Sanctification and Giving Up
Image
All believers experience spiritual frustration. We desire to live lives that are obedient to our Lord and that grow in likeness to His life of humble service (Mark 10:45). But anyone who is a believer for very long discovers that failure is common. Those who take 1 Peter 1:15 seriously (“be holy for I am holy”; see also 2 Cor. 7:1) and who do not think of themselves more highly than they ought to think (Rom. 12:3), know that they are far from what they ought to be. Transformation into His image (Rom. 8:29, Col. 3:10) never seems to happen quite fast enough.
Sadly, some are so often and so painfully disappointed with themselves and others that they give up on the idea of changing much at all, and many of these take up a theology that supports that response. A recent example appeared in a post by Christianity Today editor Mark Galli.
I doubt the ability of Christians to make much progress in holiness. I look at churches that are committed to transformation and holiness, and I fail to see that they are much more holy or transformed than other churches…. I look at my own life, and marvel at the lack of real transformation after 50 years of effort.
Galli has written along similar lines previously (“If at First You Don’t Succeed, Stop Trying So Hard”) but is by no means alone in de-emphasizing the role of personal effort and obedience in living the Christian life.
A hypothesis
As I’ve read and interacted with several who lean toward Galli’s attitude (and the usually more nuanced views voiced by Tullian Tchividjian), my efforts to understand this perspective have often ended in a fog I can’t seem to penetrate. The case against “outward obedience,” or “trying harder,” or “law,” etc., reaches a point where the chain of reasoning from premises to conclusions becomes untraceable, and even the conclusions grow increasingly vague rather than increasingly clear.
Add to that the fact that writings advocating less focus on personal obedience often speak in reactive terms. Sometimes subtly but often directly, they refer to bad experiences in homes, churches, schools, or other ministries. Allusions to “legalism,” “performance-oriented” and “performance based” views of relationship with God are common, as are references to personal frustration—even despair—during some period of Christian experience under the influence of such views.
These factors have led me to a hypothesis. Much of the current controversy regarding our role vs. God’s in sanctification is not primarily doctrinal. That is, it is primarily experiential and, as a consequence, doctrinal. It is a response to frustration and disappointment, and often—as in Galli’s case, it amounts to basically giving up on continued, real transformation.
My aim here is to consider briefly some reasons we ought not to give up in response to the inevitable frustration and disappointment involved in running the long race (Heb. 12:1) of the Christian life.
Why we should not give up
1. Frustration is normal
Scripture depicts frustration in the faithful life as a normal occurrence. If your interpretation of Romans 7:15-25 doesn’t allow you to see a believer’s frustration there, Paul’s writings elsewhere necessarily imply it. He continued to see himself as “chief of sinners” years after Romans 7 was written (1 Tim. 1:15). The examples of Peter (Matt. 26:75), the Twelve in general (e.g., Matt. 16:8-9), and John Mark (Acts 15:37-18, 2Tim. 4:11) help us see the point as well. And many of the faith-heroes of Hebrews 11 experienced soul vexing failures: Abraham, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Samson, David. Enoch’s experience of walking with God right into glory stands out in the chapter because it is truly exceptional.
Perhaps Jesus Himself offers the weightiest evidence—in Matt. 7:14, for example. If “the way is hard,” we should expect stumbling and frustration to part of the journey.
To be sure, overly rosy depictions of “victorious Christian living” by some groups have added to the confusion. The Bible knows nothing of an all-victory-all-the-time experience for believers. That fact should move us to continue to press on toward the mark, even when real progress feels hopeless.
2. You are probably doing better than you think.
Galli’s post crystallized a growing impression of mine: some believers are discouraged in the struggle, and inclined to give up, because they are overlooking much of the transformation that has truly occurred in their lives. For some, this takes the form of obsessing continually over one area of persistent weakness and failure. As long as victory does not occur consistently (or maybe ever) over this one particular sin, they feel that nothing else matters much. In their minds, they are simply not growing as a Christian should.
