The Pitfalls and Joys of "Trying Harder"

I recently wrote a brief defense of the importance of personal effort (or “trying harder”) in God’s gracious design to transform His saints. My central claim was that we put ourselves at odds with the NT if we understand or teach the dynamic of sanctification in a way that devalues or strongly cautions against hard work.

But that doesn’t mean emphasizing hard work has no attendant hazards.

Bob Hayton wrote of one of these pitfalls in a post last summer: Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Performance-Based Sanctification.

Work hard, feel good; blow it and feel terrible. Where is the confidence in God’s grace in this model? The secret to living victoriously for Christ is gritting your teeth, doing more, and not doing the things you shouldn’t do. Try, try, try. Harder, harder, harder! Don’t quit. Keep going. We say that salvation is by grace, but growing in Christ is about the will power, the commitment and the determination.

This can lead to despair or a terrible form of pride.

The solution Bob advocates (citing Terry Rayburn and Tim Kellar, in part) is to reject trying harder, and focus exclusively on faith. Several Reformed leaders have emphasized a similar perspective in recent years (with a burst of back and forth on the Web beginning in the summer of 2011, see the table posting tomorrow), Tullian Tchividjian and Sean Lucas among them.

My purpose here is to explore the problem Bob and others have described. Perhaps we can come to more fully understand it.

The “just preach the gospel to yourself” view of sanctification has a legitimate complaint when it describes the despair-pride yo-yo experience many believers go through. I’ve not only met Christians like this but have done my share of bouncing up down as well. Whatever might be lacking in the “just preach to yourself” or “gospel centered” model, it’s advocates are right that a state of alternating inner turmoil and arrogance cannot be what Christ and the apostles had in mind in the New Testament.

Where is the peace?

Jesus said He was leaving His peace with us and that our hearts should not be troubled (John 14:27). We know that this trouble-free state isn’t intended to be unvarying (1 Pet. 1:6-7, for example). But it is supposed to be a state of heart that dominates our experience and never completely subsides. Though Jesus promised His followers hardship and toil, He also promised us abundant life (John 10:10) and rest for our souls (Matt. 11:29).

Especially after His resurrection, Jesus’ favorite greeting was “Peace be with you!” (Luke 24:36, John 20:19, 21, 26). And it’s no coincidence that Paul’s favorite opening blessing focused on “grace and peace.”

John 16:33 brings the experiences of trouble and peace together.

I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world. (ESV)

In the midst of trouble, we are called to gather up the loose ends of our thinking and rest our hope on our future grace (1 Pet. 1:13). So if our efforts to live the Christian life in a God-honoring and God-pleasing way have us in a state of continual turmoil, we’re not doing it right. Something is out of kilter, in attitudes, actions or both.

Where is the joy?

Just as Jesus promised a life of peace, He promised one of joy. He said one of the specific aims of His teaching was to impart His joy to them and that this joy would be “full” (John 15:11, compare John 17:13).

The epistles are also full of calls to rejoice. “Rejoice in hope” (Rom. 12:12); “finally brothers, rejoice” (2Cor. 13:11); “you also should rejoice and be glad with me” (Php 2:18); “rejoice in the Lord” (Php. 3:1); “rejoice always” (1 Thess. 5:16). Peter sums it up beautifully.

Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls. (ESV, 1 Pet. 1:8-9)

If our approach to the pursuit of godliness is joyless, we’re actually trying to be godly by being ungodly. You don’t need a Master’s degree to know that can’t be right.

The real problem

The anxiety and pride yo-yo experience does not represent what the NT teaches about sanctification, but does it follow that we should reject “trying harder” in favor of exclusive focus on faith? To approach the question from another angle, is it possible to call believers to more sacrifice and greater devotion, and emphasize obedience, without producing anxiety-ridden, joyless or proud Christian living?

As my post last week shows, it must be possible because it’s what the NT actually does. The imperative is not sacrificed for the indicative or the indicative for the imperative. Calls to faith, peace, and joy abound along side of (and directly related to) calls to try harder.

So what’s really behind this worried, joyless, struggle-focused sanctification dynamic?

1. Selectivity

The Pharisees described in the Gospels were not sincere God-loving men who happened to be overly fond of rules. They were unbelieving God-rejectors in the service of their father the Devil (Matt. 23:14, John 8:44-47). Still, it is possible for believers to resemble Pharisees in some ways. One of the most common ways we do this is by creating a highly selective list of criteria for gauging Christian authenticity and maturity. It’s often a very superficial list we find personally easy.

