Aggressive Sanctification (part 11)

---

“Unfit for his office or unpardonable stupidity!” Those were the disdainful options presented by the city’s new tailors for any who failed to see the “wonderful quality” and “exceptional beauty” of the Emperor’s new clothes. And so, as we could have predicted, the admiration and accolades came flooding in from most every citizen of the empire. “Marvelous!” “Incomparable!” they fawned. No one wanted to be left out. No one wanted to be thought ignorant or undeserving of his or her reputation in the kingdom. But the problem was, as one honest little boy pointed out, there were actually never any clothes to admire.

Without intending to, Hans Christian Andersen captured the essence of the problem with much of what intermittently grows up around the truth of the Christian faith. The early church’s bout with Gnosticism, for instance, proved to be a formidable foe as the community’s penchant for pretention and elitism fueled the belief that a “proper knowledge” of God could only be attained by a special insightful knowledge, possessed by those endowed with a superior mystical intuition. The word “Gnosticism” is derived from the Greek word “knowledge” – and who doesn’t want to claim that they have a real “knowledge” of the God we all gather to worship, or who wants to admit that they don’t possess an adequate intuition with which to be attuned to the Savior? The Gnostics spoke of those who had the “divine spark” and those who did not. The “haves” could understand the “deep truths” that God wanted us all to know, and the “have-nots” were unfortunately plagued with an “unpardonable stupidity.”

While classic Gnosticism died, the condescending bifurcation of Christians into those who are mystically intuitive enough to “get it”, and those who “just can’t”, has revived itself throughout church history with the rise of the Neo-Platonists, forms of the second-blessing movements, branches of Pentecostalism, and even the Christ-quoting New Age sects. There seems to be a perpetual vulnerability to this bifurcation among Christians who dread being accused of being “unfit” or “stupid” when it comes to understanding the deep things of God or experiencing the full Christian life as God intended. It is no different when it comes to many of the modern evangelical discussions regarding “gospel-centered sanctification.”

The difficulty of protecting your life and doctrine from any Gnostic-style intrusion is that the “mystical initiates” always describe their deeper knowledge or enlightened experience in terms that are almost impossible to protest. Who doesn’t want to be “gospel-focused” or “cross-centered”? Who doesn’t want to be “carried by Christ” or “reliant on grace”? Who doesn’t want to “behold God” or “live the gospel”? Who wants to admit they haven’t been “fueled by grace” or “steered by God’s efforts instead of their own”? But before we agree to any pious-sounding prescription we ought to be quick to ask for a clear definition.

When it comes to the popular “new insights” regarding sanctification, you’ll find that the conversation is littered with fuzzy language and undefined analogies. Many of the discussions about what God does or does not require, desires or expects are punctuated with “Bible words” and cast in godly-sounding phrases, but the words and phrases are not defined and their meaning is not discernable. It is as though, “If you have to ask what they mean, there’s something clearly wrong with you or your experience with God!” So Christians readily embrace the expanded “gospel-centered” terminology, applying their own meaning, or avoiding any attempt at meaning altogether. Our views of the Christian life end up consisting of phrases that “feel good” and expressions that “seem right” but do little to clarify what sanctification actually means or entails.

But the question must always be asked, “What do you mean by that?” “What is it exactly that you are saying about what God expects me to think, believe or do?” Such requests for clarification are often received as an insult. It is as though you are asking a musician to explain the mathematics of a musical score during a symphony’s performance. But that is the problem with this age-old appetite for mystical imprecision; the “inductees” want to claim that the “true reality” (or beauty, genuineness or glory) lies not in something perceptible or even understandable, but in something that is indefinable. One may claim that’s appropriate when discussing the subjectivism of jazz music, fashion design or cubistic art, but when one is talking about the objective truths and precepts of God’s word this should not be tolerated. As Jay Adam’s has rightly warned, we are in trouble “when our biblical instructors begin to sound like poets” and our Christian books “offer warm fuzzies, but do precious little to instruct us in the ways of God found in the Scriptures” (Biblical Sonship, pp.24, 26).