But this is foolish. We all know that God does not deal with each believer’s sins at the same rate or in the same sequence. He doesn’t free all believers of sinful anger first, then improper sexual habits second, then lack of generosity third, and so on. So at least one conclusion is unavoidable: the sin we most want to see gone today may well not be the one God is most interested in ridding us of today. Persistent failure in area A is not the same as overall lack of growth. Obsessing over that one problem area may well be a case of not seeing the forest for the manure on the trail.
Galli’s thoughts do not reflect that kind of monomania, but they do reveal a similar mistake:
[T]here is a larger part of me that really is patient and understanding. But the more I get to know myself, the more I see layers and layers of mixed motives. I’m gracious in part because I am filled with grace. And in part because I don’t want to stir up an argument. And in part I need my friend to do me a favor. And in part, I’m fearful that if I don’t act graciously, God will not be pleased. And in part, I want people to think of me as gracious. On it goes, one selfish motive after another, all mixed up together with the righteous motive.
A habit of seeing ordinary self interest as an evil is certainly a recipe for spiritual frustration. The Bible does not depict the desire to avoid quarrels as a faulty motive (Rom. 12:18, 1 Pet. 3:11). Nor does Scripture depict quid pro quo interactions as inherently evil (Prov. 16:11); a bit of extra patience with a companion in exchange for some help from him is not manipulative or “selfish.” It’s simply ordinary. As for the fear that God will not be pleased—this is, in fact, a virtue (1 Pet. 1:17) as is the desire for a good reputation (Prov. 22:1).
Galli makes the same error that many frustrated believers do: that of replacing God’s standards with ideals of our own imagining. The result is that we fail to see how much positive change God has actually produced in us.
3. The fruit of our efforts is not where our responsibility lies.
Most believers I know are able to see that in evangelism, we labor but God produces the fruit (1 Cor. 3:6). So why do so many find it difficult to see a similar dynamic in sanctification? There is no pride or idolatry in embracing our responsibility to work hard at “bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1) while recognizing that the results of our labors are entirely in God’s hands.
It’s called the “fruit of the Spirit” for good reason (Gal. 5:22). Though Jesus says we bear “much fruit” (John 15:5), He is quite clear about where it really comes from. (Note, by the way, that though Jesus identifies abiding in Him as our part in bearing fruit, He does not say abiding is our only responsibility.)
What does this tell us about our attitude toward the amount of transformation we see in ourselves and others? Certainly, Galli is right that no matter how much we grow in this life, most of the transformation occurs later. Creation groans for the revealing of the sons of God (Rom. 8:19-22). But even if we suppose that Galli is right that the prospect of real transformation in this life is unimportant, it doesn’t follow that we should expend little effort pursuing it. Our calling is to join God in the work (Phil. 2:12-13) regardless of whether that seems to be yielding the right outcomes.
4. We are not given permission to give up.
It’s odd that confusion persists on this point when the NT speaks to it so directly. Even in the good ol’ days of the first century church, believers grew weary in doing good (2 Thess. 3:13, Gal. 6:9). They grew tired of “striving against sin” (Heb. 12:4) and of experiencing God’s corrective discipline (Heb. 12:5). The response of the apostles was to assure the saints that they must endure and “abound more and more” (1 Thess. 4:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:58) in obedience. They were to find courage in the fact that He who had begun the good work in them would continue it—not just at but until the day of His return (Phil. 1:6). They were to understand that God has generously and thoroughly equipped them for living the life (2 Cor. 9:8, 2 Pet. 1:3, Eph. 6:13, 1 Cor. 10:13).
The Scriptures leave no room for the attitude that says “Well, I’m about as good as I’m ever going to be in this life, so I think I’ll just relax and rejoice in grace.” Rather, the consistent—and I think clear—message to believers is to faithfully and actively participate in God’s work of transformation.
