The Biggest Lie about Grace .... Law
- 47 views
I don’t think the importance of love is a point of disagreement. Nobody is saying it is unimportant or even secondary in importance.
Also, the importance of positional sanctification is not in dispute either. There is no disagreement on that, so if some of us seem to be dismissive of it it’s because we all accept that part. The debate has to do with what coexists with that positional sanctification.
The “perfect love casts out fear” passage is an interesting one. It is the only NT passage I can recall that puts fear—as an attitude/disposition toward God (presumably)—in a negative light. We’ve seen several in this thread already that put fear in a very positive light and link it directly to our way of life as Christians.
Personally I doubt that John’s point is that if we love God, we do not fear Him. Since he refers to the judgment in 1 John 4.17 (and our union with Christ in 4.16), it’s likely that in 1 John 4.18 John is contrasting the believer with the unbeliever. The latter has no fear of judgment because he has a genuine love for God.
At any rate, the fact that believers are to love God and not fear His condemnation is also a point of agreement.
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]Personally I doubt that John’s point is that if we love God, we do not fear Him. Since he refers to the judgment in 1 John 4.17 (and our union with Christ in 4.16), it’s likely that in 1 John 4.18 John is contrasting the believer with the unbeliever. The latter has no fear of judgment because he has a genuine love for God.
Aaron, just a point of interpretation: it seems that John, in line with 4:12 and his reasoning leading up to that point, is not saying that a love for God is what casts out fear. Rather, a love for other Christians casts out fear of judgment… since the litmus test of love for God (for John) is love for the family of faith. Just look at where the the direct objects line up with the verb “love” as the verb all the way up until verse 20 (and there its a negation to point further to the main point of the passage… namely assurance arising out of love for other Christians).
The converse would appear to be true as well: a professing Christian who lacks love for other believers has plenty of reason to fear, since they are disproving their love for God.
you know, i was thinking how funner this conversation would be if we were in person. it really is a fun topic to talk about.
So how can you or I boil down what all the disagreement about then?
Matt O puts a quote up that says:
The irony of gospel-based sanctification is that those who end up obeying more are those who increasingly realize that their understanding with God is not based on their obedience but on Christ’s. ~TT
Mark S says: “One of the commonest errors about law relative to Christian conduct is that God no longer uses fear or laws to promote Christian conduct.”
And here we all are in a stew about it :D It’s a stew I like being in, too, it’s worth stewing over, at least ;)
It’s hard to talk about b/c you say sometimes in your words how important love is, but I don’t know that you (including others) really believe or communicate that generally. i mean, we’d be blogging about it, teaching, explaining, sifting, meditating, and stuff if that’s what was really important to us, wouldn’t we? if we really understood how it was the number one thing.
instead someone important emphasizes grace and love and acceptance, and responses like Mark’s come out. This is a real problem.
do you see what i’m saying? i think what people feel is that yes, leaders talk about love sometimes, but in almost all other ways (of verbal and non-verbal communication) it’s not communicated as the priority. Obedience is all, no matter how you’re motivated, pretty much, it’s OK as long as you did the right thing. And love is communicated as conditional. Grace, faith and love are not the focus of progressive sanctification the way they should be. Few understand the main connections between salvation and sanctification. Few know how to explore and experience faith in such a way that sanctification is thus furthered.
there is some kind of disconnect going on about the way of sanctification. and most people don’t want to admit it. or can’t even see it.
maybe this is one thing where we disagree:
I agree with this statement on Matt O’s blog today: “We are not saved by grace through faith and then sanctified by obedience.” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
http://matthewrolson.com/so-what-do-you-fear/#more-474 Before attacking the poor man, read the whole blog post.
Matt actually said a good bit more than that.
Personally, I’m losing interest in the conversation because it’s just circling at this point. We get to the central issue, then several peripheral questions are raised (or issues that are not really in dispute) which have the effect of drawing us away from the central issue for a while, then I (and others) eventually get back to the central issue and the process repeats.
It seems that one side doesn’t want to delve into the what the debate is really about…
- Do we have the responsibility to work hard at growing in grace?
- Does that effort/discipline contribute to our growth?
- Is it possible to live the life (walk the walk) without applying Scripture by drawing some lines (those things commonly broadly devalued as “man made rules”)?
- If the answer to the above is no, what do the Scriptures that seem to teach these things mean?
- Is today’s American church really in much danger of working too hard at holy living?
