The hub of Christianity is not “do something for Jesus.” The hub of Christianity is “Jesus has done everything for you.”

Probably the reason this particular topic keeps going in circles (not just here but lots of other places the last couple of years) is that the various perspectives are having difficulty arriving at clarity about what they’re saying (some are having more difficulty with that than others). So we don’t seem to be getting at the real points of disagreement.

As for “law,” and Anne’s TT quotes on that above— the argument of Rom 7 & 8 is that the indwelling Spirit brings believers into conformity with law (not law of Moses per se, but “God’s standard of righteousness”). But the question of what causes believers to be more or less “lawful” is really not the issue. The question is whether (a) exerting effort in the pursuit of obedience is our responsibility and (b) whether that responsibility is generally overemphasized.

On a., Scripture is quite clear. On b., … I have met many Christians who were not striving after holiness with the right attitude and understanding. I’ve been one of them at times. But as far as I can tell, I’ve never met a Christian who was trying too hard or attaching too much importance to this calling.

I was more interested in you noting this:

I can tell people all day long about what they need to be doing and the ways they’re falling short (and that’s important to keep them seeing their need for Jesus). But simply telling people what they need to do doesn’t have the power to make them want to do it. I can appeal to a thousand different biblical reasons why someone should start doing what God wants and stop doing what he doesn’t want—heaven, hell, consequences, blessing, and so on. And I do. But simply telling people they need to change can’t change them; giving people reasons to do the right and avoid the wrong, doesn’t do it. Both are necessary, but neither can actually change the person.

And:

Paul makes it clear in Romans 7 that the law endorses the need for change but is powerless to enact change—that’s not part of its job description. It points to righteousness but can’t produce it. It shows us what godliness is, but it cannot make us godly. The law can inform us of our sin but it cannot transform the sinner. The law can instruct, but only grace can inspire. Or to put it another way, love inspires what the law demands.

and:

we love God because he first loved us. God’s command to love him is all the reason we need to love him, but it’s not what causes actual love for him. What causes actual love for God is God’s love for us. His love for us is what motivates love from us.

I thought that might be a little though-provoking, as I have never thought of putting things in those terms.

Wayne W: My own test answer–and I wanted to say, I had no answer prepared, but thought it’d be an interesting exercise to see how each of us brings our views of the sanctifying process to bear upon a practical question. So here goes what I thought of as an approach I might take:

Let’s say you have a teen and let’s say he wants to be s^xually pure, and he asks you for advice.

So, what counsel would you give him?

1. Start with prayer. Dear God, thank you that Jesus was absolutely perfect in the question of sxual purity. Thank you that he obeyed Your will to the fullest extent possible in this question. Thank you, that he loved both men and women with your love. He loved his women-neighbors as himself. And this is the Savior that I follow. Show me how he did this, and teach me how you want His righteousness to show forth in my life. …. Amen.

2. Start with looking at Jesus himself interacting with women:

• The woman at the well
• The widow putting all her money into the offering
• Forgiving the woman caught in adultery
• The woman who anointed his feet with oil
• When he was with Mary and Martha and Martha was upset with Mary
• (so many others, but this is a few to start)

As you read these accounts, answer the questions that apply:

1. What did Jesus value most about this woman in this instance? (as seen by His words, what He noticed, etc. )
2. What requests did he ask of her?
3. What instructions did He give to her?
4. How do you see Jesus speaking and acting the will of God the Father toward this woman?
5. What are ways that others in these accounts shamed or dis-valued women in contrast to Jesus’ valuing her and her actions?
6. What are ways that men today treat women that show how they sinfully dis-value her?
7. From Jesus’ example, what are the attitudes and thoughts that ought to be foremost in your mind towards women?
8. List some good phrases from these accounts that struck you, that you can carry with you and ponder, that can help fill your mind when you’re not sure what to be thinking about toward a woman.

