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

TT appears to be voicing the same false disjunction he’s been emphasizing for some time now.

Neither of the two things in the quote is “the hub.” They are both essential for genuine Christian living. It’s not either-or, it’s both-and. (I also don’t know how he’s getting the impression that the call to discipleship is currently overemphasized.)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10, ESV2011

“Jesus did everything for you” is not the whole gospel. “Jesus did everything so that you could live a changed life” is certainly more complete.

While Jesus did everything spiritually for us to be saved, He told us to go out and preach the gospel, He told us through His word (and Paul) to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, He told us to test whether we are in the faith. There is a lot we have been empowered to do to carry out the gospel message AND that we must do for sanctification in this life.

It seems TT is arguing against something I personally have never witnessed. He seems to suggest Millennials want to go to church but it is too rigid with do’s and don’ts. This performance Christianity is too much and so they drop away.

What I have witnessed is Millennials rejecting the faith they were raised with due to a combination of perceived hypocrisy and “trust in science” like evolution and the Bib Bang, etc. Plus, they just really want to have sex. Additionally, a surprising number admit they smoke marijuana! Just being honest with what I have observed.

Maybe there is a population difference between who he talks to and what I have seen, but the 20 somethings I know have little to no interest in Christianity, but it is due to a love a sin more than anything else. This rejection of Christianity is WAY BEYOND a list of do’s and don’ts.

Is there some recommended reading .. or articles or study .. or something.. regarding BALANCE in the Christian life?

I’ve attempted to put together a study on my own to no avail…

So many things I see are a balance …

Such as this .. things that are not “either - or” .. but “both - and”

I’m trying to articulate - and lately that’s not my forte .. laugh .. I just know so often I hear someone talking and think .. “but it’s about Balance”

Another reading of the now classic, “Pursuit of Holiness” by Jerry Bridges would help restore the missing balance

in TT’s obsessive focus. It is just as problematic to apply monergism to sanctification as it is to insert synergism into justification.

would it be fair to say that most fundamentalists are obsessed with Christian performance, their’s or others?

I think most fundies are blind to their obsession to boot.

T.T. in a blog post today:

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2013/10/21/church-we-have-a…

from that link above—plz read b/c he’s addressing exactly what commenters on this thread are arguing:

Spend any time in the American church, and you’ll hear legalism and lawlessness presented as two ditches on either side of the Gospel that we must avoid. Legalism, they say, happens when you focus too much on law or rules, and lawlessness when you focus too much on grace. Therefore, in order to maintain spiritual equilibrium, you have to “balance” law and grace. If you start getting too much law, you need to balance it with grace. If you start getting too much grace, you need to balance it with law. This “balanced” way of framing the issue has kept people from really understanding the Gospel of grace in all of its radical depth and beauty.

…

Can the Law make us Lawful?

What is the ultimate solution to lawlessness? The assumption is that championing ethics will make us more ethical; that preaching obedience will make us more obedient; that focusing on the law will make us more lawful. But is that the way it works?

…

Yes, the gospel does transforms us. But transformation does not happen when we make transformation the warp and woof of our message. But that’s exactly what’s happened. Whether it’s “how to have a good marriage”, or “how to be more missional”, or “how to practice godliness more effectively”, people hear more about what they need to do than what Jesus has already done. We’ve taken our eyes off of Christ, “the author and finisher of our faith”, to focus on ourselves. Plain and simple….

As a result, generations of Christians were taught that Christianity was primarily a life-style; that the essence of our faith centered on “how to live”; that real Christianity was demonstrated in the moral change that took place inside those who had a “personal relationship with Jesus.” Our ongoing performance for Jesus, therefore, not Jesus’ finished performance for us, became the focus of sermons, books, and conferences. What I need to do and who I need to become, became the end game.

This is long enough for one post anyways. Will post my own thoughts in another post …

[alex o.]

would it be fair to say that most fundamentalists are obsessed with Christian performance, their’s or others?

I think most fundies are blind to their obsession to boot.

