Sanctification, Homosexuality and the Church
In this post my goal is to utilize the issue of homosexuality as a case study to demonstrate that the “Jesus + Nothing = Everything” approach to sanctification is not merely an academic wrinkle, but an error of such prodigious import that it threatens the very essence of the Christian church.
American culture has apparently reached a tipping point when it comes to homosexuality. It’s OK to be homosexual now. In fact, those of us who aren’t homosexual are apparently supposed to trip all over ourselves in our affirmation of homosexuals to make up for all those years in which American consensus stood against this vice. Blah, Blah, Blech. I’m disappointed, but not particularly devastated: this kind of thing really is an inevitable result of the non-foundational, democratic, and relativist worldview that America has been cultivating for decades.
What is devastating to me, though, is some of the Christian responses to the problem that have recently been raised: applause for believers who have “come out” to unabashedly affirm (not to repent of, mind you, but to affirm) their homosexual status; gracious acceptance of and commiseration with homosexuals who sit beside us as fellow-members of the Christian church; etc. The new angle is that Christian homosexuals are a growing part of the Christian community and we need to be attentive to, not contemptuous of, their peculiar needs.
This conclusion is a necessary one if we hold to a “Jesus + Nothing = Everything,” “Preach-Justification-to-Yourself” approach to sanctification. At the point of salvation, we are told, nothing really happens to us: we still are what we were, with the only notable difference being that we have been declared righteous. If I was a thief before I was converted, I’m still a thief, but a thief saved by grace. If I was a drunkard before I was converted, I’m still a drunkard, but a drunkard saved by grace. If I was a homosexual before I was converted, I’m still a homosexual, but a homosexual saved by grace. And so forth. But this is an inaccurate explanation of the Christian experience. Note with me the following from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
In these verses Paul clearly states that thieves, drunkards, and homosexuals (and a bunch of other sinner-types) will not inherit the kingdom of God. This does not mean that believers who feel acutely the temptation to steal, drink to excess, or to act homosexually are barred from heaven, but it does mean that anyone who unashamedly and persistently self-identifies as a thief, a drunkard, a homosexual, etc., is unconverted, should be excluded from membership in the Christian church, and must be handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh (1 Cor 5:5). What Paul excludes here is any possibility of the kind of sanctification in which one “comes out” about what he irremediably is and then excuses his identity by musing repeatedly on what he has been declared to be in Christ. Instead, Paul’s vision of sanctification involves the repudiation of what one once was in Adam (the old man) and the embrace of the new creation in Christ that now is (the new man).
Paul does not allow Christians to self-identify as sinners. The church is not comprised of thieves, drunkards, homosexuals, etc.; instead, the church is comprised of Christians who once were thieves, drunkards, homosexuals, etc., but who are no longer what they once were. The church is to be populated by new creatures in Christ who have become “spirit people”—people who still sin, but whose dominant trajectory of life is upward. Christians persevere in their identity as spirit people, repent when they fail to live out their new identity, and beat and enslave their bodies lest they be disqualified for the prize (1 Cor 9:27). Anyone who fails to do this will not inherit the kingdom of God. Period.
Of course we are rightly chastened by Paul’s reminder that we too were once enslaved by such sins. As such we should expect unbelievers to be thieves, drunkards, homosexuals, etc., and should treat them no differently than any other sinner—there’s nothing here to suggest that more sanitary sinners such as “the greedy” will fare any better than homosexuals at the Great White Throne. Further, we are sobered by Paul’s observation that all believers have lingering sinful tendencies (like stealing, drinking to excess, and acting on homosexual impulses) that need to be addressed with exhortation, discipline, encouragement, and love. There is no room here for sequestering particular kinds of sins as more contemptible or “yucky” than others. The church must surely learn this virtue and quickly.
But those churches who would accept sinners “as they are” (whether homosexuals or any other variety of sinner) into their memberships, and who would encourage such sinners to ponder the glories of justification rather than repent, engage in a great evil. Such acceptance violates this and every biblical text on church discipline, destroys the purity of the church by including in its ranks those who will not inherit the kingdom of God, and injures severely the witness of the people of God. The problem is not a minor one.
Mark Snoeberger Bio
Mark Snoeberger is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary and has served as Director of Library Services since 1997. He received his M.Div. and Th.M. from DBTS and earned a Ph.D. in systematic theology from Baptist Bible Seminary in Clarks Summit, PA. Prior to joining the DBTS staff, he served for three years as an assistant pastor.
- 32 views
Will fix the OP.