3. I Tim. 5:2 instructs a young man to talk to the elder women as mothers the younger women as sisters, with all purity.

This isn’t saying to treat younger women as your blood sisters in every way—being mean to them as you are to your sisters, playing with and talking to them as you do your blood sisters. It’s geared toward treating young ladies in the faith family with sxual purity, as a blood brother would his sister.

What are stories in the O.T. where brothers defended their sister’s sxual purity?

(Dinah, Tamar.)

We see here that these brothers defended and honored their sister’s sxuality, though they did it in unrighteous ways.

What are ways that guys dishonor your faith sisters’ sxuality?

List at least 10 righteous ways you can defend (even from yourself) and honor your faith sisters’ sxuality?

4. Planned Avoidance and Fleeing. From Joseph’s life and Paul’s words to Timothy to flee immorality, we see that there are times when you should plan avoidance of tempting situations and run away from temptation.

List 7 ways you can plan avoidance and/or flee from temptation. And let’s talk about implementing this.

The end.

??

Anne,

I like your teaching questions very much. I think it’s all valuable and would help any Christ-centered young person. You beautifully expand what was an early point in my test answer:

“He should be told it is a common temptation, but Christ has made a path to victory over this sin (1 Cor. 10:13). He should be told that love is the primary reason for purity (Gal 5:13), and loving God and others is what enabled Jesus to rise above such temptations. He should be told that Jesus asks us deny ourselves…”

My only point is that the Bible says a lot more about the subject…all useful.

There is nothing wrong with Paul using “commandments” that are “God’s will” as motives for sexual purity (1 Thess 4:3), or God’s “purpose” for us as a motive (1 Thess 5:7) or fear as a motive (1 Thess 4:8). It’s all good. Surely it is “biblical.’

I think TT ignores obvious passages like this when he sets forth his law/grace dichotomy. I think the Westminster Confession has the law just about right in what it does for the regenerated person.

Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned;

yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;

discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.

It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law.

The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.

I think that is a much more helpful view.

[Wayne Wilson]

Anne,

I like your teaching questions very much. I think it’s all valuable and would help any Christ-centered young person. You beautifully expand what was an early point in my test answer:

and loving God and others is what enabled Jesus to rise above such temptations. He should be told that Jesus asks us deny ourselves…”

contra by past statement of “last post”, I have ‘wait time’ and wanted to further comment on some concepts.

To Anne and Wayne: Do you folks really believe that Jesus was able to sin and loving others and God facilitated His not sinning? I would invite you to review what sound theologians have said about this topic. Jesus’ temptation and resistance assists us, yes, but He was never going to sin. Christ had many temptations during His earthly life but His victory over them was never in doubt.

Jesus never asks us to deny ourselves, He commands it, end of story. The Christian life is supernatural, it is God who makes us holy and it requires us to quit trying to accomplish ‘standing’ by carnal means.

I’m sure TT appreciates the WC in completely agreeing with it. He just used his own words to defend sola gratia.

As far as efforts go, yes, the Christian life is filled with effort but in the sense of developing our gifts and service. This is different and a distinction to self-effort in conquering sin such as extra-biblical rules and trying to ‘appear good’ in unbeliever’s eyes. These things are carnal (fleshly self-effort). Again, rely on God’s power and knowledge of the word: “sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth.”

[alex o.]

[Wayne Wilson]

Anne,

I like your teaching questions very much. I think it’s all valuable and would help any Christ-centered young person. You beautifully expand what was an early point in my test answer:

and loving God and others is what enabled Jesus to rise above such temptations. He should be told that Jesus asks us deny ourselves…”

contra by past statement of “last post”, I have ‘wait time’ and wanted to further comment on some concepts.

To Anne and Wayne: Do you folks really believe that Jesus was able to sin and loving others and God facilitated His not sinning? I would invite you to review what sound theologians have said about this topic. Jesus’ temptation and resistance assists us, yes, but He was never going to sin. Christ had many temptations during His earthly life but His victory over them was never in doubt.