(Abut 1 John 4:17 and context, it may be that the “perfect love” there refers to love of fellow believers. In any case, this love is linked to the judgment and the absence of fear of facing God’s wrath. I’m pretty sure all the major views of sanctification accept the idea that believers should live free of fear of God’s condemnation.)
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.
it is frustrating, in that those are not my questions about sanctification and I think we’ve pretty much ignored the central issue.
But, oh well. ;)
At some point, when those who post and explain Scripture are ignored in favor of quoting authors, you have to know that it won’t go anywhere profitable. There were several spanking threads where the exact same scenario played out. Recognizing patterns is a lost art.
Anne, don’t give up. Post more about the central issue.
The tire fire continues to burn.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
113 posts concerning an individual’s sanctification and no words about the two natures of the believer (new creation vrs the Old Man).
“Two natures beat within my breast
one is fowl the other blessed.
The One I love
The one I hate.
The one I feed will dominate.
JT, can you give me that verse that says we have 2 natures? Quoting authors isn’t authoritative for everyone.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
Anne,
Several passages were left in the dust long ago. I wanted to bring them back up and ask you explain how they fit into the paradigm you have described.
No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. 1 Corinthians 10:13
And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work. 2 Corinthians 9:8
as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, 4 by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Peter 1:3–4
To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily. Colossians 1:29
As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, 15 but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” 17 And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 1 Peter 1:14-19
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Might be a good place to point out that this particular conversation started with Olson’s observations broadly excluding rules and fear in the sanctification process and Snoeberger’s counter that these are important in sanctification. So the relevant questions really are connected to that.
I’m not sure how the ‘two natures or one’ issue would relate. All the major views of sanctification I’m aware of agree that
- the believer is truly transformed in several ways immediately upon conversion
- nonetheless, a strong influence of the old life and sin remains
Some want to characterize the old and new as two natures. Some want to characterize it as a single new nature that carries some aspects of the old with it. I’m not sure why the distinction matters, frankly, though I don’t prefer “two natures” terminology. It seems to me that with respect to the Olson-Snoeberger dialog, there is not really an answer in the two-natures vs. one-with-baggage question.
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.
Bill Combs has added an interesting addendum to this discussion over at the DBTS website.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
im being attacked by life, in a good way ;)
pls lps pls listen to this
http://castroller.com/Podcasts/WhiteHorseInn/2639057?start=undefined
if you re pressed for time, start at 6:45.
i think it answers your questions
am not dumping conversation, it takes a long time to talk through and htis format is weird, but it’s worth talkin about
we are making thanksgiving tomorrow, big party, 36lb bird! will be back
well, we just cant rest around here :)
Vitaliy wanted to respond to Chip’s question about the Bible passages, and if you were having a face-to-face conversation, you could hear his gentle tone of voice, his lovely Ukrainian accent, etc. It’s kind of hard to him to express himself in writing in English, so I transcribed his thoughts and made them a little more clear, and he is concerned that you not think he is attacking you at all b/c of the way he comes across. he’s really nice, not attacking, just conversing, and he means it all in a sweet way ;)
He wants to say:
These passages say what God is doing in us through Christ. All these commands/promises are available for us only through faith in Christ—for example, that you have no lack of spiritual things, no temptation greater than your power—and our fulfilling of these passages in our lives comes only through right faith in Christ’s righteousness that was accomplished for us and is working in us.
So these passages are more explaining what things are possible for the Christian as the result of Christ’s work in us. So the focus is not our work, but on Christ’s work in us.
But now I want to ask you a question based on Rom 6:1: “ What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?”
Paul’s teaching of grace was provoking in some listeners a question—“is he teaching us that it’s OK to sin?” because it’s a natural question/reaction for the unsaved heart—and even for the one playing church, the law-focused heart.
I don’t see this provoking freedom in your teaching, in your explanations of sanctification. You keep saying we must do everything, we can do everything, we must, must, must. So no one in the world, even unbelievers, will never be able to accuse you of what they accused Paul when he was teaching about grace. Which shows that your explanations of grace and sanctification are unbalanced, are leaning towards legalism.
There are two hardest things to do in the world. 1. For unbelieving heart to believe that salvation is by grace. 2. For a believer to accept that all his sanctification is 100% God’s work in us. We always want to give ourselves something. Our best works may be nasty, smelly, but they’re ours, and we want to get at least something for it. And that is proudness that is slowing down our sanctification no matter how hard one is working because we’re stealing God’s glory.
And that’s all his lovely, kind, and accented voice would like to contribute to this conversation because it made him very tired trying to explain all that. ;)
Discussion