds or works or rules, etc. They are very very important. It’s just essential to rightly understand their place.

About the inner man being dead, etc., Luther just takes into a deeper understanding of our faith—he strengthens our faith by explaining what happens to us when we believe, by “preaching” to us what is going on in salvation. You see, he focuses us on Christ, we look at him and his righteousness, truth, love, self-sacrifice, all his perfections… and we realize that all these godly perfections have been applied to us. And as we examine what he did and who he is, and God himself works in us to apply this to our lives, to apply what we see when we look at Christ, we are transfomed. We grow in knowledge, self-control, perserverance, virtue, etc. That’s the main thing—faith, exploring to the four corners what we believe.

God may personally lead us to personal rules, spiritual disciplines, etc., as we move more and more into wanting to express Christ, to inquire into the perfect life he lived and see how he lived it for me personally and how I can imitate him in that. When we join organizations or institutions, we obey the rules as an expression of love, and if they help us love our neighbor, restrain our sins, that is good. it’s not the end of our growth, nor is it the main focus of spiritual maturity—faith is.

Now, you mention “passive sanctification.” You see, when I, for example, talk about belief as being the main thing in sanctification, it isn’t so much passive perhaps. It’s more an emphasis thing.

Well, OK, when I’m talking to someone struggling with sin, this is how I explain it: The main thing you need to do is look at Christ. He served you by living every day as a perfect day, fulfilled God’s every law for you every day, died for your failures, etc. So, by God’s grace helping you to do this, put yourself in front of him and look, examine, ask him to show you himself and then how he would live out your life—our how he did live out life for you in perfection.

Rules—you know, when someone has a persistent sin problem, rules are easy to make, easy to break—until God does his work to transform that person. My husband has a rehab center, they have quite a few rules. More men leave than stay. Some stay and become stable believers as they learn about the gospel. Some stay for the winter and obey the rules as a farce with some, usually temporal “societal” benefit. Others just leave.

Making rules is a tricky thing; it’s necessary, we have them in our family. but it’s a minimum way of life. Read your Bible every day is a minimum rule. Meditate on it day and night, love it, see it written on your heart– those states are where our faith in the Gospel and looking at Christ lead us.

Am I making any sense at all? Vitaliy could probabably explain it better. He has it more in his body at cell-level ;)

He has me reading Luther’s Bondage of the Soul, so if I read anything interesting, I’ll let you know!

www.annesokol.com(link is external)

I think the reason we started investigating Luther was that my thesis was/is:

  • Rules can help us grow in grace.

Somewhere along the line, another assertion moved partly into focus:

  • We should obey God in order to please Him.

Both of these were disputed, allegedly on the basis of Luther.

I really don’t understand why we’re attaching so much weight to Luther when he himself would have said “read your Bible.” But FWIW, if Luther does not distinguish justification and sanctification, he is in error. (But I really think he does distinguish between them and CCL is about justification.)

But I confess, it’s getting pretty foggy to me what all this has to do with the original thesis :D

I guess I probably argued along these lines: a good rule (i.e., a wise one, arrived at by a sound process and not overstepping proper boundaries of authority) can help us grow in grace because obedience and good habits do influence our character even when we do not understand or agree with the why’s and wherefore’s behind the obedience and the habits.

I’ve supported that assertion by point out that sin is always wrong, always harmful, always to be avoided. Not sinning is always healthier than sinning and more conducive to the development of good character/growth in holiness.

And that relates directly to the question of do we work to grow in holiness or do we merely believe (i.e., “passive”). So there’s the alleged Luther link: he is supposed to have taught that we do not work to progress in sanctification. I haven’t seen yet where he teaches that. But he has a tough case to make if he does since the NT constantly calls us to actively obey.

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.

God can use rules to help us grow in grace if He wants, I agree, but you really have to put qualifiers on that.

“Is it always better not to sin.”

It sounds great. But the thing is, there is no such person (excepting Christ). People can obey rules, but still be sinning. They can even deceive themselves that they are “good with God” because they’re obeying the rules and they miss seeing their sin. Can we even obey rules to the level that we are pleasing God and meeting His standards? (Only by faith in Christ! not the rule itself!)

On a human level, you can hurt people less by obeying (good) rules and you can get a good reputation.

But rules are not the main driver or even a main driver in spiritual growth. God’s initiative is. Following rules in order to become a better person—you’ll reach a human limit and probably burn out. The Law never made anyone better; it just opens our problem.

John Wesley (from his sermon about means of getting God’s grace) warns:

1. that we can limit God’s work in us by expecting Him to cause our growth through certain means— like rules. He can cause growth while we’re obeying rules, but He can cause the growth before we obey, after we obey, or when we fail to obey. We need to have our same unchangeable hope on God for growth—and expect His initiative for our growth during times we’re flying spiritually and times we’re crashing.

There are people who just are not able to handle the rules; they want to obey, but can’t handle it at that point in their development, and God can still work in them in a different way to continue their growth in grace.