Jesus never asks us to deny ourselves, He commands it, end of story. The Christian life is supernatural, it is God who makes us holy and it requires us to quit trying to accomplish ‘standing’ by carnal means.

I’m sure TT appreciates the WC in completely agreeing with it. He just used his own words to defend sola gratia.

As far as efforts go, yes, the Christian life is filled with effort but in the sense of developing our gifts and service. This is different and a distinction to self-effort in conquering sin such as extra-biblical rules and trying to ‘appear good’ in unbeliever’s eyes. These things are carnal (fleshly self-effort). Again, rely on God’s power and knowledge of the word: “sanctify them in the truth, your word is truth.”

Alex, I’m not sure we want to separate Jesus’ victory over temptation from the character and means he used to achieve this victory. Are you saying if he lounged about and never prayed or studied Scripture, he would be the sinless Savior we know?

I don’t think TT understands the WC (love these initials!). I think he confuses law and grace as relates to salvation, with the relationship between law and grace as relates to sanctification. I genuinely don’t think he gets it. Can you find a place where he affirms the WC understanding of the law in sanctification?

[Wayne Wilson]

Alex, I’m not sure we want to separate Jesus’ victory over temptation from the character and means he used to achieve this victory. Are you saying if he lounged about and never prayed or studied Scripture, he would be the sinless Savior we know?

I don’t think TT understands the WC (love these initials!). I think he confuses law and grace as relates to salvation, with the relationship between law and grace as relates to sanctification. I genuinely don’t think he gets it. Can you find a place where he affirms the WC understanding of the law in sanctification?

Wayne,

I am sure to disconnect Jesus from any means attributed to what we face, absolutely. Jesus’ death for humanity was predetermined and His victory assured. I would invite you to study more good, and especially Reformed Theology (they have done some very good studies theologically).

Remember, “in the scroll it is written about Me” Do you not believe Gen. 3.15d? the Protoevangelium provides (God said, determined) that a virgin-born promised One would crush (the one behind) the serpent, yet He would receive a deadly wound (serpent’s bite) and then crush the serpent’s head (which, to me, speaks of the resurrection). All this is determined, God said it in judgment on the one behind the serpent. This promised seed of course needed to be a man also, hence the God-man Jesus. God chose Abraham and designed that the savior would come from his line. This was the “seed of Abraham” (see Galatians for the concept). Later the line was narrowed to David’s seed and Luke tells us it was David’s son Nathan to Mary from whom Jesus was born. There is no question that Luke was connecting Jesus to Adam physically, that was the whole point of Luke’s genealogy otherwise there would be no substitutionary atonement. All this was predetermined by God just as Jesus will reign on earth is already assured.

I confess I am really puzzled by your understanding of The Christ and His work and how it relates to us. Seriously, who and what are you reading?

I have no idea why you’re telling me about Gen 3:15. Of course He had to come and save us. I never said His victory wasn’t assured. The point is He came and lived a human life. He wasn’t floating through the world. He learned obedience. He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man. He was tempted and approved. He prayed earnestly, with loud cries and tears. He was a man! He lived as a man. He was obedient as a man.

I have read Calvin, Grudem, Strong, Berkhof, Culver, Boice, etc. They all agree Jesus was a true human being. Maybe Bruce Ware’s book The Man Christ Jesus would help you understand the humanity of Christ.

[alex o.]

To Anne and Wayne: Do you folks really believe that Jesus was able to sin and loving others and God facilitated His not sinning?

Wayne, the Bapt Conf of Faith has a similar statement about the law as the West Conf.

Here are my theories about TT:

1. He doesn’t understand the purpose of the law so he doesn’t explain it.

2. He understands it but doesn’t understand how to explain it– we were like this for a while

3. He understands it very well, but likes the shock-effect of his message the way it is. And I will say, that the part of his message he talks about is right and is lacking in many Christians’ understanding of salvation and sanctification.

4. He understands it very well, but just doesn’t talk about it because he wants people to “get” the first half of his message.

But, you really have to be able to explain this part too in order for people to understand the whole of it. But it is hard to explain.