And yet, there is a voracious appetite these days for books and blogs which allow Christians to feel their way through the paragraphs, instead of carefully thinking their way through the meaning of each concept. Little effort is made by authors and bloggers to be clear and precise. Instead, the “keys” and the “secrets” of the Christian life are steeped in undefined analogies and packaged in a flowery vocabulary.

One could argue that there is a discernable confluence of social, theological and philosophical currents, which make a vague and inexact pulpit preferable to one that is clear and precise. But Christians should not put up with this. We should be quick to discern that when it comes to God’s word there are a host of sinful reasons for desiring existential platitudes over lucid and plain exposition. Leonard Ravenhill used to say that, “when there is something in the Bible that churches don’t like they call it ‘legalism’.” And I have found that when that doesn’t work, they can always obscure the Bible’s clarity in a haze of nebulous language.

When there is a diet of shapeless sermons and imprecise teaching, many people are persuaded to deny what is biblically obvious. Witty phrases and emotive analogies begin to trump direct and clear statements found throughout the New Testament. Biblical statutes are dismissed on the authority of pastoral illustrations. “Frolicking in the shadow of the cross”, “bathing in grace” and “basking in Jesus” start to invalidate the clear biblical call to “decide”, “choose” and “work out our salvation”. With the popularity of all of this fuzzy language it is understandable why many Christians begin to feel “unfit for their office or unpardonably stupid” for not joining in. But if we are to be faithful to the God of Scripture we dare not reject or neglect what he has so plainly revealed in order to garner the affirmation of the evangelical in-crowd or to pursue some ill-advised respite from the duty of Christian sanctification.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 10)

---

According to Tchividjian in Jesus + Nothing = Everything one of the significant reasons the “wrong view” of sanctification is almost universally held by Christians is that most of the preaching they receive from Sunday to Sunday is misleading. Tchividjian insists that a Christian’s

idolatrous self-focus is only intensified by what is typically taught and preached in our churches. The fact is, a lot of preaching these days has been unwittingly, unconsciously seduced by moralism. Moralistic preaching only reinforces our inner assumption that our performance for God will impress him to the point of blessing us. (p.49)

As we have already pointed out, the Bible clearly asserts that a Christian’s good deeds do in fact please God, and that our righteous acts as regenerate people are responded to by God with a variety of blessings, both temporal and eternal (see part 9: The Doctrine of Rewards). Unfortunately Jesus + Nothing = Everything conflates the idea of God’s pleasure and the rewards related to our sanctification with a legalism related to our justification. He writes,

A Christian may not struggle with believing that our good behavior is required to initially earn God’s favor; but I haven’t met one Christian who doesn’t struggle daily with believing—somehow, someway— that our good behavior is required to keep God’s favor. So many contemporary sermons strengthen this slavery to self. “Do more, try harder” is the constant refrain. (p.49)

Besides Tchividjian’s outlandish claim that everyone he knows is perpetually trying to earn their place in God’s family, his idea that preaching which exhorts Christians to expend effort to be holy is wrongheaded and injurious to God’s people, could not be further from what we find on the pages of the New Testament.

From the first descriptions of New Testament preaching we find clarity from John the Baptist concerning how the gracious remission of sins takes place (i.e., “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” – Jn.1:29), while at the same time strongly exhorting the penitent to do good works (e.g., “Bear fruits in keeping with repentance” – Lk.3:6). There was no confusion or apprehension about proclaiming the redeeming work of the Lamb and the saving work of the Spirit, right alongside of God’s call and desire to see his repentant people “give”, “share”, cease “threatening” and “extorting”, rebuff greed and be “content with their wages” (Lk.3:10-17). These strong moral exhortations from the same “pulpit” as the joyful proclamation of the regenerating work of God, were all described by Luke in this way: “So with many other exhortations he preached good news to the people” (Lk.3:18).

