The Biggest Lie about Grace .... Law
- 47 views
[Aaron Blumer]
- Is today’s American church really in much danger of working too hard at holy living?
Interesting question, since it’s obviously rhetorical. However, while probably most churches are not much in danger of working too hard at true holy living, there are plenty within fundamental circles that work way too hard at keeping up the appearance of holy living, and those two are often confused as being the same thing.
We could go back and forth about why this is. Is it because “man looketh on the outward appearance,” so that’s the only way that we can judge true holy living? Or is it that “by their fruit ye shall know them,” and we confuse true fruit with the adherence to rules? Is it because “These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body?”
I’m not among those who think that there is no work to be done by us as a part of sanctification, but I can’t see how the priorities of most churches actually help sanctification rather than just helping appearances. It seems to me that today, it has been the practice of most of fundamentalism to confuse discipleship with listening to a few sermons a week, having a regular time of prayer, and attending SS faithfully. However, most people can do all of this (and keep up with the local church’s dress/living standards) without ever having anything touch their hearts. In fact, this type of thing extends to any sort of community, because I’ve seen it (lived it) in a Christian college environment as well.
We simply value our own time too much to really take time to get involved enough in the lives of our fellow believers to befriend them, understand what they are going through, and delve into true heart issues. I am not a “throw all external rules away” type person, but I understand that the obedience to rules that comes from the heart will only be there when the heart is truly reached. True discipleship will help reach the hearts of believers.
I’ve heard someone (can’t remember who) say that there are about 4 motivations for us to do something: fear, duty, habit, and love. Fear and duty are both useful motivations, but if that is all that describes what motivates us to do something, we are not getting anything out of it (i.e. no sanctification). Habit sort of happens in that in-between stage where we no longer need fear or duty to tell us to do something, it’s just becomes a part of our life, but again, it’s not really changing us. I think you see this a lot in many people that are church members today. We can do a lot out of habit that does absolutely nothing for us. But when we get to love as the motivation, that is when we truly understand and are changed by what we do.
When we make rules for ourselves, as we understand what our heart weaknesses are, they can indeed be helpful to our sanctification. However, it appears to me that rules made for us by others, even if done with the right motivation, and even though they serve a purpose as protection (like rules we make for our children, or those under our authority), and are therefore good and right, will not really help to sanctify us unless our hearts are reached and we are obeying them for the right reasons. Protection is a good thing, and as you have said before, doing right is better than doing wrong, so rules can be helpful in that way, but I would disagree that if they come from any wrong motivation that their effect is truly sanctifying.
Dave Barnhart
I was doing some study for a SS lesson and ran across 2 Timothy 1:7. Interesting for this conversation that fear is only diminished as self-control (ESV) is enabled.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Almost forgot 2 Peter 1:3-10.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Not forgetting Romans 8:15
”For ye have not taken the spirit of servitude again to awe; but ye have taken the Spirit of sonship, wherein we cry Abba, Father”.
[Huw] Not forgetting Romans 8:15I wonder how “fear” in most translations became “awe” in this translation. Especially since the Greek word underlying, phobos, is used repeatedly of the believer’s relationship with God in the NT, as in every instance of the phrase “fear (phobos) of the Lord.” Obviously there’s more to this verse than meets the eye, especially when juxtaposed with 2 Corinthians 5:11 (terror or fear depending on translation = phobos again).”For ye have not taken the spirit of servitude again to awe; but ye have taken the Spirit of sonship, wherein we cry Abba, Father”.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
A check on the word deilia translated as fear in 2 Timothy 1:7 Strongs 1167 will show that this word is used once in scripture and a better translation into English might be cowardice although some would say timidity.
The word phobos when translated as awe can mean one of two things in English; reverential respect or fear. How we interpret it’s meaning is dependent on the context.
Luther gives a warning in his introduction to Romans that it vitally important that we take note of what certain words mean before embarking upon the reading of Romans. Although the word fear/awe is not specifically listed by him I think it’s one of the words he meant by ‘etc’.
2 Cor 5:11, Rom 13:3 & 1 Pet 3:14 have the word phobos 5401 Strongs translated as terror. It may well be a case of the translators making emphasis.
This is a study in progress for me and is far from complete. The reason for the study is the emotional feeling of fear, as in afraid, or the reverential respect I feel are two areas of my life that need clarifying. I have on occasion trembled with reverential respect, trembled with anticipation and have trembled in fear. When the feeling comes I’d like to know the cause. So I can either give thanks, bask in the grace I’m being shown or pray for help!
[Anne] 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.
Interesting comments. First paragraph: none of those are points of disagreement. Second paragraph: this is helpful because I do think much of the debate is really driven by what people want to focus on.
Here’s the thing, though: what does “focusing on Christ’s work in us” mean in practical terms? If it means not losing sight of where all our ability came (and comes) from as we strive against sin, again, there is no point of disagreement there.
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.
The argument here is that a test of correct sanctification doctrine is whether people mistake it for antinomianism. But let’s look closely at that argument a bit.
- Has anyone ever seen actual antinomianism as antinomianism? If so, the fact that a view is criticized on these grounds is not, in itself, evidence that it’s correct.
- Does the NT say must, must, must? There are so many commands, so many calls to “walk” properly (I did a whole sermon series once on the “walk” passages… it’s easily two month’s preaching).
- Is it possible that people accused Paul of antinomianism because he was rejecting justification by works? … any chance that would come up in the book of Romans? (My questions here are rhetorical: as you know, justif. by faith apart from works is a huge theme in Romans… and very likely the teaching that Paul’s opponents took as a “do whatever you want” message.)
On the whitehorse inn audio… Listened to a little bit. I get that sometimes people get tired and frustrated in their striving against sin and lose their joy sometimes. But this is why we have passages like Gal. 6:9, Heb 12.4, 2 Cor. 4:1, and others. The problem in these cases is ordinary discouragement and doesn’t call for a confusing re-articulation of the Christian life that seems to set “the gospel” against simple obedience.
Col 1:9–10 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 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
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.
Came across this interesting statement by D A Carson
5) God loves His own people in a conditional way based on their obedience. Jude, for example, says to keep yourself in the love of God (Jude 1:21). This is not the same type of love as the other four mentioned, since one cannot escape those forms of God’s love. God’s people live under God’s love or His wrath depending on their covenantal faithfulness. Jesus told His disciples to remain in His love by keeping His commandments as He has kept His Father’s commands and remains in His love (John 15:9-10).
The context is five ways God “loves.”
The connection to the thread is that if God’s love and wrath are in any sense related to the choices we make as His children, we’re not out of line to strive to please Him. Another connection is that it’s another angle on how our righteous standing (justification) is distinct from our actual condition and conduct (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.
Discussion