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

The more I hear people talk about TT, and read his quoted material, the more baffled I am. I have no idea where this comes from:

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.

I must not travel in the same circles he does. I am not trying to be snide, but I have never heard matters framed in this way, and I have never seen it in action, either. Different worlds, apparently.

I considered mentioning “Transforming Grace” by Jerry Bridges, and now someone else has brought it into the discussion. Yes, when you read “Transforming Grace” you realize that Bridges is saying much the same as TT. The difference, as I see it, is that Bridges also wrote “Pursuit of Holiness.” With Bridges, you get a balanced emphasis upon both the wonder and power of sovereign grace, as well as the responsibility and hard work required of those who have been saved by grace. With TT, it seems that what I hear him emphasize is God’s grace, along with criticism for those who endeavor to achieve holiness through human effort. When TT writes his version of “Pursuit of Holiness,” I will believe he understands both truths of Justification by grace and Sanctification by human effort. Until then, I am left with the impression that he is trumpeting the truth of grace to the neglect of human responsibility, and that is a dangerous imbalance.

I don’t know whether you read my post above that I wrote yesterday but I feel the same way about TT. After I wrote my post I felt a little concerned about being too judgmental about what I wrote so I went and bought the kindle version of his new book One Way Love. The quote you gave above is from that book. I’ve read through chapter 3 and it is full of quotes like that. I kept scratching my head wondering who his target audience is. It seems he is writing to millennials who have terrible misconceptions about what Christianity is. He has this thing against the law and I can’t figure out why. He tells his personal story (often reminding us that Billy Graham is his granddad) but I can’t imagine that the environment he was raised in was that legalistic. His dad was a psychologist and his grandfather Billy Graham!

For the record, I have met some serious legalistically people who were Christian. But I have YET to find a professing Christian who thinks all Christianity is is a list of Do’s and Don’ts. He keeps hammering away at that over and over again like it is common to believe that. This is why I wonder who his audience is and why I wonder about his soteriology. People who are unsaved often think all Christianity is is a “joy killer”. Don’t have fun…Do got to church, etc. He seems to be talking to them but writing like they are saved…very confusing.

Just to be fair I also read all the available pages on amazon for what seems to have been his first book Do I Know God? from 2009. From what I can read on-line, it seems to be much more straight forward. He gives a generous but thoroughly orthodox view of the Christian life and soteriology, specifically mentioning unsaved versus saved. That is missing from his more recent writings from what I can tell.

I think TT’s message is a half message, kind of, though I think he’s right. Though if you listen to him, he’ll talk about times you need to “apply the law.” (rules, etc.) But you have to listen a lot.

But I want to posit a few points about sanctification that I think the “grace” people get, that most people don’t get.

So, taking the example of a teen that desires to be s*xually pure, I have to start out with a few large, background truths—that I never really heard at all in our circles.

1. We never attain God’s standard. We never, ever, ever, ever attain God’s standard. Not even as Christians. Only Christ is capable of doing this. And He did it for me.

2. Not understanding #1, a lot of Christians think they are pleasing God by their actions and gaining certain favor or not (not salvific) by their “performance” (or however you want to term it).

3. Not understanding #1, we tend to reduce God’s standards into something keepable, and then think we are keeping it or not. Ex. read your Bible every day. Reading my Bible daily is SO FAR AWAY from God’s standard for me towards His Word, but keeping the rule satisfied me for years. … No more.

4. Not understanding #1, we reduce our ability to grow as believers. Once we understand that these rules or socially-Christian standards are not even close to God’s standards, then we open the door to looking honestly at who Jesus was and asking how to live this life.

I can give more examples if anyone is interested.

[Anne Sokol]

I think TT’s message is a half message, kind of, though I think he’s right. Though if you listen to him, he’ll talk about times you need to “apply the law.” (rules, etc.) But you have to listen a lot.

But I want to posit a few points about sanctification that I think the “grace” people get, that most people don’t get.

So, taking the example of a teen that desires to be s*xually pure, I have to start out with a few large, background truths—that I never really heard at all in our circles.

1. We never attain God’s standard. We never, ever, ever, ever attain God’s standard. Not even as Christians. Only Christ is capable of doing this. And He did it for me.

2. Not understanding #1, a lot of Christians think they are pleasing God by their actions and gaining certain favor or not (not salvific) by their “performance” (or however you want to term it).

3. Not understanding #1, we tend to reduce God’s standards into something keepable, and then think we are keeping it or not. Ex. read your Bible every day. Reading my Bible daily is SO FAR AWAY from God’s standard for me towards His Word, but keeping the rule satisfied me for years. … No more.