2. Wesley also warns us not to think that rules themselves have spiritual power. Without God, they are dry leaves, a shadow. Only the Spirit and the blood of Christ have power to save and sanctify.

3. In using rules, look only on the power of the Spirit and Christ’s virtues, don’t focus on the work of the rule itself.

4. Don’t congratulate yourself for obeying the rules; it will turn it all to poison and you only enlarge your sins. Praise God alone and humble yourself before Him.

About Luther and believing … I’m about to give up trying to explain it over and over why believing IS the work. Faith, as God means it, is the most powerful force on earth. Limiting it to inaction or passivity is why Christianity is shallow and ineffective today.

www.annesokol.com(link is external)

also, i’m sorry if that last post sounded ungracious. there was a lot going on while i was typing. the thoughts are Vitaliy’s and i was feeding baby, answering kids questions, etc. So it’ was kind of rushed and not expressed too well, just read it all in vitaliy’s gentle, Ukrainian-accent voice ;)

www.annesokol.com(link is external)

Aaron, I don’t think you’ve really framed anything here fairly. Virtually nobody says, “Throw out all rules to living.” Luther, the modern “gospel-driven” Reformed guys, etc., all have rules in their lives. Issues break down to WHICH rules are good, HOW rules should be employed, and WHAT they accomplish. Furthermore, as Anne has noted, your characterization of faith as passive is misleading.

I suggested reading Luther because his treatise is not about justification or sanctification, but rather, as the title indicates, about the state of the Christian vis-a-vis rules, man-made or otherwise. His thesis is that the Christian is both free from all men and a slave to all men, and that this paradox is resolved by understanding the purpose of rules.

The most important assertions are:

1. Rules (prescribed works) do not justify.

2. Rules do not increase faith and love. (This is the most directly relevant to your project)

3. The obligation to do good works is in no way removed by liberty.

Several others are:

1. God’s law functions primarily to lead us to Christ, not to produce correct behavior. (This is a dispute between Lutheran and Reformed spirituality)

2. Good works can be increased by increasing faith and love, which is done primarily by preaching Christ and his promises as the fulfillment of the law.

3. Self-imposed rules can be of value in subduing the flesh. (I think this is relevant to your thesis as well, and is a potential point of rapprochement.)

4. Good works are to be done solely for the glory of God and the love of the neighbor, not in order to receive any personal benefit, even a spiritual one.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com(link is external)

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Actually, I wrote the piece because people do​ argue that institutional rules are inherently hostile to Christian growth and inherently legalistic and Pharasaical. They also argue that we grow in grace the same way we were justified: by faith alone and not through any effort. A favorite text is Col. 2:6.

The fact that nobody actually lives that way is just another argument against the view. It’s true that non of the anti-rules folks is consistent about it. Rather, they trot out this theology in reaction to institutions they feel have too many rules or that have rules they don’t like, or when they want to emphasize liberty and positional truth. In the latter case, it’s often simply a problem of overstatement when trying to express the riches of what we already have in Christ.

Before I forget, the fall Desiring God conference should be interesting. http://www.desiringgod.org/events/national-conferences/2012(link is external)

The theme is “Act the Miracle: God’s Work and Ours in the Mystery of Sanctification” September 28 – 30 in Mnpls

What I probably need to do is watch for expressions of passive (or “works-free,” if you prefer) sanctification and build a collection and write specifically to it next time. But here at SI you can find many of these ideas in Mike Durning’s three parter—which many reacted to very positively at the time.

In the lists of Luther assertions above, it would be item 2 in the first list and item 4 in the second list that I’d dispute.

Can rules increase faith and love? I’ve already argued, more or less, that…

  1. Sin is always damaging (it’s not relevant whether there is anyone who doesn’t sin—of course there is not) and doing right is equal and opposite (for a regenerate person). Obedience does us good.
  2. Human beings are not composed of discrete compartments. Faith and love cannot be isolated from the positive influence that doing good has on regenerate people. For example, we sing hymns because, among other things, they stir our affections toward God. Works can positively influence love, ergo, rules can positively influence love.
  3. Faith is enhanced when we act on it. Luther himself argues that faith needs to increase. How does that happen? One way is that a person who is 33% confident that God’s way is best, chooses not to return evil for evil/take vengeance. Result: now 45% confident. It’s like learning to ride a bike.
  4. The NT repeatedly likens Christian living to a “walk.” One learns to walk well mostly by walking.

I could go on, but time’s up.

Anne, I think some of the frustration you’re feeling is because your view lacks internal consistency. That is, it seems to make contradictory claims. I would argue that Luther’s view—to the degree I understand it so far—also lacks internal consistency here and there (but mainly it just has a couple of unbiblical points). But one thing that might help is to try to reduce your view list of very short affirmations (and/or denials) and make that list as brief as possible. Then supporting arguments become a separate step. So if you systematize it that way you might find that it’s easier to articulate (or you might find that you want to jettison parts of it).

My own view has loose ends as well and I’d like to reach the point where I feel that it all fits together snugly.

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.