But when we select a handful of superficial benchmarks to pursue with great zeal we end up neglecting some “weightier matter.” We replace the call to “walk in a manner worthy” (Eph. 4:1, Col. 1:10) with a call walk in outward conformity to our pet values. This version of “try harder” is usually a pretense for “You all need to try harder so you’ll be like me [and I’m not trying at all anymore.]”

“Trying harder” in this way robs believers of joy because it puts distance between us and the One who is the real source of our joy.

2. Impatience

Effort in the pursuit of holiness becomes anxious and joyless when we lose sight of the big picture. For reasons of His own, God’s way is to bring us slowly and sovereignly to Christlikeness. This is why Paul had to remind the Philippians that God would be “faithful to complete” the good work He had started (Php. 1:6).

If we’re boiling with anxiety about some lingering sinful habit, the question is “Am I being faithful in using what God has provided?” If the answer is yes, we’re not only permitted, but called to rest in His wisdom about what He changes in us when and in what sequence.

3. Forgetfulness

The “preach the gospel to yourself” advocates are right about one thing. We do need to constantly preach the gospel to ourselves. The error lies in giving this task exclusivity in the sanctification dynamic or in emphasizing this task in a way that belittles the value of working hard. We are to preach the gospel to ourselves and try harder. It’s the only way to avoid forgetting who we are, what has been done for us, why we are to not be conformed to this world, and where the transformative power comes from.

Interestingly, Peter links forgetfulness with failure to try harder (2 Peter 1:8-9). But he does not say the relationship can only work in one way. If we get too busy working, we can easily fall into Martha’s error and become so busy trying harder we forget Who it’s all about (Luke 10:41-42).

Conclusion

When we pursue the work of sanctification with a deep and abiding awareness that we do so because God is at work in us (Php. 2:12), trying harder becomes a joyful participation in what God is graciously doing. We see Him work in and through us and overflow with humble thanks for what we know we do not deserve—and we rejoice all the more in anticipation of what He will do in the future.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (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

I guess what I would add is that preaching the gospel to yourself is what we should do when trying hard fails. Too often, Christians aren’t taught to preach the gospel to themselves at all. They are left with rules and effort. That’s it. That is what people like Keller and others are getting at. Not that one shouldn’t try at all, but to not trust in your effort alone, and not to just assume the gospel but to appropriate it.

Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.

When I’m trying harder, am I more pleasing to God, more acceptable to God, more glorifying to God, or more usable to God?

When I’m trying harder, how is my daily life objectively better as far as God is concerned when in fact I’m still sinning in numerous conscious and unconscious ways even on my “best” days?

Regarding how 1 John 1:9 fits into this discussion: (1) If God forgave all my sin (past and future) when I was saved (or at Calvary) on the basis of Christ’s payment for that sin and my reliance on that payment, how is it that we speak of my needing His forgiveness for my subsequent sins? (2) Is the popular exposition of 1 John 1:9 (that it calls on Christians to confess their post-conversion sins as they go to obtain some form of post-conversion forgiveness) erroneous, because there John is speaking not to or about Christians (who by definition have confessed their sins/sinfulness) but to non-Christians who are denying that they are sinners in need of a savior (cf. 1 John 1:8)? (3) Apart from the popular exposition of 1 John 1:5-10, what is our basis for teaching that “[f] ellowship is disrupted” by post-salvation sin? Analogies to the human parent-child relationship are common, but are they misplaced given that my child doesn’t have a mediator with me who has already atoned for any and all infractions my child will commit, allowing me to view my child always as perfect on the basis of the mediator’s perfection?

In counseling with young believers, especially those coming out of jail, it seems important to emphasize that Christ died for their sins (there is a great price paid by Christ for their free salvation!), but it is also important for them to be determined to do differently then what they did before. However, the form of the “try harder” is also planning to do/be different than they were. As we emphasize our new life in Christ, we encourage them to live out their new life. In Ephesians 4:25-32 the new life takes different forms. The liar plans to be a truth-teller, the one who speaks corruptly plans to be a gracious speaker, etc.

There is a rejection of the old life, a renewal of the mind, and a replacement with the new (v.22-24). It is based on “how we learned Christ”. That’s a lot more than “try harder”. It’s giving God the opportunity to fill you with His new life. But the renewal of the mind is where we “work smarter”. If we do what we always did, we will get what we always got. So we have to plan and execute something different, depending on God to provide the strength to do so. We also depend on “the mind of Christ” to be able to know what to do in situations.