For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (ESV, 2 Pet. 1:8-11)
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.
- 172 views
[Chip Van Emmerik]this really … is not correct. It’s one thing I don’t like about TT— I think he likes the shock effect of his message so that’s what he talks about, and his message is true, but he isn’t really clear about the practicalities of it. … But if you were in a counseling situation with him, there would probably be lots to “do.” I heard him talk about disciplining his teenage son about a certain situation, and it was pretty much what any of us would do– taking away access to all computers/phones, instituting xxx rules and accountability. … It wasn’t just “oh son, let’s just ponder how you’re perfect in Christ.”Mark Snoeberger weighs in on this discussion indicating it has been an ages-old argument pushing the pendulum back and forth between extremes. He references B. B. Warfield who dealt with this topic under the heading of perfectionism. He seems boils down the pendulum swing of the perfectionist position of TT and others this way very plainly.
“Frustrated by dead orthodoxies where individuals work very hard to earn favor with God, perfectionists seek ways to grow in grace authentically, without expending any effort at all, relying wholly upon Christ to unilaterally accomplish for me the Christian growth that I once thought was accomplished through obedience (or to use a more sinister word, “law-keeping”). This all-I-have-is-Christ approach to sanctification occurs almost magically: all I need to do is to “reckon” on my standing in Christ (that’s the Keswick version) or preach the Gospel to myself (that’s the Tchividjian version), and I will grow—almost without even trying and free from the frustrations experienced by those wicked folks who are “striving” to be more like Christ.”
You wrote:
This really is something that only a person can determine in himself— it’s not what we can see on the outside. Or God has to graciously show to a person what is really motivating him.
This is very true. Two different people can look great on the outside; they can read their Bibles, tithe, volunteer in ministries and be loving and gracious. One man is doing it to score points with God in a legalistic fashion. Another is doing it because he loves God and seeks only to walk worthy of Him. It’s nearly impossible to tell which one is which; but the person knows their own motivations.
I think the sanctification debate may be better framed when we talk about motivation rather than actions. That might allow the two sides to move forward and actually get somewhere.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[TylerR]You wrote:
This really is something that only a person can determine in himself— it’s not what we can see on the outside. Or God has to graciously show to a person what is really motivating him.
This is very true. Two different people can look great on the outside; they can read their Bibles, tithe, volunteer in ministries and be loving and gracious. One man is doing it to score points with God in a legalistic fashion. Another is doing it because he loves God and seeks only to walk worthy of Him. It’s nearly impossible to tell which one is which; but the person knows their own motivations.
I think the sanctification debate may be better framed when we talk about motivation rather than actions. That might allow the two sides to move forward and actually get somewhere.
But the proper response is not to deprecate the disciplines of godliness because someone might be following the wrong motivation for doing so. Not that you were saying that, Tyler, but it seems to be a popular take on the subject.
Anne,
you mentioned a time when you were convicted about your pursuit of obedience for selfish reasons, but the Spirit certainly didn’t lead you to quit doing any of those things. We don’t tell disciples to quit reading the Scriptures if they don’t have a pure motive for doing so. That is where the whole “stop trying so hard and just preach the gospel to yourself” perspective misses the boat. Now it may simply be that we are too inclined to want to boil things down into a bumper sticker or a tweet, but too often the bumper sticker message is the only one people actually read.
[pvawter]TylerR wrote:
You wrote:
This really is something that only a person can determine in himself— it’s not what we can see on the outside. Or God has to graciously show to a person what is really motivating him.
This is very true. Two different people can look great on the outside; they can read their Bibles, tithe, volunteer in ministries and be loving and gracious. One man is doing it to score points with God in a legalistic fashion. Another is doing it because he loves God and seeks only to walk worthy of Him. It’s nearly impossible to tell which one is which; but the person knows their own motivations.