The “proclamation” of our forgiveness and right-standing with God secured for us in Christ, stands happily juxtaposed with strong “exhortations” to press on in holiness, on page after page of New Testament preaching. To recommend that we mitigate moral “exhortation” to protect Gospel “proclamation” is a misguided suggestion, foreign to what we see illustrated by Christ, the apostles and in all the New Testament epistles.

The inclusion of both gospel proclamation and moral exhortation is not only illustrated in Scripture it is also commanded. In Paul’s last extant epistle, he strongly instructs Timothy regarding his pulpit ministry.

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 4:1-5)

The work of an evangelist cannot take place without a focus on the doctrine of Christ’s finished work on our behalf. And yet, preaching ministry is not limited to the “indicative” of the “completed work of Christ”. The work of a preacher, according to this God-breathed text, includes descriptive words like “reprove”, “rebuke”, and “exhort”. Let’s consider these important words one at a time.

The Greek word elencho, translated “reprove,” is used by Jesus in Matthew 18:15 to explain how to point out a brother’s sin and move him to change his behavior. Jesus said to “go and tell him his fault (elencho),” that is, “go to show him his sin and summon him to repent and do differently” (Kittel, TDNT, Eerdmans, 2:474). James equates aspects of preaching to a stark reflection of ourselves in a mirror (Jms.1:22-24). Preaching, if it is ever to “reprove”, must not only point to Christ as the source and reason of our secure standing with God, but it must also boldly reflect the disheveled and deficient aspects of our sanctification that need our attention.

The second clarifying word Paul enlists in 2 Timothy 4:2 is the word epitimao, translated “rebuke.” This word also focuses on the change of behavior Timothy should expect in the lives of his hearers. Lexicographers define the word as speaking or warning “in order to prevent an action or bring one to an end” (Bauer, Gingrich & Danker, AGELNT, Univ. of Chicago, p.303). It is the word used to describe Christ’s statement to the wind and the waves when he commanded them to cease their activity (Matthew 8:26; Mark 4:39; Luke 8:24). Preaching that “rebukes”, as the Bible says it must, cannot unendingly restate the indicative truths of our justification, it must insightfully call God’s people to stop their sinful activities and pursue holiness. As Paul instructs Titus regarding his pulpit ministry: “[Christ] gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Tit.2:14-15).

The third word Paul employs in 2 Timothy 4:2 to describe the preaching that should exist in our pulpits is the word parakaleo, which is translated “exhort” and sometimes “urge”, “entreat”, “plead” and even “beg”. Though the use of this word is broad in the New Testament, in this context it complements the previous two verbs, while conveying an added intensity. This intensity is seen in Paul’s use of the word in 2 Corinthians 12:8, when he “pleaded” (parakaleo) with the Lord three times to remove his painful ailment. Or consider Paul’s heart-wrenching call for peace in Philippi between Euodia and Syntyche, when he “entreats” (parakaleo) them to agree with one another (Phil.4:2). In Ephesians 4:1 Paul’s preaching passion is seen when he writes, “I therefore, a prisoner of the Lord, urge (parakaleo) you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called.” Throughout the New Testament we can consistently see that Christian preaching does and should call God’s people to make distinct and specific adjustments in their lives as they aggressively advance in their sanctification. (For much more on this topic see my book, Preaching That Changes Lives.)

Cries of “moralism” and “legalism” cannot change the biblical instructions and the examples of preaching that we find in the Bible. God’s undershepherds are called to preach in a compelling and persuasive way that brings God’s truth to bear on lives. Our progress in sanctification requires it. As J. I. Packer put it, “Preaching is essentially teaching plus application…where the plus is lacking something less than preaching takes place” (J. I. Packer in Dick Lucas, et. al. Preaching the Living Word: Addresses from the Evangelical Ministry Assembly, Christian Focus, 1999, p.31). Spurgeon poignantly adds, “Where the application begins, there the sermon begins.” Packer aptly summarizes this concern:

Far too many pulpit discourses have been put together on wrong principles… some have expounded biblical doctrine without applying it, thus qualifying as lectures rather than preachments (for lecturing aims only to clear the head, while preaching seeks to change the life); some have been no more than addresses focusing on the present self-awareness of the listeners, but not at any stage confronting them with the Word of God… Such discourses are less than preaching… but because they were announced as sermons they are treated as preaching and people’s idea of preaching gets formed in terms of them, so that the true conception of preaching is forgotten. (ibid.)