When I’m trying harder, am I more pleasing to God, more acceptable to God, more glorifying to God, or more usable to God?

When I’m trying harder, how is my daily life objectively better as far as God is concerned when in fact I’m still sinning in numerous conscious and unconscious ways even on my “best” days?

Ultimately, I’m not sure it matters. What I mean is, before I attempt to answer these questions, it might be good to pause and remember the simpler truths: We are commanded to try harder and are lead to believe that this is what our Lord wants from us. We are also commanded to “do all for the glory of God” even down to eating and drinking. An imperative like that necessarily implies that God’s glory is in some sense diminished by our disobedience. How exactly it’s diminished—I admit I find this difficult. He works all things according to the counsel of His will. So even the wrong in the world will take it’s place in an over all “story of all mankind” that glorifies Him. Be that as it may, Paul’s reasoning is simple: God’s glory is at stake in our obedience.

Now for the how is my life objectively better? I’m not sure I understand the question. It’s better in every way that it is better. It doesn’t make sense to reason that if it’s not perfect it can’t be better. But again, we’re second guessing the NT to even go there. Peter’s “add to your faith virtue” (2Pet.1:5ff) and “grow in grace,” as well as Paul’s “do so more and more” (1 Thess 4:1)—to mention a few random examples—demonstrate that when we obey and grow we are, in fact better.

(To put an even finer point on it, it’s clear that we are (a) not the same and (b) not worse. Therefore, better.)

About “more useful”

Yes, when we are obedient, we are “more useful.” This is Paul’s reasoning to Timothy, for example.

21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. (2Tim. 2:21)

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.

[Bob Hayton]

I guess what I would add is that preaching the gospel to yourself is what we should do when trying hard fails. Too often, Christians aren’t taught to preach the gospel to themselves at all. They are left with rules and effort. That’s it. That is what people like Keller and others are getting at. Not that one shouldn’t try at all, but to not trust in your effort alone, and not to just assume the gospel but to appropriate it.

Yes, I’m for gospel-saturation before and after trying hard fails… which, in the short run, it often will. To use James’ phrase, “we all stumble in many ways.”

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.

Vance Havner- “The Lord Jesus did not deliver lectures on faith to candidates for blessing; He told them something very definite to do: “Stretch forth thy hand!” “Go thy way!” “Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house!” He asked the very thing that seemed most impossible.”

Perhaps the objection to typical IFB performance based sanctification doesn’t lie in the ‘trying harder’ part, but in the motives and behaviors behind those who are using the pulpit to manipulate, dominate, and control.

The lesson I’ve learned, in the simplest terms, is that we DO what we LOVE. My affections have to change before my behavior does, but my affections won’t change until I obey some Biblical mandates, such as studying to be quiet, or repentance, or being grateful. All these efforts are enabled by the Holy Spirit. I don’t think we can effectively dissect this dynamic.

[Bob Hayton]

I guess what I would add is that preaching the gospel to yourself is what we should do when trying hard fails. Too often, Christians aren’t taught to preach the gospel to themselves at all. They are left with rules and effort. That’s it. That is what people like Keller and others are getting at. Not that one shouldn’t try at all, but to not trust in your effort alone, and not to just assume the gospel but to appropriate it.

and it needs to be said that many of the ways we “preach the gospel to ourselves” (or however one wants to say it) involves spiritual disciplines (ie., work!). It’s nothing like repeating Jn 3:16 to myself every time I sin. It’s hard, hard work of digging down into what we know and want to be true to actually becoming what we believe and do.

[dmyers]

When I’m trying harder, am I more pleasing to God, more acceptable to God, more glorifying to God, or more usable to God?

Let’s phrase it this way: As His child, God will always have goodwill toward you. There might be hard consequences or results from sin or rebellion, but it is all going through God’s goodwill towards His child. There might be enormous suffering for a christian with no rebellion, but it’s still God’s goodwill.

I am not sure if what Aaron said about God’s glory is quite accurate. Vitaliy was just reading something to me about this a few days back. That we cannot subtract or add to God’s glory. It’s all His glory; we can’t minus it. We can reflect it. (or not)

[dmyers]

When I’m trying harder, how is my daily life objectively better as far as God is concerned when in fact I’m still sinning in numerous conscious and unconscious ways even on my “best” days?

