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

[Wayne Wilson]

[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?

Wayne, I think it’s safe to say that you didn’t ignore the sarcasm. While I disagree with you that sarcasm/irony/satire are “unworthy of a believer,” I did not mean any personal offense and I am sorry that I offended you. I meant only to provoke additional thought and analysis (and I think I succeeded, given your additional comments and good questions).

I would point out, though, that my sarcasm (if you want to call it only that) was not directed at you or your character personally, but at the common results that I perceive to flow from the position that you stated (and that many here seem to agree with; hence, my repeated use of “we”) — results that TT might label “performancism” and that are often subtle enough and acceptable enough that we often miss them both in ourselves and in others. (I actually do include myself in that number, on too many occasions.) It was that subtlety that I was trying to dig out with sarcasm.

In response, you directly attacked my character and intelligence (“you don’t know that humility and love and being a servant are the fruit of grace in a regenerated spirit,” “you really should read …,” “your effort to deliberately confuse,” etc.) and attributed my comments to my “flesh.” I am doubtful that we can have a constructive conversation under those circumstances. Which is a shame, because I think you do raise some good questions and that there are some good answers to at least some of those questions.

Well, brother, I don’t think all sarcasm is unworthy of a believer, but I do think your sarcasm in this instance was. I would invite you to review and think about it again later, since it took a legitimate thought presented here contrary to your own, and suggested such a thought was proud and sinful at its core. No one else here engaged with that kind of deliberate assumption of sinful motives for a theological position. In fact, I believe in my first post, I made an effort defend TT from just such an assumption, though I disagree with him.

Using the “we” does not make it less of an attack. My asking “if you don’t know” is based on a full paragraph of yours in which you did not consider anything but a sinful reason for disagreeing with you, and I think you do know better. Finally, substituting “salvation” for “sanctification” is a deliberate confusing of the two. I don’t know what else you would call it. You took a paragraph about sanctification, and made the switch. It was a clever thing to do, but merely clever.

Since you are withdrawing, I will leave off with Berkhof’s Systematic Theology for other readers here:

Berkhof: When we speak of good works in connection with sanctification, we do not refer to works that are perfect, that answer perfectly to the requirements of the divine moral law, and that are of such inherent worth as to entitle one to the reward of eternal life under the conditions of the covenant of works. We do mean, however, works that are essentially different in moral quality from the actions of the unregenerate, and that are expressions of a new and holy nature, as the principle from which they spring. These are the works which God not only approves, but in a certain sense also rewards. The following are the characteristics of works that are spiritually good:
1) They are the fruits of a regenerate heart, since without this no one can have the disposition (to obey God) and the motive (to glorify God) that is required (Matt 12:23; 7:17-18).
2) They are not only in external conformity with the law of God, but they are also done in conscious obedience to the revealed will of God, that is, because they are required by God. They spring from the same principle of love to God and the desire to do His will (Deut 6:2, 1 Sam 15:22; Isa 1:12; 29:13; Matt 15:9).
3) Whatever their proximate aim may be, their final aim is not the welfare of man, but the glory of God, which is the highest conceivable aim of man’s life (1 Cor 10:31; Rom 12:1; Col 3:17,23).

so let’s just give up …

this conversation requires hours of verbal dialog.

wayne, yes i believe we expend effort in sanctification. But I also believe it is all God.

(now, how and on what we expend effort is another very interesting part of this discussion.)

we should have a wizziq or some type of free online teaching/discussion thingy about this. Vitaliy would take part. Now that would be a way awesome thing to do.

TT is more interesting to watch on youtube than read, if anyone really cares. I think we all agree that his message is incomplete. But we disagree on the substance of his message. I think his message is correct though incomplete in explaining certain things about the law, effort, etc. Others just think his message is incorrect.

I’d like to encourage readers to check out

Sanctification, Faith and Works: An Index of Recent Web Debate

The debate has several different kinds of problems

1. Metadebate: Under the heading of metadebate (debate about matters that are really not relevant)

• Interpersonal conflicts, people getting upset with each other, taking offense, targeting people rather than ideas, etc.
• Conflicts over points that are not really in dispute (various perspectives trading mischaracterizations of eachothers’ views)

2. Reasoning problems: These are problems in working with premises, as opposed to problems with the premises themselves.

3. Premise/principle problems: disagreement over whether basic premises are true or false. This is the most fruitful place to focus debate, but clarity has to be achieved first, otherwise it moves quickly into mischaracterizations and “conflicts over points that are not really in dispute.”

4. Clarity problems: disagreement occurs because at least one side of the debate is making assertions that are inconsistent with one another or contradictory (often overlaps with “2. Reasoning problems”). So as soon as an effective counter is offered against assertion A, the ones who have been defending assertion A act as though it didn’t happen, and step sideways to assertion B or C and then, quite often, to not-A (a contradiction of assertion A). What’s being revealed in these cases is that there is really no coherent view, only sentiment. It is not possible to fruitfully debate sentiment.

A test for reasoning problems: ask yourself, does it follow that if A is true, B must be true? (What if I substitute close analogies for A and B? Does the reasoning still appear sound?) In parts of the sanctification debate some premises are agreed on, but poor reasoning is resulting in faulty conclusions.

A test for premise problems: ask yourself, what do we agree on? Start making a list of points that are not in dispute and soon you discover the points that really are. This process fails in two ways: 1. either due to metadebate or 2. due to basic clarity/coherence problems. If the real points of disagreement can’t be identified, you are probably trying to debate with a sentiment rather than a view. … and that’s a bit like trying to smell color or hear temperature.

(The unfortunate thing in the sanct./ works-law debate is that there really are a couple of important premises at stake—and they lead to unavoidable conclusions.))

Aaron, that was exceedingly instructive and helpful for any meaningful exchange..Thanks!