I think the sanctification debate may be better framed when we talk about motivation rather than actions. That might allow the two sides to move forward and actually get somewhere.
But the proper response is not to deprecate the disciplines of godliness because someone might be following the wrong motivation for doing so. Not that you were saying that, Tyler, but it seems to be a popular take on the subject.
Anne,
you mentioned a time when you were convicted about your pursuit of obedience for selfish reasons, but the Spirit certainly didn’t lead you to quit doing any of those things. We don’t tell disciples to quit reading the Scriptures if they don’t have a pure motive for doing so. That is where the whole “stop trying so hard and just preach the gospel to yourself” perspective misses the boat. Now it may simply be that we are too inclined to want to boil things down into a bumper sticker or a tweet, but too often the bumper sticker message is the only one people actually read.
But NO ONE — certainly not TT or Steve Brown or Jerry Bridges or Douglas Bond or R.C. Sproul, Jr. or Joel Beeke, etc. — is telling disciples to quit reading the Scriptures (or to quit attending church or celebrating the Lord’s Supper or praying or fellowshipping or serving their neighbor). To say that they are is an absolute distortion. What they’re saying is: (a) try (ooh, effort!) to let the reason you’re doing those things be the natural reaction to the overwhelming love and grace of God and the natural outflow of your redeemed nature, rather than to score points or to satisfy an obligation (we CAN’T score any points or satisfy our obligation post-conversion any more than we can pre-conversion — the standard is still too high); (b) reject the idea that anyone (including yourself) can measure your sanctification by what you do or that your standing with God depends on what or how much you do; (c) rest in the fact when you fail or when you are conscious of failing that “It is finished” anyway; and (d) Christians with the foregoing attitude will actually have more “success” at being Christ-like than Christians who are trying to earn or prove anything.
yeah, the issue wasn’t to read my Bible or not, but another sphere in my normal life where I was sinning a lot. And even though I was reading my Bible and stuff for months, it took a long time for God to bring me to the point where He showed me all my selfish motives for not wanting to sin. And I had to confess and repent of that and ask God to give me the true desire to be like Christ in this area, not just to not sin.
So nobody’s saying not to do these disciplines, but the reasons why to do them.
But this is a hard conversation to have b/c understanding it is all a work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life, the extent and timing that various truths are opened to a person and for what purposes.
[dmyers]But NO ONE — certainly not TT or Steve Brown or Jerry Bridges or Douglas Bond or R.C. Sproul, Jr. or Joel Beeke, etc. — is telling disciples to quit reading the Scriptures (or to quit attending church or celebrating the Lord’s Supper or praying or fellowshipping or serving their neighbor). To say that they are is an absolute distortion. What they’re saying is: (a) try (ooh, effort!) to let the reason you’re doing those things be the natural reaction to the overwhelming love and grace of God and the natural outflow of your redeemed nature, rather than to score points or to satisfy an obligation (we CAN’T score any points or satisfy our obligation post-conversion any more than we can pre-conversion — the standard is still too high); (b) reject the idea that anyone (including yourself) can measure your sanctification by what you do or that your standing with God depends on what or how much you do; (c) rest in the fact when you fail or when you are conscious of failing that “It is finished” anyway; and (d) Christians with the foregoing attitude will actually have more “success” at being Christ-like than Christians who are trying to earn or prove anything.
I never said that any of them were teaching disciples to quit obeying the clear commands of Scripture. Then again, I have yet to see any best-sellers teaching that success at being Christ-like comes to those who are trying to earn or prove anything. Of course, that particular straw man is pretty easy to knock down, so he makes a likely target for twitter feeds and facebook posts, or someone trying to sell another book. Like I said in my previous post, many people will never actually take the time to pursue a balanced and Biblical perspective on sanctification, settling instead for the bumper sticker version. The solution to that is not likely to be found in another book about how to become Christ-like by not trying so hard.