V is actually preaching about this on Sunday. He’s going to talk about the older son in the story of the prodigal son. He really needed to stop trying earn some blessing from his father and his sanctification, so to speak, is more to learn that he is already blessed. and learn to respect and value others who aren’t rightly following God. He was failing to understand how the father was accepting him. … Anyway, that’s one take on it.

[dmyers]

Regarding how 1 John 1:9 fits into this discussion: (1) If God forgave all my sin (past and future) when I was saved (or at Calvary) on the basis of Christ’s payment for that sin and my reliance on that payment, how is it that we speak of my needing His forgiveness for my subsequent sins? (2) Is the popular exposition of 1 John 1:9 (that it calls on Christians to confess their post-conversion sins as they go to obtain some form of post-conversion forgiveness) erroneous, because there John is speaking not to or about Christians (who by definition have confessed their sins/sinfulness) but to non-Christians who are denying that they are sinners in need of a savior (cf. 1 John 1:8)? (3) Apart from the popular exposition of 1 John 1:5-10, what is our basis for teaching that “[f] ellowship is disrupted” by post-salvation sin? Analogies to the human parent-child relationship are common, but are they misplaced given that my child doesn’t have a mediator with me who has already atoned for any and all infractions my child will commit, allowing me to view my child always as perfect on the basis of the mediator’s perfection?

My mom was reading this to me, too, a few months back—about Jn 1:9 being not for saved—that all our sins are already forgiven. I will ask the source, if she can remember.

About post-salvation sin and fellowship, well, i have some thoughts but no time. And the parent/child thing, too. and it’s limitations perhaps. maybe we are making God in our parental image? like the greeks and romans made their gods? I mean, the whole israel and God punishing them—He waited so long to punish them! the analogy doesn’t work for parents really. … gotta go.

When my own kids do things—especially things I know they know better than to do—the way I feel about it is always mixed. I don’t love them less, but I am quite displeased with them at the same time—and, in fact, even more displeased because I love them. (When other people’s kids do wrong… it’s not even close to the same, know what I mean?)

I remember seeing this in my own parents when I was growing up as well. Because they had taught me better, they expected better and disobedience was that much more out of place and disturbing (reminds of Paul’s phrase in Eph. 4 - you did not so learn Christ).

Susan, great pts about doing what we love. … and learning to love some things by doing them first.

I like the food analogy. Some of the foods I enjoy most now as an adult I hated as a kid. They are acquired tastes and come only with some patience.

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]

When my own kids do things—especially things I know they know better than to do—the way I feel about it is always mixed. I don’t love them less, but I am quite displeased with them at the same time—and, in fact, even more displeased because I love them. (When other people’s kids do wrong… it’s not even close to the same, know what I mean?)

I remember seeing this in my own parents when I was growing up as well. Because they had taught me better, they expected better and disobedience was that much more out of place and disturbing (reminds of Paul’s phrase in Eph. 4 - you did not so learn Christ).

Susan, great pts about doing what we love. … and learning to love some things by doing them first.

I like the food analogy. Some of the foods I enjoy most now as an adult I hated as a kid. They are acquired tastes and come only with some patience.

I reiterate the distinction between we human parents and children vs. God and us: our children’s sins against us have not been “paid” for; they have no mediator with us who has taken all their punishment, in advance, such that we actually view them at all times as covered with the mediator’s perfection. What is the effect of this significant difference in our relationship with our heavenly Father?

Further, even in the absence of a mediator, my children’s misbehaviors, regardless of how serious, do not disrupt their fellowship with me (at least, when I’m being the father I want to be). I am/want to be like the father of the Prodigal Son, who did not lessen his fellowship with his wayward son in any way. Are there any fathers out there who think the loving, biblical way to raise children is to cut off or reduce fellowship with them when they misbehave, unless and until the child apologizes? If so, I wholeheartedly disagree with them. I want my children to know that they are welcome in my presence (preferably under my arm, but I’ll settle for in the room) at all times, including (especially?) when they’ve messed up and whether or not they’re willing/able to admit it yet. So where is the *biblical* warrant for saying that post-conversion sins disrupt fellowship with God?