About the difficulty of explaining sanctification… this is why I like to post Snoeberger on this topic. The problem that has developed in the evangelical church is that we have set aside something that is easy to understand but hard to do and picked up instead something that is hard to understand but easy to do (or easy to believe we’re doing).
In truth, sanctification is not hard to understand at all. It’s just hard to do. When start trying to make it easier to do, we’ve already stepped away from the simplicity of the doctrine and toward “hard to understand.”
Sure, there are mysteries to it. But what we’re supposed to do is not one of them.
Mark’s take on it has consistently pointed back to the clarity of Scripture on the subject.
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.
this thread has Vitaliy reading TT’s book (a free sample online) and now he’s watching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvYYPvq8Aqc
this is a really good talk he gives/explanation. really encourage anyone who can to listen.
we have a 3-fold (head, heart, hand) response to the gospel—it changes the way we believe, what we love, and the way we behave.
Part of what makes the sanctification debate difficult is that, like so many other debates, it’s hard to achieve clarity about what’s in dispute. Though there are variants of sanctification doctrine that advocate a neglect of the gospel and implications, nobody here is in favor of that.
What’s at issue is what changes immediately in the nature of the believer and how that equips us to strive, run the race, press toward the mark, wrestled against principalities and powers, work out our own salvation, add to our faith, and all those other analogies and descriptions of our ability and responsibility as new creations.
In short, the controversy has to do with what believers are supposed to do in addition to meditating on the gospel and its implications. And what Snoeberger, DeYoung and others are reacting to is articulations of (1) our nature as new creations and (2) what we’re supposed to do to grow in grace that breed passivity and confusion (and on some points simply contradict Scripture, regardless of results).
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 will say, my sympathies are with TT, and I really doubt he is saying what MS is portraying he is saying in these articles. It’s easy to twist a 3-word slogan.
Dallas Willard’s book The Divine Conspiracy has a chapter called “A Curriculum for Christlikeness” that I am outlining right now. Maybe I’ll post it here when I get it finished.
I think that a more careful read of Mark Snoeberger is required before one thinks Mark is going for the “easy” “twist” of a slogan. Again, his works (written and audio) are phenomenally easy to find (some of the reside here at SI). A couple articles to peruse…
Snoeberger: http://dbts.edu/blog/the-biggest-lie-about-law/
Snoeberger: http://dbts.edu/blog/depravity-regeneration-and-sanctification-take-two…
Philips: http://www.reformation21.org/articles/thank-god-that-christians-are-not…
DeYoung: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/november-web-only/kevin-deyoun…
SamH
but it’s very easy to listen to and read TT, too. it would be helpful to actually do that. he’s not teaching to sentimentally sigh about Jesus’ love for me, then go live out the desires of my flesh. … You need to listen to him. Then see what you want to argue with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvYYPvq8Aqc (there’s a bunch of other links)
for example, the total depravity thing addressed on those blogs:
it is true that we have a new nature at conversion, but what also remains true? our obediences (sanctifications) will never, ever reach the standard of God’s law.
any point at which you or I, by God’s grace, obeys Him, we are still so far from the perfection He requires …
we tend to lower God’s standards into something we can actually do, when in reality …
I have more to say, but I want to talk to Vitaliy about how to say some of it. It frustrates me.
Anne, if you go to ccggrockford.org/-commitment-to-Christian-liberty-Mark-Snoeberger you can listen to a sermon in which Mr. Snoeberger interacts more with TT’s position. It is quite clear that he understands and is conversant with what he teaches.
i’m listening.
This is one of the main keys to understanding these different views we’re discussing here.
MS, in his introduction, makes it clear that he assumes that we can, as believers, actually fulfill God’s standards/laws/commands.
I think he has not examined this assumption.
We can only fulfill God’s standards by faith in Christ. This applies to sanctification. Because only Christ could live the righteousness God requires. Only Christ’s righteousness can be accepted by God. Our righteousnesses are not acceptable to His standards. Only our faith in Christ’s righteousness allows us to meet His standards.
Luther talks about this in his Concerning Christian Liberty [from the law] and the 1689 London Bapt Conf of Faith also says this. Pls read carefully:
- Those who attain the greatest height which is possible in this life in their obedience to God, are still so far from being able to supererogate [to do more than duty requires] , and to do more than God requires, that they fall short of much which they are bound to do in their duty to God.
- We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin or eternal life from the hand of God because of the great disproportion between our best works and the glory to come, and because of the infinite distance which is between us and God. With our works we cannot profit or satisfy God concerning the debt we owe on account of our sins. When we have done all we can, we have only done our duty, and are still unprofitable servants. And in any case, in so far as our works are good they originate from the work of the Holy Spirit. Even then, the good works are so defiled by us, and so mixed with weakness and imperfection, that they could not survive the severity of God’s judgement.
