The Biggest Lie about Grace .... Law

Anne, you are partly right in what you say. It is true that the believer needs the fruit of the Spirit, there is a dimension to sanctification that requires a thorough understanding of our new position in Christ (Rom 6.3-6). But that is not all there is to the story. To say that sanctification is ONLY a work of the Spirit in the heart isn’t Biblical. But sanctification will never occur without the work of the Spirit.

The believer must respond to the Spirit on the basis of his new freedom in Christ, reckon himself dead indeed unto sin (Rm 6.11), yield his members as instruments of righteousness unto God (Rm 6.13) and OBEY from the heart that form of doctrine to which he has been delivered (Rm 6.17).

To say that sanctification is something less than this is to have a stunted and unbiblical view of sanctification.

The rule not to drink can be used somehow in a person’s life, but the formation of Christ in a person is not furthered by keeping the rule.

This is what I think needs to be proven from scripture. It seems to me that when you are walking with Jesus and struggling with sins that break that relationship, the rules that help to prevent that sin do further the relationship by helping to maintain it. If you don’t have Christ, then obviously the rules will not further it. But it’s like saying that an internet filter will not help maintain integrity on the internet. It’s just not true. It does help, and that integrity does further one’s relationship with Christ.

It is true that people can make external reforms, and not have Christ. But my statement was “Every day an alcoholic walks in sobriety with Jesus is a day that his sanctification is furthered.” It’s not just sobriety that is good. It is sobriety with Jesus that is good and necessary and I struggle to see how a rule that helps that is not helping that.

I think this boils down to a proper understanding of faith and works. If men try to bifurcate faith and works in either justification or sanctification(which I would argue shouldn’t even be separated themselves,) I think we have a problem trying to explain these things.

What I have found useful is to understand that our faith CAN“T be separate from our obedience to God’s Law. James 2 brings this point out in a fairly succinct way.

Man in the OT or in the NT must fear God. Nothing has changed from beginning of time in God’s expectation to obey Him. And the retribution that comes from not obeying His Word is still the same- hell. Thankfully, Christ’s sacrifice makes it possible for us to even attempt to obey God’s Law. Think about it. Even our coming to faith in Christ is in response to God’s clarion call to repent and believe. Salvation is an act of obedience to God’s Word only possible by the work of the Spirit. But one can’t happen without the other.

One of the results of faith in Christ is a desire to obey the Law of God, not disregard it. But another result of faith in God is a disdain for the binding laws of men. Our heart’s cry should be as David when he said,”Oh how love I thy Law, it is my meditation all the day.” And our disdain for the Pharisees and their ways should be as Christ when he rebuked them for NOT obeying the law enough in Matthew 23:23. And for placing burdens and laws that were too heavy(man made,) in Matthew 23:1-4.

But both can only happen with the Spirit of God in the heart of the believer. Without the Spirit we can’t attempt to obey God with a pure heart, and neither can we discern the “the unfruitful works of darkness,” that we are to put off.

We must train train ourselves to love God with all our hearts, soul, and mind, and we must encourage others to do so to. But we can’t love God for anyone else. They must learn to do that for themselves and apply God’s Law to their lives.

May God help us all to love and obey Him more and to love each other more.

[Steve] I think we have a pretty good idea how much we need to sleep or eat (although the speaking part eludes us). Once the idea has been introduced that rules and regulations have, not just a role, but that they actually promote godliness or as stated later that sanctification can be furthered by rules, a subjective factor has been introduced and no one will agree on how much or how many rules and regulations do the trick. And that’s part of the problem with Mark’s corrective.

Mark’s corrective makes a strong biblical argument. We need to deal with what the Scriptures actually say and teach before we deal with problems we think might result from what they say and teach. So the question is what do the fear and self-discipline passages teach if not simply what they say?

[Bill] But another result of faith in God is a disdain for the binding laws of men. Our heart’s cry should be as David when he said,”Oh how love I thy Law, it is my meditation all the day.” And our disdain for the Pharisees and their ways should be as Christ when he rebuked them for NOT obeying the law enough in Matthew 23:23. And for placing burdens and laws that were too heavy(man made,) in Matthew 23:1-4.

Agree with most of your post, Bill, but the error of the Pharisees is widely oversimplified and misunderstood. Their problem was unbelief. Jesus constantly to and about them in this regard (e.g., John 5:38, 10:25, 10:38, 14:10; Matt.21:32, Luke 8:12, 20:5, 22:67). The rest is the expression of their unbelief.