[pvawter]dmyers wrote:
But NO ONE — certainly not TT or Steve Brown or Jerry Bridges or Douglas Bond or R.C. Sproul, Jr. or Joel Beeke, etc. — is telling disciples to quit reading the Scriptures (or to quit attending church or celebrating the Lord’s Supper or praying or fellowshipping or serving their neighbor). To say that they are is an absolute distortion. What they’re saying is: (a) try (ooh, effort!) to let the reason you’re doing those things be the natural reaction to the overwhelming love and grace of God and the natural outflow of your redeemed nature, rather than to score points or to satisfy an obligation (we CAN’T score any points or satisfy our obligation post-conversion any more than we can pre-conversion — the standard is still too high); (b) reject the idea that anyone (including yourself) can measure your sanctification by what you do or that your standing with God depends on what or how much you do; (c) rest in the fact when you fail or when you are conscious of failing that “It is finished” anyway; and (d) Christians with the foregoing attitude will actually have more “success” at being Christ-like than Christians who are trying to earn or prove anything.
I never said that any of them were teaching disciples to quit obeying the clear commands of Scripture. Then again, I have yet to see any best-sellers teaching that success at being Christ-like comes to those who are trying to earn or prove anything. Of course, that particular straw man is pretty easy to knock down, so he makes a likely target for twitter feeds and facebook posts, or someone trying to sell another book. Like I said in my previous post, many people will never actually take the time to pursue a balanced and Biblical perspective on sanctification, settling instead for the bumper sticker version. The solution to that is not likely to be found in another book about how to become Christ-like by not trying so hard.
But, in fact, you did. Responding to Anne a few couple comments above, you said: “We don’t tell disciples to quit reading the Scriptures if they don’t have a pure motive for doing so. That is where the whole “stop trying so hard and just preach the gospel to yourself” perspective misses the boat.”
[dmyers]pvawter wrote:
dmyers wrote:
But NO ONE — certainly not TT or Steve Brown or Jerry Bridges or Douglas Bond or R.C. Sproul, Jr. or Joel Beeke, etc. — is telling disciples to quit reading the Scriptures (or to quit attending church or celebrating the Lord’s Supper or praying or fellowshipping or serving their neighbor). To say that they are is an absolute distortion. What they’re saying is: (a) try (ooh, effort!) to let the reason you’re doing those things be the natural reaction to the overwhelming love and grace of God and the natural outflow of your redeemed nature, rather than to score points or to satisfy an obligation (we CAN’T score any points or satisfy our obligation post-conversion any more than we can pre-conversion — the standard is still too high); (b) reject the idea that anyone (including yourself) can measure your sanctification by what you do or that your standing with God depends on what or how much you do; (c) rest in the fact when you fail or when you are conscious of failing that “It is finished” anyway; and (d) Christians with the foregoing attitude will actually have more “success” at being Christ-like than Christians who are trying to earn or prove anything.
I never said that any of them were teaching disciples to quit obeying the clear commands of Scripture. Then again, I have yet to see any best-sellers teaching that success at being Christ-like comes to those who are trying to earn or prove anything. Of course, that particular straw man is pretty easy to knock down, so he makes a likely target for twitter feeds and facebook posts, or someone trying to sell another book. Like I said in my previous post, many people will never actually take the time to pursue a balanced and Biblical perspective on sanctification, settling instead for the bumper sticker version. The solution to that is not likely to be found in another book about how to become Christ-like by not trying so hard.
But, in fact, you did. Responding to Anne a few couple comments above, you said: “We don’t tell disciples to quit reading the Scriptures if they don’t have a pure motive for doing so. That is where the whole “stop trying so hard and just preach the gospel to yourself” perspective misses the boat.”
I suppose if you ignore the remainder of my statement you might misconstrue what I said, however, you are just taking my words out of context. I never said that TT or any of the others you mentioned were teaching other disciples to quit obeying the clear commands of Scripture. I do fear that much of what passes for popular level theological instruction on the subject of sanctification is oversimplified and reactionary, and I was simply pointing out the absurdity of responding to wrong motivation by knocking down the straw man of trying to earn God’s approval by works.