Would it be fair to say that imperatives like “be ye holy, for I am holy” might lend themselves to a fundamental obsession with performance?

I guess the residual fundy in me still finds holy living (performance, if you please) to be a commendable trait, and unholy living (theirs or others) to be a discernible indicator of need for sanctifying growth.

I wish TT did a better job of explaining the use of the law in sanctification and what it means, practically speaking, to apply what he is emphasizing.

I’m going to give a stab at it.

People here skim TT’s stuff and assume the following: He’s saying we focus on grace alone and it’s Ok if we’re all sinning up a storm.

Grace = Licentiousness

Jesus is Everything = We Do Nothing

…

But that’s not what he’s saying.

He’s saying there’s another way to holiness rather than just focusing on trying to achieve it.

Holiness comes by focusing on Christ’s achievement.

OK, so, that sounds all hunky-dorey, you say. But what does it really mean in real life?

Let’s take the example of s^xual purity.

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?

This is a test.

Oh boy…what to say and not to say…I realize this guy is a real hero to some. I can’t figure out why. But then again, I avoid the Gospel Coalition website and I am not Reformed or a Calvinist. So, what do you expect? The only time I read the Gospel Coalition website is when someone links to it here at SI, and I am reminded why I am not in that camp!

OK. Well, I’ve read and reread both the Washington Post article and the new one linked just above. I really wish this guy would come out and say what he really believes. For the record, I have NOT read any of his books. I have read his articles that have been posted here at SI. I am starting to suspect this guy might be a Reformed Universalist. I’m not dropping bombs or trying to start a fight, but my radar is up. Here is why.

MOST Reformed people I am aware of, like James White for example (a Reformed Baptist…maybe that is the problem as I am largely ignorant of Presbyterians and I know none personally), focus on God having types of love. He loves the elect. He loves the world in a different way…The problem is TT doesn’t talk that way. He seems to think God loves everyone equally which is strange for a Reformed person. From this love grace flows and people are saved. That is why I am thinking this guy is a universalist.

Maybe the problem is he is NOT talking to the world at all and ONLY to the church…but why write a Washington Post article to do that? You are writing to the world by definition! To me his views are so confused that I can’t really analyze them in an evangelical Christian context. I feel more like I am dealing with Rod Bell or Mark Driscoll. Someone who is either in error or really close to it.

But hey, I get really suspicious when someone starts quoting modern Dutch theologians! Perhaps it is just me.

Oh, and calling the GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST 200 proof…I just can’t relate to that. I gave up alcohol a long time ago. I can’t believe a minister of the gospel thinks that is an approporiate analogy to the gospel in the modern age. But hey, maybe its just me.

[Anne Sokol]

I wish TT did a better job of explaining the use of the law in sanctification and what it means, practically speaking, to apply what he is emphasizing.

I’m going to give a stab at it.

People here skim TT’s stuff and assume the following: He’s saying we focus on grace alone and it’s Ok if we’re all sinning up a storm.

Grace = Licentiousness

Jesus is Everything = We Do Nothing

…

But that’s not what he’s saying.

He’s saying there’s another way to holiness rather than just focusing on trying to achieve it.

Holiness comes by focusing on Christ’s achievement.

OK, so, that sounds all hunky-dorey, you say. But what does it really mean in real life?

Let’s take the example of s^xual purity.

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?

This is a test.

Anne, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that TT (and thanks for setting the example that we can use initials and not try to spell that name – makes Ellis Island understandable) is promoting licentiousness. It appears he honestly believes that focusing on the cross and grace is sufficient to live a holy life. He is saying, it seems to me, the battle is there…and only there. Focus on grace and you will simply be above temptation. He doesn’t say that directly, but he says very little directly. (I’m going off the few articles I’ve read by him, not his books – the articles don’t prompt me to read more of him) The problem is it doesn’t seem to account for many Scriptures suggesting otherwise, nor people’s experience. It seems to me to leave the Christian lightly armed in the war between the spirit and the flesh.