[Wayne Wilson]

I have no idea why you’re telling me about Gen 3:15. Of course He had to come and save us. I never said His victory wasn’t assured. The point is He came and lived a human life. He wasn’t floating through the world. He learned obedience. He grew in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man. He was tempted and approved. He prayed earnestly, with loud cries and tears. He was a man! He lived as a man. He was obedient as a man.

I have read Calvin, Grudem, Strong, Berkhof, Culver, Boice, etc. They all agree Jesus was a true human being. Maybe Bruce Ware’s book The Man Christ Jesus would help you understand the humanity of Christ.

Wayne,

Why I traced the redemptive promise from Gen. 3.15 was to show fulfillment.

Christ’s mission was to “fulfill all righteousness” not to teach us on how to overcome sin, which you sounded like you were saying. It is Holy Spirit who applies Christ’s victory in the things you mentioned (obedience, overcoming sin). It is really not “What Would Jesus Do” that we should seeking. Looking instead by faith at the victorious, heavenly Jesus who sent The Other Counselor to help us live the supernatural life. The Bible calls for faith, not carnal efforts.

Of course Jesus was fully human, I never said otherwise.

According to Rom. 5 Christ’s humanity as the last Adam was the act that provides us the ability to live righteously as applied by the Holy Spirit (grace). Of course the mentioned penal substitution is contained in Rom.5, but the practical grace aspect is there as well per our topic. If some things I am saying sound strange to your ears at first, you need to consider them according to scripture to see if I am right. This does not come overnight usually but by seeking to find out the truth contained in the Bible. Please review Romans 5.

Where are you reading me that I am saying to lounge around or float through life? I did not say these things, please don’t misrepresent me. We are in the world but not of it. This shows integration and measured infiltration. Yes, Jesus was separate from sinners, but seeing His example (and Paul’s) informs us that it was only along certain lines when His opponents became intransigent. Implicit truth from the Bible informs the explication, and not the other way around.

Regardless, I am done with this discussion and hope that you will find out how to live the new life in Christ by the power of The Holy Spirit.

[alex o.]

Wayne,

Why I traced the redemptive promise from Gen. 3.15 was to show fulfillment.

Christ’s mission was to “fulfill all righteousness” not to teach us on how to overcome sin, which you sounded like you were saying. It is Holy Spirit who applies Christ’s victory in the things you mentioned (obedience, overcoming sin). It is really not “What Would Jesus Do” that we should seeking. Looking instead by faith at the victorious, heavenly Jesus who sent The Other Counselor to help us live the supernatural life. The Bible calls for faith, not carnal efforts.

Of course Jesus was fully human, I never said otherwise.

According to Rom. 5 Christ’s humanity as the last Adam was the act that provides us the ability to live righteously as applied by the Holy Spirit (grace). Of course the mentioned penal substitution is contained in Rom.5, but the practical grace aspect is there as well per our topic. If some things I am saying sound strange to your ears at first, you need to consider them according to scripture to see if I am right. This does not come overnight usually but by seeking to find out the truth contained in the Bible. Please review Romans 5.

Where are you reading me that I am saying to lounge around or float through life? I did not say these things, please don’t misrepresent me. We are in the world but not of it. This shows integration and measured infiltration. Yes, Jesus was separate from sinners, but seeing His example (and Paul’s) informs us that it was only along certain lines when His opponents became intransigent. Implicit truth from the Bible informs the explication, and not the other way around.

Regardless, I am done with this discussion and hope that you will find out how to live the new life in Christ by the power of The Holy Spirit.

Alex,

I never implied that you said to lounge around or float through life. It does sound like you think Jesus could have and still been our holy and righteous Savior. You seemed to clearly diminish the need for Jesus to learn obedience and exercise trust in the Father in your post (#47). You directly denied that love played a role in His obedience to God or His sinless life. That sounds like a completely passive holiness, something the Scripture rejects at every turn. It is common among those who have an incomplete view of His humanity.