I am curious, too. If what I said was such a distortion of their teachings, and if what you wrote in 4 brief, bulleted points so easily summarizes what they are teaching, then why all this flap over TT and his books? Either there is something there other than what your summary articulates, or their writing is so unclear that dozens (at least) of otherwise intelligent people have failed to understand their point.
[pvawter]dmyers wrote:
pvawter wrote:
dmyers wrote:
But NO ONE — certainly not TT or Steve Brown or Jerry Bridges or Douglas Bond or R.C. Sproul, Jr. or Joel Beeke, etc. — is telling disciples to quit reading the Scriptures (or to quit attending church or celebrating the Lord’s Supper or praying or fellowshipping or serving their neighbor). To say that they are is an absolute distortion.
I never said that any of them were teaching disciples to quit obeying the clear commands of Scripture. Then again, I have yet to see any best-sellers teaching that success at being Christ-like comes to those who are trying to earn or prove anything. Of course, that particular straw man is pretty easy to knock down, so he makes a likely target for twitter feeds and facebook posts, or someone trying to sell another book. Like I said in my previous post, many people will never actually take the time to pursue a balanced and Biblical perspective on sanctification, settling instead for the bumper sticker version. The solution to that is not likely to be found in another book about how to become Christ-like by not trying so hard.
But, in fact, you did. Responding to Anne a few couple comments above, you said: “We don’t tell disciples to quit reading the Scriptures if they don’t have a pure motive for doing so. That is where the whole “stop trying so hard and just preach the gospel to yourself” perspective misses the boat.”
I suppose if you ignore the remainder of my statement you might misconstrue what I said, however, you are just taking my words out of context. I never said that TT or any of the others you mentioned were teaching other disciples to quit obeying the clear commands of Scripture. I do fear that much of what passes for popular level theological instruction on the subject of sanctification is oversimplified and reactionary, and I was simply pointing out the absurdity of responding to wrong motivation by knocking down the straw man of trying to earn God’s approval by works.
I am curious, too. If what I said was such a distortion of their teachings, and if what you wrote in 4 brief, bulleted points so easily summarizes what they are teaching, then why all this flap over TT and his books? Either there is something there other than what your summary articulates, or their writing is so unclear that dozens (at least) of otherwise intelligent people have failed to understand their point.
Fine, pvawter, here is the entirety of your four-sentence statement to Anne:
Anne,
you mentioned a time when you were convicted about your pursuit of obedience for selfish reasons, but the Spirit certainly didn’t lead you to quit doing any of those things. We don’t tell disciples to quit reading the Scriptures if they don’t have a pure motive for doing so. That is where the whole “stop trying so hard and just preach the gospel to yourself” perspective misses the boat. Now it may simply be that we are too inclined to want to boil things down into a bumper sticker or a tweet, but too often the bumper sticker message is the only one people actually read.
I quoted the middle two sentences above, and you complained that I was ignoring the rest of what you said and quoting you out of context. But nothing in the first or fourth sentence changes in any way what you said in the middle two sentences I quoted. That’s why I quoted only the two sentences — they were entirely consistent with the other two sentences and there was no need to quote all four.
In short, you said what I said you said, you got called on it, and then you falsely accused me of quoting you selectively and taking you out of context. If you didn’t mean what you said, retract it — don’t accuse me of misquoting you.