4. Not understanding #1, we reduce our ability to grow as believers. Once we understand that these rules or socially-Christian standards are not even close to God’s standards, then we open the door to looking honestly at who Jesus was and asking how to live this life.

I can give more examples if anyone is interested.

Anne, I don’t disagree that missing #1 would have dire consequences for true sanctification. I haven’t been in churches where that wasn’t made clear, so I don’t know how many Christians out there really have never been taught this. If it’s many, it’s very sad. I can’t imagine a church telling people that daily Bible reading meets God’s standard. Maybe some do. or maybe it’s not explained thoroughly and some Christians read that into it. Maybe that was true in your case. I’ve always heard it as a good way to “let the word of Christ richly dwell within you” –something essential for sanctification. Your experience is a good reminder to us to keep explaining the reasons for why we encourage things that promote sanctification, what they used to call the “means of grace.” I rather like that old term!

The only problem I see with how #1 is worded is the possible misunderstanding of “he did it for me” as applied to sanctification. If it is suggested that Jesus has done for me my current responsibility as His servant to serve Him, I think that is leading people astray. In fact, I really don’t know what that means, but I think that’s what some people take away from TT’s emphasis.

I would be interested in your further points about sexual purity from the TT perspective.

[Anne Sokol] 1. We never attain God’s standard. We never, ever, ever, ever attain God’s standard. Not even as Christians. Only Christ is capable of doing this. And He did it for me.

Anne,

It’s true that we never fully meet the standard and our acceptance before God is entirely based on Christ’s substitutionary atonement. However, as a Spirit-filled believer, I am no longer enslaved to failure, and I am empowered for success. That’s where the command from 1 Peter 1, mentioned earlier, comes in. I have no excuse for not living up to that standard at any given moment in time, and God’s expectation is that I am actually living up to it. I still rest securely in Christ, but I am also responsible to be “putting on the new man” and “being holy as God is holy.” These are commands which require obedience of the believer, and they mark failures in my Christian walk any time I do not obey them in the power supplied through salvation.

I agree! I am empowered for success in Christ. Now, will I ever meet the ultimate standard? No, since sin still resides in me. But God through the Holy Spirit in me and the word of God and fellowship with believers has given me all that I need to live out a sanctified life. The purpose of resting in grace is to launch out and seek to live holy and to reach the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

it takes a work of God to get this clear in our hearts. It really does. I don’t know how else to say it, but I wish people in our circles understood it more.

You never live up to God’s standards. You never, ever fulfill God’s standards by your works. Only Jesus is able to do this. Only Jesus lived the righteousness God requires.

1689 Bapt Conf of Faith talks about this:

Those who attain the greatest height which is possible in this life in their obedience to God, are still so far from being able to supererogate, and to do more than God requires, that they fall short of much which they are bound to do in their duty to God.

and

And in any case, in so far as our works are good they originate from the work of the Holy Spirit. Even then, the good works are so defiled by us, and so mixed with weakness and imperfection, that they could not survive the severity of God’s judgement.

notwithstanding, God is gracious:

Yet, quite apart from the fact that believers are accepted through Christ as individual souls, their good works are also accepted through Christ. It is not as though the believers are (in this life) wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight, but because He looks upon them in His Son, and is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although it is accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.

so, this is where TT gets it right though he’s really weak on the application side.

we really push the “God and I” time, read your Bible every day, devotions, etc.

It’s not bad. It’s useful.

But it is bad in that we now focus on man-made ideas instead of God’s standard.

What’s God’s standard?

• Pray always, in the Spirit.
• Obey His Word
• Love and delight in His Word
• Value His Word more than my bank account, more than chocolate (that’s the NIV application)

so what are we teaching people? read your bible and pray every day? (our standard?) our minimum that is no where written in Scripture?

or God’s standard?

They can’t do God’s standard, but Jesus did it for them. And now we just look to him, the leadership of His Spirit, and he will show us how to move into the greater commands/expectations of God for our lives. He will lead us in learning to value His Word to such an extent in our lives, to obey it, to pray constantly in His Spirit. It might look really different from what we’ve envisioned.

[Anne Sokol]

we really push the “God and I” time, read your Bible every day, devotions, etc.

It’s not bad. It’s useful.

But it is bad in that we now focus on man-made ideas instead of God’s standard.

What’s God’s standard?

• Pray always, in the Spirit.
• Obey His Word
• Love and delight in His Word
• Value His Word more than my bank account, more than chocolate (that’s the NIV application)

so what are we teaching people? read your bible and pray every day? (our standard?) our minimum that is no where written in Scripture?

or God’s standard?