I am glad you have discovered the secret to living a holy life by simply developing your gifts and living in grace (per Rom 5). The Savior, and the Scriptures, on the other hand, call for a variety of means in achieving victory over the flesh. I believe you are taking this sharp dichotomy between law and grace that exists for justification and confusing it with the means of sanctification. You make this clear when you say:

Christ’s mission was to “fulfill all righteousness” not to teach us on how to overcome sin.

It is hard to imagine someone reading the Gospels and coming to that conclusion. Because He did come to “fulfill all righteousness” are you assuming He came to do nothing else? When the Savior says to pluck out one’s eye, or cut off one’s hand, is He not making some contribution to the matter of overcoming sin? I’m sure you wouldn’t tell Him that is trying to appear good in other believer’s eyes, or is it an extra-biblical rule. He commands us to deny ourselves, to beware, to be on guard, He commands all sorts of difficult things like give to everyone who asks you, and love your enemies, and be completely honest. He chastised the disciples for weak faith and selfish thinking. He told them to “rise and pray” in order to avoid temptation. Is that advice “self-effort” or “carnal”? I think you know it isn’t. What’s wrong with taking His advice seriously?

that explaining man’s effort in sanctification is very tricky. It probably requires verbal communication for an extended time.

And as Vitaliy says, it seems to us that we expend effort, but we reach a point in our growth when we realize that, no matter how you slice it, it’s all God.

[Anne Sokol]

that explaining man’s effort in sanctification is very tricky. It probably requires verbal communication for an extended time.

And as Vitaliy says, it seems to us that we expend effort, but we reach a point in our growth when we realize that, no matter how you slice it, it’s all God.

I think one should say every aspect of growth is dependent on God. As soon as you say “It’s all God” you are back to the beginning of the discussion! You can say “It’s all God” in the sense that the new birth which enables our enlivened wills to cooperate with God is all of God, and the justification which anchors our sanctification is all of God. But growth involves choices we make and are free to make and are responsible for..

[Wayne Wilson]

I think one should say every aspect of growth is dependent on God. As soon as you say “It’s all God” you are back to the beginning of the discussion! You can say “It’s all God” in the sense that the new birth which enables our enlivened wills to cooperate with God is all of God, and the justification which anchors our sanctification is all of God. But growth involves choices we make and are free to make and are responsible for..

This must be right, because how else would we be able to take at least some of the credit for our sanctification? How else would we be able to pat ourselves on the back for the good choices we make and the occasions when our enlivened wills choose to cooperate with God? How else would we be able to compare ourselves to others and our progress to theirs? How else would we be able to evaluate or discern (not judge!) that “very few” Christians today are willing to stand up against worldliness, etc?

[Clarification: The preceding paragraph was satirical/sarcastic/ironic. The following paragraph is serious.]

Substitute salvation for sanctification as the topic of Wayne’s last sentence. Isn’t salvation/conversion accurately described as a choice we make and are free to make and are responsible for? But at the same time isn’t it “all God” in a way that you’re denying sanctification is? From the outside, it looks like I chose to respond to God’s offer of salvation. And in fact I would be eternally responsible if I had not chosen to respond. But scripture makes it clear that my “choice” was actually God’s choice. The same is true of sanctification. From the outside, it looks like I’m choosing to cooperate with God, that my choices are promoting my “growth.” And in fact I am responsible for the choices I make. But I believe scripture makes it clear that my sanctification choices are actually God’s. See Gal. 3:3 (“After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?”).

Substitute salvation for sanctification as the topic of Wayne’s last sentence. Isn’t salvation/conversion accurately described as a choice we make and are free to make and are responsible for? But at the same time isn’t it “all God” in a way that you’re denying sanctification is? From the outside, it looks like I chose to respond to God’s offer of salvation. And in fact I would be eternally responsible if I had not chosen to respond. But scripture makes it clear that my “choice” was actually God’s choice. The same is true of sanctification. From the outside, it looks like I’m choosing to cooperate with God, that my choices are promoting my “growth.” And in fact I am responsible for the choices I make. But I believe scripture makes it clear that my sanctification choices are actually God’s. See Gal. 3:3 (“After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?”).

yes.