As for your last paragraph, I gather you haven’t read anything TT has written (or at least none of his books). Otherwise, you wouldn’t have to take my word for the accuracy of my summary. Perhaps the same is true of at least some of the otherwise intelligent people you reference, and perhaps that goes quite a ways toward explaining why they have failed to understand his point.
dmyers,
I was trying to figure out why you continue to overlook the entirety of what I said. Then I realized that Aaron already said what I was thinking in an earlier post, so I’ll just quote him. You said that no one was saying anything about giving up, and Aaron responded: “Actually, Galli’s “stop trying so hard” is pretty close. As is his “hey, we shouldn’t expect to change much anyway… that never happens” (paraphrase). But my main claim is not that people say “I believe in giving up” but that this is the essence of the teaching. It is an unavoidable inference of it.”
When you quoted me earlier, you left off the following sentence (which you so graciously included but still ignored the second time you quoted me). “Now it may simply be that we are too inclined to want to boil things down into a bumper sticker or a tweet, but too often the bumper sticker message is the only one people actually read.” Do you think it’s possible that when TT says,
Because of Jesus’s finished work for me, I already had the justification,
approval, acceptance, security, freedom, affection, cleansing,
new beginning, righteousness, and rescue I longed for. There was
nothing left to prove or protect, no one to impress or appease.
I could be okay with not being okay. (Glorious Ruin, 149)
the only thing that many people hear is the last sentence?
And I’ve read and re-read Paul’s words in Philippians 3, where he says,
But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith.
I assumed that the next thing Paul said would be something like, “I could be okay with not being okay.” Boy was I surprised when I read,
“that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”
Whether or not TT says, “quit reading your Bible or going to church or obeying whichever NT command you find offensive or inconvenient,” that is apparently how many of his readers are taking it, and clearly that is not how the NT teaches sanctification.
Your position is an ever-moving target. First it’s that I misquoted you. Then, when that was shown to be untrue, it’s that I didn’t intuit that what you meant to say was something that someone else had said well up-thread. First it’s that TT is wrong. Then it’s not necessarily that TT is wrong but that “many people” and “many of his readers” are misunderstanding him. Of course, you do not identify those “many people,” nor do you identify how, when, where, or in what manner they have misapplied what TT has said. I am not aware of a single person who agrees with TT’s teaching on sanctification whose reaction has been “quit reading your Bible or going to church or obeying whichever NT command you find offensive or inconvenient.” I doubt that you have either. Instead, you’re anticipating that reaction. Interestingly, Paul anticipated the same objection (Romans 6:15). And, as D. Martin Lloyd-Jones (among others) has pointed out, “There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than the fact that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this–that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do, that you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will abound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel.”
Let’s engage what TT actually said, and what you fear will be misunderstood by the unidentified “many people.” (I’m delighted that we’re finally actually talking about something TT actually said.) I’m sorry to tell you, but you’re not okay. (Neither am I.) And in this life, despite your best and most concentrated efforts, you will never be okay. (Nor will I.) Are you not okay with that? Do you think you have an obligation and some ability to change that? If you’re not okay with not being okay, I’d submit that you don’t understand (a) the extent to which you are not okay (i.e., the extent of your sin, even post-conversion), (b) the impossibility of your ever being okay in this life (i.e., God’s perfection), and/or (c) the scope of what Christ has done for you.
As for Philippians 3, it sounds as if you’re reading into it something that isn’t there. What Paul is pressing toward and what he is reaching forward to is Christ, who has laid hold of him — not more consistent devotions or any other checklist of his own activity and merit. Of course, he (and we) could expect that the more he knew Christ and the power of His resurrection, the more he knew the fellowship of His sufferings, the more he was conformed to His death, the more like Christ he would be and the “more okay” he would be. But the moral improvement flows from the work of Christ and the relationship with Christ, not vice versa.
And now the ever-moving target has withdrawn, in a cloud of sarcasm.
You are correct, dmyers, that my last comment was quite sarcastic. I apologize for the tone, which is not the tone I hope to set on SI. As to your the points you have contended so far, I would just say that I disagree with you on a fundamental one. The NT describes the believer’s conversion as a passing from death into life, a new creation, being born again (born from above), etc., yet you contend that the believer is fundamentally no different from an unbeliever when it comes to obeying the instructions of the NT. I am curious just how you defend your assertion, if indeed it can be defended.