They can’t do God’s standard, but Jesus did it for them. And now we just look to him, the leadership of His Spirit, and he will show us how to move into the greater commands/expectations of God for our lives. He will lead us in learning to value His Word to such an extent in our lives, to obey it, to pray constantly in His Spirit. It might look really different from what we’ve envisioned.

In trying to formulate how to communicate requirements for discipleship to others, in my view, it is best to stick with what the Bible says. Preach the word.

My difference with the emphasis of many Fundamentalists is theological and biblical. Discipleship requires death (take up your cross) so there really is no effort involved with that contra the emphasis on “effort” from some in the F. camp. How can a living sacrifice expend effort?

As Christians we need to walk (sanctification) in the same way that we came to Christ (by faith). See Colossians for this concept.

Fundamentalism (today’s variety) overly concerns itself with outward conformity such as decorum, dress, and also political ideology to some extent. These conformities are carnal generally produced by “efforts.” Christ says “abide in Me and I in you for without Me you can do nothing.” I have never heard a Fundamentalist expound John 15 (I know they have, but I have never heard it and doubt many would preach it well).

Reread the promise of the New Covenant in Jer. and Ez. along with the section in Hebrews. It was made with the House of Judah and Israel at Shavuot 10 days after Christ ascended (in my view). It promises and provides for a supernatural life in the Spirit not carnal self-efforts to please God.

This is my last reply in this thread. I have too much going on to do more than this post.

[alex o.]

[Anne Sokol]

we really push the “God and I” time, read your Bible every day, devotions, etc.

It’s not bad. It’s useful.

But it is bad in that we now focus on man-made ideas instead of God’s standard.

What’s God’s standard?

• Pray always, in the Spirit.
• Obey His Word
• Love and delight in His Word
• Value His Word more than my bank account, more than chocolate (that’s the NIV application)

so what are we teaching people? read your bible and pray every day? (our standard?) our minimum that is no where written in Scripture?

or God’s standard?

They can’t do God’s standard, but Jesus did it for them. And now we just look to him, the leadership of His Spirit, and he will show us how to move into the greater commands/expectations of God for our lives. He will lead us in learning to value His Word to such an extent in our lives, to obey it, to pray constantly in His Spirit. It might look really different from what we’ve envisioned.

In trying to formulate how to communicate requirements for discipleship to others, in my view, it is best to stick with what the Bible says. Preach the word.

My difference with the emphasis of many Fundamentalists is theological and biblical. Discipleship requires death (take up your cross) so there really is no effort involved with that contra the emphasis on “effort” from some in the F. camp. How can a living sacrifice expend effort?

As Christians we need to walk (sanctification) in the same way that we came to Christ (by faith). See Colossians for this concept.

Fundamentalism (today’s variety) overly concerns itself with outward conformity such as decorum, dress, and also political ideology to some extent. These conformities are carnal generally produced by “efforts.” Christ says “abide in Me and I in you for without Me you can do nothing.” I have never heard a Fundamentalist expound John 15 (I know they have, but I have never heard it and doubt many would preach it well).

Reread the promise of the New Covenant in Jer. and Ez. along with the section in Hebrews. It was made with the House of Judah and Israel at Shavuot 10 days after Christ ascended (in my view). It promises and provides for a supernatural life in the Spirit not carnal self-efforts to please God.

This is my last reply in this thread. I have too much going on to do more than this post.

This is the bone of contention. No matter how you slice it, we still have to walk.

[Chip Van Emmerik]

This is the bone of contention. No matter how you slice it, we still have to walk.

I fished around and here is TT talking about this—how he counsels people pastorally and what causes/motivates change.

I read the short interview from TT, linked above. This man is simply a bad communicator.

A lot of preaching these days is too theoretical and disconnected from reality when it comes to the human condition and how real change happens. We use language like “indicatives” and “imperatives.” We love phrases like “faith alone saves but the faith that saves is never alone” and “grace is opposed to earning, not effort.”

No idea what he’s talking about. I’ve never used those words or phrases. His main focus appears to be about proper motivations for sanctification.

And all of those categories and phrases are good. I affirm them all theologically. But none of them answers this question: how does change actually happen?

Here is his main issue:

But there’s a distinct difference between a reason to be obedient and a motivation that actually produces obedience. It’s all well and good to say there are many reasons to obey, but what actually motivates you to be obedient? The idea that we act based on reasons—we act to please God because it’s “the right thing to do”—presupposes that we act rationally.