I think the Washington Post article is just a rather lame ploy to use modern stats on lower church attendance to promote his vision of sanctification, as though doing, striving, self-sacrifice and serving the Lord weren’t proclaimed when church attendance was high. Kind-a silly, that.

Okay, I want to take the test now:

To the teen struggling with sexual purity. Yes, he should be told that there is strength in the Gospel (Rom 8:11) and in daily fellowship with the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:16), who will help us kill the desires that want to rule us (Rom 8:13) in order to achieve victory over the flesh. 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. He should also be told that the Bible gives much practical advice about not feeding the flesh (Job 31:1, Matt 5:28 e.g.) We must also be wise by not fooling ourselves about the power of the flesh to take advantage of us. This may mean drastic action (carefully explained Matt 5:29), choosing our paths carefully (Prov 5:8), being careful who we hang out with (1 Cor 15:33), governing through practice our thought life (Prov 6:25, Phil 4:8), sometimes running like mad (1 Cor. 6:18), Gen. 39:12), and that we need the dedication of an athlete (1 Cor 9:24-27) and the commitment of a soldier in the field (2 Tim 2:4) to please our Lord. This is what it means to be strong in grace. He should be told God’s salvation stands behind you, and the new birth gives you capacity for growth and victory. God is with you every moment to sustain you as you walk with Him. Yet he needs to be told that he must choose to abstain from wickedness, so he will be a fit vessel to be used by the Master (2 Tim 2:19-21) And he should be told: If your love for God does not keep you safe every hour, or flags in you because we are all weak, then you may choose to remember that God is holy and to be feared (1 Cor 10:6-8), and He does discipline those He loves (Heb 12:5-12). He must also be reminded that we are prone to deception in this area (1 Cor 6:9, Eph 5:5-6, Gal 6:7-9), so we must be vigilant against the world and our own flesh deceiving us about this sin.

What kind of a grade do you think I should get? I think TT would give me a “d-” for allowing the possibility that some of this counsel might be regarded as a string attached to the Gospel and may cause some level of anxiety that sanctification takes work. Since I don’t confuse justification and sanctification, I don’t think I’m attaching a string to the Gospel, but I do think holiness requires effort, even great effort, since sin is still in me and self-deception is an ever-present possibility.

[Wayne Wilson]

… He is saying, it seems to me, the battle is there…and only there. Focus on grace and you will simply be above temptation. He doesn’t say that directly, but he says very little directly. (I’m going off the few articles I’ve read by him, not his books – the articles don’t prompt me to read more of him) The problem is it doesn’t seem to account for many Scriptures suggesting otherwise, nor people’s experience. It seems to me to leave the Christian lightly armed in the war between the spirit and the flesh.

You should listen to him on youtube. he gives more examples but not a good comprehensive theology of all this. Like, he gives an example where is teenage son did something bad ( I think online), and guess what? they reacted parentally as pretty much all of us would react—they cut off all social media, laid down uber-strict rules, etc.

so I think people are missing the whole picture of how his one-liner message works into sanctification. and he’s not great at explaining it maybe.

I will come back to the test—thanks for taking the time to answer! … want to hear other answers too, if people are game :).

Having done so poorly on my first test, I would like to submit a new answer. Although I haven’t read TT, I have read Elyse Fitzpatrick’s book on child-raising, which is TT inspired. This is the book that recommends spanking children when they misbehave, not so much for foul deed they did, but because it shows the child has “forgotten how wonderful [Jesus’] love is.”

So I think the “correct” answer to the test about sexual purity, based on this TT disciple, would be something like:

“When Jesus was on the earth, he didn’t lust because He loved people so much. You are desiring the wonderful experience of sexual expression. These feelings you have are really designed to make you more like Jesus. It’s all about love, and He loves you so much He went to the cross for you. He loves you so much He obeyed His Father even unto death. He understands obeying even when it is hard, so you can ask Him to help you love others enough not to lust after them or defile them, even when that’s hard.”