TT’s statement that “I could be okay with not being okay” betrays a distinct difference from anything that Paul says in the NT. Of course we are all sinners, and even as saints we continue to wrestle with our old nature, yet at no point should we come to terms with our old man. You mentioned Romans 6, yet even there Paul says we are to consider ourselves to be dead to sin, he does not say we should seek a cease-fire with our sinful nature since we can’t “be okay” in this life. As I see it, TT’s position is both erroneous and dangerous, since there are those who embrace his teaching (whether accurately or inaccurately understood) in defense of their own worldliness. You may not know anyone who has followed this path, but I know a number of people who have indeed.
As far as Philippians 3 is concerned, Paul does not say he is reaching forward to Christ. Instead he says he is “pressing toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” And Paul doubles down on that position elsewhere with statements such as
“Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified. (emphasis added)
and
I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.
The pursuit of righteousness and self-discipline which Paul speaks of should not be confused with self-effort apart from the indwelling Holy Spirit. There is no conflict in the Christian life between running in such a way as to obtain the prize and being found in Christ having the righteousness which is from God by faith.
We’d get further if you’d take issue with something I actually said. For example, this is your description of my position: “you contend that the believer is fundamentally no different from an unbeliever when it comes to obeying the instructions of the NT. I am curious just how you defend your assertion, if indeed it can be defended.”
But you’re completely wrong about that being my contention. I’ve never said the believer is fundamentally no different from an unbeliever when it comes to obeying the instructions of the NT, nor anything remotely similar. The believer is night and day different from the unbeliever. He has a new nature. He has a new status (adopted). He has the Holy Spirit. As a result, among other things, he has an ongoing consciousness of sin that the unbeliever cannot have and an inclination (albeit imperfect) to know and glorify God.
You make the point that Paul “does not say we should seek a cease-fire with our sinful nature since we can’t “be okay” in this life,” as if I said something different. But I have never said that we should seek a cease-fire with our sinful nature, and in fact I’ve responded emphatically up-thread the last time you made that suggestion. See “Can we please lose the distortion?”
I think you’re fundamentally misunderstanding what TT is saying when he says he’s not okay and he can be good with that (because of God’s grace and Christ’s provision), similar to the way you’ve apparently misunderstood me. He is not saying that the Christian who is not okay (which is all of us, though I’m not sure you agree with that; you didn’t confirm in response to my earlier comment that you’re not okay; that would certainly be a fundamental disagreement between us) is no different from an unbeliever — see my first paragraph above. He IS saying that the Christian, no matter how much “better” he is than the unbeliever as a result of new nature and status and indwelling of the Holy Spirit, is still not going to come anywhere close to God’s standard of righteousness, and in that sense the Christian is not and never will be okay until glorification occurs. Do you disagree with that?
You say that Paul was not saying that he was reaching forward to Christ. Then what was he reaching forward to? What does he mean by “the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus”? Does he mean actual perfect righteousness in this life? Something “close enough” by our human evaluation? Is he referring to the equivalent of the crown of righteousness? What do you contend he means by that? I understand that crown of righteousness to be something that Christ earned in my place and graciously confers on me, by His sovereign grace and not because of anything right that I did or do. Do you think you actually earn your crown of righteousness post-conversion? How does that work? I assume you don’t purport to be perfectly righteous, either now or at any time in the past or future. Is there a minimum amount of post-conversion righteousness by which you earn that crown? How can you tell when you’ve gotten there? How can you tell where other Christians stand in their earning process? What happens to the crown of righteousness for the Christian who doesn’t make it to the minimum? Where in scripture is the minimum specified? How do you square this concept of earning your crown of righteousness with Paul’s concluding statement that the same crown will be given to “ALL who have loved His appearing”?
Interact with what I’ve actually said here and we might get somewhere.
Discussion