- Yet, quite apart from the fact that believers are accepted through Christ as individual souls, their good works are also accepted through Christ. It is not as though the believers are (in this life) wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight, but because He looks upon them in His Son, and is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although it is accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
I will keep listening. But I think this is an essential point to start with.
MS’s analysis of “gospel-centered” sanctification is lacking, and I also think it’s misdirecting the way he comes at sanctification from a pro-law/anti-law principle. Sanctification is better thought of in different terms. But I want to comment on a few things he says:
it mostly around minute 20, if anyone wants to listen: http://ccggrockford.org/?s=Mark+Snoeberger
1. One mistake he makes is thinking about “what Christ did for me” is not limited to thinking about His death on the cross. Thinking about what Christ did for me is much or more (or includes) thinking about how Christ lived a righteous life that meets to the fullest measure God’s standard of righteousness. Christ is the only human who ever did this.
Personally, it really drew me to the Gospels in a way I never had before, examining Christ’s words an actions an example, looking to see how He lived out obedience to the 10 commandments, etc.
2. I don’t want to make a big deal of this, but it does shock me. He says that thinking exclusively about Christ’s death on the cross may encourage me to “continue in sin that grace may abound.” Sure, someone can misunderstand this, but just in the same way we could misunderstand anything in the Bible. … it’s OK to think about Christ’s death for you. It’s most of the Gospel of John, it’s in every other Gospel, it’s throughout the Bible. It’s Ok to think about it. It’s good. It probably won’t make you loose towards sin, all things considered.
josh, please listen to this. See what you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvYYPvq8Aqc
“it is true that we have a new nature at conversion, but what also remains true? our obediences (sanctifications) will never, ever reach the standard of God’s law.”
This is true, but not relevant. What I mean is that the fact that we will not arrive at perfect obedience in this life does not nullify the passages that call us to grow closer and closer to that standard throughout our lives. We are called to progress toward that goal.
As for TT, his title must mean something. Unless we want to suggest he chose a disingenuous title for his book, it sums up his view. Based on what I’ve read of his work in the past, the effect (if not precisely the substance) of his view is that we have nothing to do as believers but preach the gospel to ourselves then watch change happen. This is based in part on a faulty view of depravity—that we remain as powerless after becoming new creations as we were before.
So there are substantive differences here between TT’s view and that of DeYoung, Snoeberger and many, many others. And DeYoung, et. al., have interacted with the differences in considerable detail. There really is not much (if any) straw manning going on here.
Personally, I think the problem is mainly on one of emphasis and results.
- An overemphasis on not striving or exerting personal discipline.
- An overemphasis on unclear phraseology describing the dynamic of Christian growth.
- A resulting confusion about how believers are to pursue holiness, tilting toward passivity.
What continually intrigues me about the whole thing is that beclouded, passivity-oriented emphases on sanctification used to be mainly a problem among certain dispensationalists and fundamentalists. Now it’s coming from Reformed teachers, and dispensationalists are among those objecting. It’s … interesting.
[Snoeberger] says that thinking exclusively about Christ’s death on the cross may encourage me to “continue in sin that grace may abound.” Sure, someone can misunderstand this, but just in the same way we could misunderstand anything in the Bible.
Apart from the question of results, the question is, does the Bible teach that we should think exclusively about Christ’s death on the cross? It doesn’t. As just one example among many…
Phil 4:8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with 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.
[Anne Sokol]Anne I think you reference “Active Obedience” or “Vicarious Law Keeping” here? I really don’t want to get into a huge rabbit trail here but if that is what you are talking about than we are not going to see this the same since I believe that is not taught in scripture. *Please understand I am not representing M.S.’ view. He may believe in Active Obedience. I know Dr. Mclune holds to it and I believe Dr. Doran as well.MS’s analysis of “gospel-centered” sanctification is lacking, and I also think it’s misdirecting the way he comes at sanctification from a pro-law/anti-law principle. Sanctification is better thought of in different terms. But I want to comment on a few things he says:
it mostly around minute 20, if anyone wants to listen: http://ccggrockford.org/?s=Mark+Snoeberger
1. One mistake he makes is thinking about “what Christ did for me” is not limited to thinking about His death on the cross. Thinking about what Christ did for me is much or more (or includes) thinking about how Christ lived a righteous life that meets to the fullest measure God’s standard of righteousness. Christ is the only human who ever did this.
Personally, it really drew me to the Gospels in a way I never had before, examining Christ’s words an actions an example, looking to see how He lived out obedience to the 10 commandments, etc.