I think this would get me a “B” from TT. And honestly, I don’t think there’s anything really wrong with saying it. Is it a complete biblical answer to dealing with lust? No.

[Aaron Blumer]

TT appears to be voicing the same false disjunction he’s been emphasizing for some time now.

Neither of the two things in the quote is “the hub.” They are both essential for genuine Christian living. It’s not either-or, it’s both-and. (I also don’t know how he’s getting the impression that the call to discipleship is currently overemphasized.)

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Eph 2:8-10, ESV2011

“Jesus did everything for you” is not the whole gospel. “Jesus did everything so that you could live a changed life” is certainly more complete.

But TT specifically says in the additional article linked by alex o. that he doesn’t see it as a disjunction at all:

“Spend any time in the American church, and you’ll hear legalism and lawlessness presented as two ditches on either side of the Gospel that we must avoid. Legalism, they say, happens when you focus too much on law or rules, and lawlessness when you focus too much on grace. Therefore, in order to maintain spiritual equilibrium, you have to “balance” law and grace. If you start getting too much law, you need to balance it with grace. If you start getting too much grace, you need to balance it with law. This “balanced” way of framing the issue has kept people from really understanding the Gospel of grace in all of its radical depth and beauty.

“It is more theologically accurate to say that the one primary enemy of the Gospel—legalism—comes in two forms. Some people avoid the gospel and try to save themselves by keeping the rules, doing what they’re told, maintaining the standards, and so on (you could call this “front-door legalism”). Other people avoid the gospel and try to save themselves by breaking the rules, doing whatever they want, developing their own autonomous standards, and so on (you could call this “back-door legalism”). In other words, there are two “laws” that we typically choose from: the law that says, “I can find freedom and fullness of life if I keep the rules,” or the law that says, “I can find freedom and fullness of life if I break the rules.” Either way, you’re still trying to save yourself—which means both are legalistic, because both are self-salvation projects. “Make a rule” or “break a rule” really belong to the same passion for autonomy (self-rule). We want to remain in control of our lives and our destinies, so the only choice is whether we will conquer the mountain by asceticism or by license. So it would be a mistake to identify the “two cliffs” as being legalism and lawlessness. What some call license is just another form of legalism. And there’s always and only been one solution to our self-salvation projects: God’s salvation project in Christ.”

Agree or disagree with the above explanation, it appears to be a mistake to say that his position is emphasizing one side of a false disjunction.

Also, “Jesus did everything so that you could live a changed life” is an example of the danger that comes with any Jesus + something description of sanctification — it is too low a view of the Law and it underestimates our depravity, indirectly devaluing grace. If we truly understand how far short we fall in keeping the Law post-salvation, despite “best” efforts, we’d be more hesitant to tout the changes we perceive as being anything like a primary purpose of our salvation. The better formulation might be “Jesus did everything because you would would never be able to anything close to enough (let alone everything), and that means you don’t have to do anything. But once you understand that, you’ll almost certainly do more (and for better reasons) than if you thought you had to do something.”

Hope that helps.

[G. N. Barkman]

Another reading of the now classic, “Pursuit of Holiness” by Jerry Bridges would help restore the missing balance

in TT’s obsessive focus. It is just as problematic to apply monergism to sanctification as it is to insert synergism into justification.

G.N., you kind of walked into one here. Jerry Bridges’s view of sanctification is the same as TT’s. See his 2008 book Transforming Grace: Living Confidently in God’s Unfailing Love. From the jacket:

“The freedom in falling short of God’s standard relies on His gift of grace. Unfortunately, too many of us forget the free offer. We spend our lives basing our relationship with God on our performance rather than on Him. We see our identity as never being worthy of His love.

Isn’t it time to stop trying to measure up and begin accepting the transforming power of God’s grace?

The product of more than 10 years of Bible study, Navigator author Jerry Bridges’ Transforming Grace is a fountainhead of inspiration and renewal that will show you just how inexhaustible and generous God’s grace really is.”