Dmyers,

The classic verse on this is, of course, Psalm 66:18 - “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” This verse is in the midst of others that indicate that David is indeed in right fellowship with God, so I would call it “post-conversion,” albeit in an OT sense. I guess you can write this verse off by saying it’s OT, or that it only indicates sins that are nurtured and cherished rather than ones we fall into, but it still seems to indicate that sin can, in some way, lessen our fellowship with God.

And isn’t this true with your children as well? Even if you still love them unconditionally, and they know that, isn’t there a sense of broken fellowship when they know they have done wrong? Isn’t that also true when you know you have done wrong against them? None of that changes you accepting and them unconditionally as your children, or they you as their father, but the relationship is not the same when things are not right.

Dave Barnhart

I reiterate the distinction between we human parents and children vs. God and us: our children’s sins against us have not been “paid” for; they have no mediator with us who has taken all their punishment, in advance, such that we actually view them at all times as covered with the mediator’s perfection. What is the effect of this significant difference in our relationship with our heavenly Father?

There are differences certainly. Parents are sinners raising children who are sinners, etc. But there are also similarities and that’s really the point. Important similarities include: in both cases there is an authority that is to be obeyed, and that authority desires to see the child grow and change. And instruction, discipline and protection and provision all parts of that goal of transformation.

Further, even in the absence of a mediator, my children’s misbehaviors, regardless of how serious, do not disrupt their fellowship with me (at least, when I’m being the father I want to be). I am/want to be like the father of the Prodigal Son, who did not lessen his fellowship with his wayward son in any way. Are there any fathers out there who think the loving, biblical way to raise children is to cut off or reduce fellowship with them

I think you’re confusing a couple of different things here. “Disrupted fellowship” does not require that either of the people involved decide to lessen or reduce anything. Rather, it’s a natural consequence of causing pain to someone you love. When you let somebody down, you feel guilt about that. In addition they are harmed or disappointed or offended in some way. And there is a disharmony in the relationship. This is what is usually meant by “disrupted fellowship.” They need to clear the air between them. This is what 1 John 1:9 is all about.

So in this sense, fellowship is indeed disrupted between parents and children when children do wrong. Nobody decides to disrupt it. It’s just what happens as a result of wrongdoing.

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.

[dcbii] Dmyers, The classic verse on this is, of course, Psalm 66:18 - “If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear me.” This verse is in the midst of others that indicate that David is indeed in right fellowship with God, so I would call it “post-conversion,” albeit in an OT sense. I guess you can write this verse off by saying it’s OT, or that it only indicates sins that are nurtured and cherished rather than ones we fall into, but it still seems to indicate that sin can, in some way, lessen our fellowship with God. And isn’t this true with your children as well? Even if you still love them unconditionally, and they know that, isn’t there a sense of broken fellowship when they know they have done wrong? Isn’t that also true when you know you have done wrong against them? None of that changes you accepting and them unconditionally as your children, or they you as their father, but the relationship is not the same when things are not right.

You raise an interesting point with Ps. 66:18. But even in its specific context (not just that it’s in the OT), it seems clear that David is speaking of a different relationship with God than we have through Christ. Verses 13-15: “I will go into Your house with burnt offerings; I will pay You my vows, which my lips have uttered and my mouth has spoken when I was in trouble. I will offer You burnt sacrifices of fat animals, with the sweet aroma of rams; I will offer bulls with goats.” Conceptually, how or why would God not “hear” a Christian who is “regard[ing] iniquity in his heart” when, by definition, the Christian by virtue of his conversion and Christ’s sacrifice has *already* been forgiven of the iniquity *before* he ever regards it in his heart?

As to the parallel with our children, no one has attempted to account for the glaring difference between our human relationships and our relationship with God the Father: we have a mediator/substitute; our children don’t. So I don’t think it’s sufficient to bootstrap whatever “broken fellowship” we sometimes have with our children (which I think is often overstated and, even where it does happen, is most often the result of our own fallenness) into an equivalent effect on our fellowship with God.

[Aaron Blumer]

I reiterate the distinction between we human parents and children vs. God and us: our children’s sins against us have not been “paid” for; they have no mediator with us who has taken all their punishment, in advance, such that we actually view them at all times as covered with the mediator’s perfection. What is the effect of this significant difference in our relationship with our heavenly Father?

There are differences certainly. Parents are sinners raising children who are sinners, etc. But there are also similarities and that’s really the point. Important similarities include: in both cases there is an authority that is to be obeyed, and that authority desires to see the child grow and change. And instruction, discipline and protection and provision all parts of that goal of transformation.