No kidding. Just what in the world is he trying to say? Legalism is bad? Serve God with the proper motivations? Those are not exactly novel concepts.

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.

Couldn’t he have just quoted Rom 12:1-2 and have been done with it? What is TT saying that is so amazing? Why is he being listened to? Honestly, I had an easier time reading philosophy back in community college than understanding what in the world he is saying - and he isn’t even saying anything novel or deep. Rom 12:1-2. Moving on …

Yes, I’m not sure who in the world TT’s audience is. It is as though I’m reading a Martian author. For example, in his book One Way Love, TT laments that “you will hear great concern from inside the church about too much grace … ” (27). Excuse me? No idea what in the world he’s talking about! Perhaps somebody coming out of a legalistic, KJVO-ish church may find his works on sanctification helpful. I would assume, however, that rather than legalism, a certain degree of apathy and hedonism is what is hindering “evangelical” churches today.

Consider this synopsis from another of his books, One Way Love:

In this “manifesto,” Tchividjian calls the church back to the heart of the Christian faith—grace. It is time for us to abandon our play-it-safe religion, and to get drunk on grace. Two hundred-proof, unflinching grace. It’s shocking and scary, unnatural and undomesticated … but it is also the only thing that can set us free and light the church—and the world—on fire.

Ok … I’m ready to get drunk on grace! Not just any grace, mind you, but 200-proof grace! Perhaps then, and only then, I can light the world on fire … Is there anything actually original in here? Years back, I worked at a used bookstore. I hated being assigned the Christian section. I had to deal with a glut of fluffy books just like this one. They came out every year by the usual characters. They were snapped up at the new bookstores and tossed our way the next year, when the next book by the same author came out. This book appears to be more of the same (with 11 pages of endorsements). He also has a bizarre obsession with telling everybody he’s Billy Graham’s grandson. Well, you know what? I’m Paul Perry’s grandson! Yes, it’s true!!!

Reading his article (linked above) on motivation for sanctification was like listening to a lecture explaining that the world is round. At the end of it, I shrugged my figurative shoulders and said, “Yes, of course. What’s the fuss and why did you take so long to make your point?”

Who knows? If his works help Christians, then I wish him the best. I’m just not the guy he’s writing for, apparently.

Here, I think, is where the problem lies: TT says

I think the Bible includes exhortations that appeal to a wide range of “reasons,” but I’d like to suggest “reasons” are very different from “motivations.” For instance, we might say that a reason to follow the law is to simply please God. After all, Hebrews talks about our good deeds being pleasing to God (perhaps we could call this “running for the crown”). But there’s a distinct difference between a reason to be obedient and a motivation that actually produces obedience. It’s all well and good to say there are many reasons to obey, but what actually motivates you to be obedient? The idea that we act based on reasons—we act to please God because it’s “the right thing to do”—presupposes that we act rationally. But that’s the very idea that the Reformers rejected! Just because we have a reason to be good doesn’t mean we’ll do it—we have to want to.

He believes reasons to serve God and obey Him are not motivations to do so because the Reformers said we are irrational. This is his formula and I think he just made it up. The implication is that we are irrational because we are sinners. I would suggest he is confusing the condition of believers and unbelievers. As believers, we are new creatures in Christ, and regeneration does not leave us behaving in wholly irrational ways. It’s true we love God because He first loved us. That’s the foundation of all true faith. So by the power of regeneration and the work of the Holy Spirit, I love God. Why isn’t pleasing Him a proper motivation? Why isn’t it much more than a reason? For me, the fact that God should be obeyed is both a reason and a motivation.

TT pushes this dichotomy between law and grace much too far. He says:

When it comes to real heart change, we have two options: law or grace. That’s it. Two. At the end of the day we either believe law changes or love does.

Either/or. Why can’t we say love embraces the law because it is from the one we love? The most natural thing in the world is to please the one we love. That’s basic. It’s obvious. But even though we love God, and want to please him, we still battle the flesh. Sin still rears its ugly head. So all the other reasons to obey become motivations as we battle our sin. It’s not about “performance,” it’s about conquering that part of us that makes us weak servants, and occasional failures in the service of our great King. Sometimes the failures are pronounced. These failures are a legitimate cause for sadness. Grace sustains us in this, however, knowing we are eternally loved in Christ and secure in God’s affection. That doesn’t make our failure okay. It calls for repentance, and a godly sorrow that leads to restoration and life. Is it wrong to say it motivates us to try harder next time…to look for escape routes, to change some things, to discipline ourselves? Grace teaches us to do things. It is

instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.