The point is important because if the root problem with Ph. is their rejection of God, and the Son in particular, it means that there is little (approaching zero) evidence that believers are in danger of being too disciplined or too interested in obedience in their Christian living.

Aaron,

I agree with you that the Pharisees root problem is their unbelief. Thank you for clarifying that.

And would you agree that their unbelief is seen in their lack of true godly works? Either forgetting the weightier matters of the law, or by requiring something that God didn’t require? Belief(faith) and works(obeying God’s Law,) must go hand in hand, or neither exist(dead faith.)

Works doesn’t follow faith. They go in the door of salvation together.

I think modern theology has done much harm to Christianity by either trying to say that your works are the most important thing(Extreme Fundamentalism,) OR to say that your “heart”(take your pick of Churches on this one,) is the more important than your works.

Both ditches must be avoided.

I think that Matt Olsen is being misrepresented here. Matt Olson believes in fearing God. If you read his critic’s article, you might get the impression that Matt is possibly suggesting that he does not fear God. Matt Olson also believes in obeying God’s rules. Again, you read his critic’s article, you might get the impression that Matt no longer cares about God’s rules. Matt even believes institutions need rules. Northland’s got more of them than most Christian colleges in America.

The reality is that in many sectors of fundamentalism, there is a rules-heavy system that serves as a substitute for genuine spirituality and for genuine, godly leadership. We are witnessing the collapse of the Hyles empire - one of the main inspirations behind the rules-heavy institutionalism of the past several decades.

Young people are better served in environments where the leadership does all it can to communicate the Word of God and see that it gets into their hearts and then have conduct that is an outflow of the Word. Instead we often create a list of do’s and don’t and are satisfied with submission to the lists whether the Word is ever followed or not. We are devastated by this approach and it needs to change.

I believe that is all Matt is trying tell us.

[Larry]

Anne Said: The rule not to drink can be used somehow in a person’s life, but the formation of Christ in a person is not furthered by keeping the rule.

This is what I think needs to be proven from scripture. It seems to me that when you are walking with Jesus and struggling with sins that break that relationship, the rules that help to prevent that sin do further the relationship by helping to maintain it.

But my statement was “Every day an alcoholic walks in sobriety with Jesus is a day that his sanctification is furthered.” It’s not just sobriety that is good. It is sobriety with Jesus that is good and necessary and I struggle to see how a rule that helps that is not helping that.

this is the deal. this is what we all think.

We tend to work under this premise: My sanctification is/can be furthered by my works.

Is that a true and biblical premise?

I would say no. There is something wrong or missing from that statement.

I need some time to think how to explain this in a clear way.

The problem is that Olson speaks with absolute terms:

Fear drives us to control people with rules and regulations. These have no power to produce what pleases God but instead only bring about a kind of religious moralism that is very far from genuine Christianity. And we feel safe?

Either he ought to learn to say what he really means or qualify what he said, he does not do that here.

It is true what he said, but not absolutely or only true. However, Olson treats it this way by failing to address the righteous or good use of fear. Yes, it is a blog post but one that gives miscommunication on an important topic if there are qualifiers regarding Olson’s view of fear to be considered.

At best Olson is a victim here of his own brevity but still, it is his fault for sharing incomplete thoughts. A blog post is a post to the world, it implies thoughtfulness, it appears he did not give this sufficient thought and has allowed a misunderstanding.

At worse, he simply believes that there are not righteous or valid employment of fear for our spiritual welfare and if that is the case, he would be wrong. But it is up to him to be more clear.

*Fear is not the highest order of motivation but it is quite valid. And fear motivating us can and does please God with its results. Not in every situation but in some, indeed.

And would you agree that their unbelief is seen in their lack of true godly works? Either forgetting the weightier matters of the law, or by requiring something that God didn’t require? Belief(faith) and works(obeying God’s Law,) must go hand in hand, or neither exist(dead faith.)

Works doesn’t follow faith. They go in the door of salvation together.

I think modern theology has done much harm to Christianity by either trying to say that your works are the most important thing(Extreme Fundamentalism,) OR to say that your “heart”(take your pick of Churches on this one,) is the more important than your works.

Matt. 23:23 comes to mind.