2. I don’t want to make a big deal of this, but it does shock me. He says that thinking exclusively about Christ’s death on the cross may encourage me to “continue in sin that grace may abound.” Sure, someone can misunderstand this, but just in the same way we could misunderstand anything in the Bible. … it’s OK to think about Christ’s death for you. It’s most of the Gospel of John, it’s in every other Gospel, it’s throughout the Bible. It’s Ok to think about it. It’s good. It probably won’t make you loose towards sin, all things considered.
josh, please listen to this. See what you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvYYPvq8Aqc
As for the video I have to run but I will watch it a little later and respond.
josh, please watch the video and tell me what you think or parts you disagree with.
Aaron, it’s not irrelevant. it is one major key. it reveals to us how to act.
I’m going to try one approach of explanation here, and it probably goes a little further than TT does, but it is how I personally have seen a difference in my life from moving from the MS route of sanctification to the TT route—well, for me it was Martin Luther, not TT.
because before all I knew was the try-harder-and-I-will-eventually-fulfill-God’s-law way.
The command to be angry and sin not will be my example. read carefully pls.
So my child would do something irritating. and I would react angrily. In the first paradigm, my goal was to not show out the anger. to not yell. to not swat in anger. to keep silent, at least, and not hurt the child. And if I could go through the experience, the temptation, and control myself to not display my anger, then I had obeyed God’s command and acted in a “sanctified” way.
do you agree with that? and hopefully I would be “progressing” into less and less incidences of sinful response.
I will not take the time to describe how I came to understand grace in sanctification, but I will now describe the different way I approach this temptation.
first, I understand a few foundational principles. one is that Christ faced every situation on my behalf and acted in an entirely righteous way that meets God’s standard of sanctification/holiness. I now work out of that.
second, no matter how far I am transformed, I will never meet God’s standard toward my anger. simply not responding in anger is not God’s standard either.
And here is where I start to apply “Jesus.” In every temptation to anger, Jesus not only controlled his angry response, he probably never allowed to rise in himself that feeling of growing tension, and “i’m going to explode in anger soon.” He was perfectly content in God and God’s power. He had a long patience and quiet.
Also, Jesus was never just angry or not angry in the right way. He was simultaneously full of love toward God and man. His every motive was pure. His single desire was to do God’s will. He could bless those he was angry towards. He could humbly and rightly rebuke those he was angry toward. in every situation of anger temptation, he had every righteous response he needed at his disposal.
So, Jesus did this perfectly for me. I am now following Him. My role on earth is the same as His role, to be a servant. So God, how can Jesus, by Your Spirit, come out in me toward my kids? I see that my anger means I even hate them to a murderous level. I am not even capable of loving my children, but through you. Transform into me Jesus Christ toward my children. That I may love, bless, rebuke, be patient (and much more) with them as Christ perfectly did. Show me what to do now in order that I may become this.
and a whole field of answers opens before me. specific ways God wants me to love my children, ways he wants me to think of them, pray for them, for me.
well, there is more, but that is just one example of how this understanding of law and grace and sanctification has changed my personal approach in many areas of my life.
Holiness has become a wide field—to see how Christ lived out to the fullest, every command of God and how I can follow in His way.
A link that might helpful .. http://theaquilareport.com/motivations-in-sanctification/
Anne,
Much of what you posted is not in dispute. Nearly everyone in the current sanctification debate…
- Rejects “try-harder-and-I-will-eventually-fulfill-God’s-law “
- Accepts that “Christ faced every situation on my behalf and acted in an entirely righteous way that meets God’s standard of sanctification/holiness. I now work out of that.”
- Accepts that believers never fully live up to God’s standard in this life
- Accepts that outward conformity is sufficient
The problem arises in a couple of areas: (1) how these principles are applied in the form of denials of other ideas that are really not incompatible with them (i.e., “trying harder”), (2) Use of non-biblical language in describing the dynamic of the Christian life (instead of the NT’s “obedience,” for example, the use of “how can Jesus by Your Spirit come out in me?” etc.).
The inescapable fact is that the NT is full of calls to obedience, good works, striving, running, fighting, laboring, walking worthily, etc. It also emphasizes that the believer is a new creation richly endowed with all things necessary for life and godliness.
All of the ability is gracious ability available to us through Christ. But it is given to us and our responsibility is to use it.
(There are also limits to using Jesus as the example of dealing with sin, since He had no sin to deal with! His example is not of zero value of course. In the temptations in Matt 4 and Luke 4 we have a treasure trove of insight into dealing with temptation. But Jesus did not experience sanctification because He was born fully holy in every way.)
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