Further, even in the absence of a mediator, my children’s misbehaviors, regardless of how serious, do not disrupt their fellowship with me (at least, when I’m being the father I want to be). I am/want to be like the father of the Prodigal Son, who did not lessen his fellowship with his wayward son in any way. Are there any fathers out there who think the loving, biblical way to raise children is to cut off or reduce fellowship with them

I think you’re confusing a couple of different things here. “Disrupted fellowship” does not require that either of the people involved decide to lessen or reduce anything. Rather, it’s a natural consequence of causing pain to someone you love. When you let somebody down, you feel guilt about that. In addition they are harmed or disappointed or offended in some way. And there is a disharmony in the relationship. This is what is usually meant by “disrupted fellowship.” They need to clear the air between them. This is what 1 John 1:9 is all about.

So in this sense, fellowship is indeed disrupted between parents and children when children do wrong. Nobody decides to disrupt it. It’s just what happens as a result of wrongdoing.

But even this explanation of “disrupted fellowship” takes no account of the key differences between our relationship with God and our children’s relationship with us: we have a mediator/substitute and they do not, so that we are forgiven in advance. Having already provided a sacrifice/payment for our sin, together with God’s omniscience, He is never harmed or disappointed or offended by our post-conversion sin. He already knew it was going to happen and He already forgave it. So why (and how) is the fellowship disrupted?

Also, you’ve defaulted back to I John 1:9 without responding to my questions upthread about whether that verse even applies to Christians. To be converted in the first place, a Christian has already confessed his sins and his sinfulness, and God has already forgiven his sins and cleansed him from all unrighteousness. Isn’t I John 1:9 addressed to non-Christians who deny that they have sinned and/or that they are sinners?

Having already provided a sacrifice/payment for our sin, together with God’s omniscience, He is never harmed or disappointed or offended by our post-conversion sin. He already knew it was going to happen and He already forgave it. So why (and how) is the fellowship disrupted?

This is an inference and makes some sense but where does the Bible teach it? There’s a difference between these two things:

  • Unalterable standing before God
  • Complete unresponsiveness of God to to what we actually think and do

The latter is not taught anywhere in the Bible, not even in the NT. Rather, several passages indicate that He is pleased or displeased in varying degrees in response to what we actually do. Fellowship is indeed disrupted, not only on our part as we feel bad for disappointing Him but also on His part—He is genuinely displeased. (His displeasure is satisfied by the cross. All penalties paid, but the cross does not render God ambivalent about sin in His children)

I’ll come back to that, but first… why 1 John 1:9 is written to believers

  1. The epistle itself is written to believers. There would need to be strong contextual evidence for seeing any part of it as directed at the unbelieving.
  2. The close context indicates that “we” is believers. For example, the group John says he is writing to is described in 1:4 “and we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.” Right after the famous 1:9-10 passage, he addresses “my little children” in 2:1. There is no indication here that he has changed audiences anywhre in the chapater.
  3. The language of “confessing sins” is not used anywhere in the NT as conversion language. Rather, the emphasis is on turning and believing. On the other hand, we do see language of confession used elsewhere of believers (James 5:16).

There are probably several other reasons, but I’m trying to be brief.

As for God feeling nothing in response to the sin of believers, if that is the case, the following passages simply make no sense:

Col. 1:-10 2 Cor. 5:9 1 Thess. 4:1

In addition, it’s pretty hard to make sense of Heb. 12:7, 10 and 1 Cor. 10:5-6.

But there are also major logical problems with this “I’m justified so God is never unhappy with me” idea. It runs counter to the entire purpose of the gospel, which is not merely to justify people, but to change them.

Secondly, it’s impossible to read the many imperatives of the NT calling us to walk in a worthy way, pursue holiness, run with endurance, etc, etc, and believe that we are supposed to feel nothing at all when we fail. A sense of highest duty is being appealed to in these passages. How shall we who died to sin still live in it? (Rom. 6:2). “My brethren, these things ought not to be so” (James 3:10). Paul refers multiple times to “shame” in 1 Cor. (1Cor. 6:5, 15:34).

The sense of “oughtness” cannot reasonably exist with a belief that what we do simply doesn’t matter. And if it matters it is impossible that God should not care about it. I.e., if He is not pleased or displeased, then it doesn’t matter, plain and simple.

But this view of Christian living cannot be sustained through a reading of the NT.

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.