I’m not sure how exactly to characterize the Pharisee’s works except to say that they were the works of unbelievers. They were “devouring widows houses” one minute and uttering fake public prayers the next. There is little resemblance between these men and the “Christians who I think have too many rules/the wrong rules” group that are so often identified with the Pharisees today—not that aren’t some among these who really are (a) unbelievers, (b) preying on the helpless behind the scenes and (c) knowingly rejecting the truth (let’s not forget about Mark 3:22, and 3:28-29, though it’s true the “Pharisees” are not specifically named there).

People tend to be very selective about which characteristics of the Pharisees they choose to apply to our times.

As for faith and works… I would never say they “go in the door of salvation together,” because that would be too easily misunderstood. The Reformation emphasis on sola fide and sola gracia is an important one. I would agree that the salvation road, so to speak, is one in which faith and works go together (Php 2.12). But we don’t enter that road with them together. We enter by faith alone.

As for misunderstanding Olson…

If he doesn’t mean what he seems to be saying, the sources he’s referring to aren’t helping. But the post doesn’t stand alone. He’s been articulating an emphasis for a while now—one that seems driven by the conviction that “legalism” (defined very broadly if at all) is the greatest threat to the church today. This is the hardest part to understand given the weak, self-indulgent, liberty-obsessed times the Church is living in today.

Edit: got to add this, because I hardly ever get to agree with Alex!

[Alex] *Fear is not the highest order of motivation but it is quite valid. And fear motivating us can and does please God with its results. Not in every situation but in some, indeed.

Paul’s framing of the paradox regarding divine sovereignty and human responsibility takes one of its most striking forms in Philippians 2:12-13. In order to soften the apparent contradiction between Paul’s imperative in Philippians 2:12 and the doctrine of justification, interpreters have sought to understand this passage in terms of the “sociology” of the church as opposed to the common “soteriology” of the believers at Philippi. As will be seen, however, Paul is addressing that aspect of salvation known as progressive sanctification without which “no man will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14).

The Believer’s Responsibility

Note how verse 12 begins: “So then, my beloved …” ( {Wste, ajgaphtoiv mou). The vocative, “my beloved,” recalls the tender, affectionate relationship Paul had with these believers (1:8). Before Paul explicitly exhorts his readers, however, he commends the Philippians for their past obedience: “just as you have always obeyed” (kaqwV” pavntote uJphkouvsate). “Obeyed” has special reference to one’s submission to Christ, the gospel, and apostolic teaching (Philip 2:9-11; Rom 1:5; 5:19; 6:16-17; Heb 5:9; 11:8).

Now to the main imperative of the passage: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling [with godly fear] ” (metaV fovbou kaiV trovmou thVn eJautw’n swthrivan katergavzesqe). Fundamental to Pauline theology is the idea that salvation is not by works (Rom 4:5). Keeping this in mind, the indicative in verse 13, which states that it is actually God who works in believers “to will and to do,” could render the imperative (“work out”) in verse 12 meaningless. The tension, therefore, between the imperative and the indicative in verses 12 and 13 constitutes an “extreme formulation of the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.” The dilemma is remedied when one realizes that we are to “work out” by His grace what God has worked in. Paul’s terminology in 2:12 is predicated on his prior use of “salvation” (swthriva) in 1:28: “which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God” (KJV). In Paul’s writings “salvation” has a consistent reference to deliverance from the power and consequences of sin. He uses the verb “to save” (swzw) 29 times (more than anyone else in the NT) and “salvation” (swthriva) including its cognates about 20 times— each reference is soteriological in nature.

Exactly what does Paul intend by the use of his imperative “be working out” (katergavzesqe)? Bauer lists the present imperative katergavzesqe under the category which says “to bring about [or] produce.” Paul uses the term similarly in Ephesians 6:13, “and having done all to stand” (KJV). James employs a similar nuance in 1:3, “the trying of your faith worketh patience” (KJV) or “produces endurance” (NASB). The basic sense of katergavzesqe is to “accomplish” something in the sense of “carrying it out” (Rom 7:18). Both the context and grammar verify that katergavzesqe has the theological equivalence of “obedience.” The imperative (work out) is the apodosis (“so then”) of a comparative sentence whose protasis (“just as you have always obeyed”) clarifies Paul’s authorial intent. Paul commands the Philippians to participate in their response to divine grace by developing salvation fruit now and in the future through the divine energy of the Holy Spirit. Their continuous action, elsewhere, is described as a pursuit, pressing on, a fight, and a race (Philip 3:12; 1 Cor 9:24-27; 1 Tim 6:12). For Paul to emphasize that believers must work out their own salvation in their everyday living in no way denies that salvation is wholly the work of God. Homer Kent explains this well:

“The biblical concept of salvation must be understood to comprehend Paul’s intent here. Salvation has many aspects … . Regeneration initiates the believer into a life with obligations. Acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord obligates the believer to obey him. Hence, working out salvation does not mean ‘working for’ salvation, but making salvation operational. Justification must be followed by the experiential aspects of sanctification, by which the new life in Christ is consciously appropriated and demonstrated.”

Paul accents the seriousness of his command in two ways. First, they must obey God whether or not Paul is there to continually encourage them. Second, they must obey “with fear and trembling” (metaV fovbou kaiV trovmou). This unusual phrase originates from the Septuagint where it references the dread that pagans experience at the presence of the living God (Ex 15:16; Isa 19:16; Deut 2:25; 11:25) and the terror of the surrounding circumstances bringing death (Ps 54:5). Even as all will bow and confess that Christ is LORD to the glory of God the Father (Philip 2:9-11), so then believers should with holy fear pay homage to their Lord by getting on with the business of obedience. Nothing of failure is implied here. Paul asserts that the method of obedience coupled with the mood of reverent fear toward God is necessary in the persevering walk of all believers.

God’s Sovereign Power (2:13)

The subject, “He who works in you,” (oJ ejnergw’n ejn uJmi’n) closely parallels Philippians 1:6, “He who began [a good work] in you,” (oJ ejnarxavmeno” ejn uJmi’n). Paul commends their conduct (1:5) and then assures these believers that God who began the salvific work in them will surely bring it to completion. God is working in believers both to will and to act. The participation of the Christian is not done in a legalistic spirit with a view to earn or merit divine favor. Rather, a Christian obeys God humbly, realizing that without Christ he can do nothing (John 15). Murray summarizes Philippians 2:12-13 beautifully:

“God’s working in us is not suspended because we work, nor our working suspended because God works. Neither is the relation strictly one of cooperation as if God did his part and we did ours so that the conjunction or coordination of both produced the required result. God works and we also work. But the relation is that because God works we work. All working out of salvation on our part is the effect of God’s working in us… . We have here not only the explanation of all acceptable activity on our part but we also have the incentive to our willing and working … . The more persistently active we are in working, the more persuaded we may be that all the energizing grace and power is of God.”

… to Mike Harding for posting. One could also use Colossians 1:29 as a parallel: laboring to the point of exhaustion and agonizing according to His energy which is effectively working in me with power.

Aaron,

I must respectfully disagree with you(and maybe others on this subject,) when you say about faith and works, “But we don’t enter that road with them together. We enter by faith alone.”

According to a very plain reading of James 2 and in accordance with other Scripture, it is impossible for faith and works to be separate. They are distinct, for sure, but can’t be anymore separate than your body and soul can be.

This must be true whenever true faith exists…whether we are talking about justification, regeneration, or sanctification.

Wherever true faith exists it must be accompanied by works. The faith that you say must come into salvation alone can be nothing but dead faith if not accompany by works, and therefore not saving faith.

Am I missing something from Scripture that teaches otherwise? I know that for many years for me in a Christian High School and then at BJU, I didn’t hear this taught, but since that time have come to understand it differently.

But I want to continue to learn and am open to correction.

Thanks,

Bill

I do believe that this component (faith and works,) is at the very core of the issue that Matt Olson is talking about.

Not saying he nailed it or missed it. I don’t believe there is enough information in his post to determine that.

I would love to talk with him directly about it. He was my pastor for 4 years and I always found him a good brother to talk to.

And I’m glad it is on the table…

We are saved by faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone; however, the faith that saves is never alone. (paraphrase from Spurgeon)

We tend to work under this premise: My sanctification is/can be furthered by my works.

Is that a true and biblical premise?

I would say no. There is something wrong or missing from that statement.

I hope you will give some thought as to how you can explain it because I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why this is even disputable. The Bible commands obedience for our sanctification. The Bible commands us to walk worthy of the calling, to act holy because we are holy. It commands us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, and on and on.

That this is perceived to contradict justification by faith alone is, IMO, a confusion of justification and sanctification. The two are not the same and they don’t work the same.