[dmyers]

[Wayne Wilson]

I think one should say every aspect of growth is dependent on God. As soon as you say “It’s all God” you are back to the beginning of the discussion! You can say “It’s all God” in the sense that the new birth which enables our enlivened wills to cooperate with God is all of God, and the justification which anchors our sanctification is all of God. But growth involves choices we make and are free to make and are responsible for..

This must be right, because how else would we be able to take at least some of the credit for our sanctification? How else would we be able to pat ourselves on the back for the good choices we make and the occasions when our enlivened wills choose to cooperate with God? How else would we be able to compare ourselves to others and our progress to theirs? How else would we be able to evaluate or discern (not judge!) that “very few” Christians today are willing to stand up against worldliness, etc?

[Clarification: The preceding paragraph was satirical/sarcastic/ironic. The following paragraph is serious.]

Substitute salvation for sanctification as the topic of Wayne’s last sentence. Isn’t salvation/conversion accurately described as a choice we make and are free to make and are responsible for? But at the same time isn’t it “all God” in a way that you’re denying sanctification is? From the outside, it looks like I chose to respond to God’s offer of salvation. And in fact I would be eternally responsible if I had not chosen to respond. But scripture makes it clear that my “choice” was actually God’s choice. The same is true of sanctification. From the outside, it looks like I’m choosing to cooperate with God, that my choices are promoting my “growth.” And in fact I am responsible for the choices I make. But I believe scripture makes it clear that my sanctification choices are actually God’s. See Gal. 3:3 (“After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?”).

Dmyers,

I will ignore the sarcasm because it is unworthy of a believer and unworthy of this discussion. If you don’t know that humility and love and being a servant are the fruit of grace in a regenerated spirit, what can I say? I will attribute those comments to your flesh.

Of course no one can pat themselves on the back for their good choices, because it is not up to us to judge what is worthy or unworthy in the eyes of our Lord (1 Cor. 4:1-5). You really should read 1 Cor. 4 because it says in v. 5 that “and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.” – each man’s praise, brother. If you deny there is something praiseworthy, what else can be said? Many Christians desire and are motivated by the hope they will one day here: ‘Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.’ It is hard for me to pretend the Lord did not say this.

That is what the Bible says. What Scripture do you offer? Gal. 3:3. So you believe the Galatian heresy was the regenerated will cooperating with the Spirit of God in sanctification? You believe that applying oneself to the means of grace is an act of the flesh? Do you believe that, Anne, since you said “yes”? Can you name one scholar that supports this interpretation of gal 3:3?

Your effort to deliberately confuse justification and sanctification by a weak understanding of conversion does not help your case. The truth is your choice in salvation was not just God’s choice. It was your choice. Your choice followed God’s choice, but it was yours. Regeneration assured that you would make that choice, but it was your choice. And it was a choice that was going to happen according to divine election. That is the correct understanding of a Reformed soteriology. However, let’s take your analogy and see if your doctrine of irresistible sanctification holds up when applied to sanctification.

So, for you, man contributes nothing to sanctification, it just looks like he does. I take it you believe justification and conversion are certainties…they are going to happen through effectual calling, the drawing of the Spirit, and regeneration. Correct? And you believe sanctification occurs in the same way. It must happen. Every good deed is a work of God monergistically, and the believer will irresistibly do good at the Spirit’s prompting. He is not free to say no.

So, when Paul says: “On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness; for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance. For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.” (1 Tim 4:7-11) – you would say that this disciplining, laboring and striving is as certain to happen as saving faith in conversion. Timothy must do it, and it is “all of God” if he does. Correct? Timothy cannot shrink back, or become an unproductive Christians, or fail in leadership because his sanctification is as certain as his justification. Is that what you are saying? Isn’t that the logical outcome of monergistic sanctification?