True “legalism” (i.e., attempting to earn one’s salvation) is deplorable. Actual “moralism”, as they call it, (i.e., seeking to be good without regeneration) is damnable. But Christian preaching that is predicated on Christ, revels in our unmerited acceptance before God, presents Jesus as the source, the reason and as the enabler for all that is good, and also passionately calls Christians to forsake sin and do what is right, is neither legalistic nor moralistic – it is biblical!

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 9)

---

When the doctrine of sanctification is confused with the doctrine of justification there is often an apprehension, if not a disdain, for the doctrine of eternal and temporal rewards. It seems hard for Christians who promote “gospel-centered sanctification” to find a place in their theology for God’s tangible remuneration for their good works, if in fact all of God’s “blessings” that could possibly be granted were already secured for them by Christ’s work and not theirs. But such thinking fails to see the difference between the blessings which relate to our justification and the blessings which the Bible says are related to our ongoing sanctification.

In Jesus + Nothing = Everything Tchividjian speaks of the right of every person in Christ to receive all the “full blessings” of God – all of them for all of us. In a section entitled “Every Blessing”, he comments on the verses from Colossians regarding Christ’s deity, saying, “For Christians, Christ’s fullness means everything for everyone” (p.68). If there is any experiential variation of “blessing” for Christians, he tells us, it is not based on our behavior; it is simply based on our lack of knowledge. He writes: “With every new perception of Christ’s fullness that we receive, we open ourselves up to be blessed with even more” (p.69). Tchividjian summarizes his point in a section entitled “All We Need” with the words: “Christ is all—and all we need” (p.70). Ironically, he then enlists the familiar quotation from C. S. Lewis which reads:

Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased. (p.70)

But this quote from Lewis’ sermon, entitled Weight of Glory, delivered in 1941 at Oxford University, is not referring to uniformed “rewards” or “blessings” that are “all, for all of us”. Lewis was in fact speaking of our need to “work”, “sacrifice” and “deny ourselves” to receive the kinds of varied blessings that are given by God in response to our varied obedience in sanctification. (Beyond being with Christ and being like Christ, Lewis’ sermon references the biblical and proportional reward of “wealth imagery” or “glory”, the “feasting” and “entertained” language of reward, and the “positional” rewards of ruling, judging, etc.) In this sermon, just before the section that Tchividjian quotes, Lewis is seeking to counter any charge that might be raised against those who desire and pursue these varied blessings. And in the next sentence after the quoted section Lewis states, “We must not be troubled by unbelievers when they say that this promise of reward makes the Christian life a mercenary affair” (Weight of Glory, Harper Collins, 2009. p.27). What Lewis is pushing for in this classic sermon is not for Christians to simply rest in their justification, but to vigorously pursue their sanctification so as to hear “well done good and faithful servant” and to receive the varied gifts that go along with hearing that praise. Lewis’ quoted text is actually contrasting indolent sin versus faithful obedience, not resting in Christ versus “performancism”. Lewis’ line of reason in this sermon is certainly not, as Tchividjian attempts to utilize it, a call to return to perpetually ponder justification, while avoiding any strenuous efforts in sanctification.

The Bible’s Two-Fold Use of the Word “Blessings”

Unfortunately, most who are promoting what they call “gospel-centered sanctification” utilize the word “blessings” in a much narrower sense than the Bible does. When Christians say “we cannot earn God’s acceptance or his blessings in our lives” they are using the word “blessings” to refer to God’s salvific favor and those gifts of God related to our adoption and acceptance before him. And of course I fully agree, our works can in no way curry any favor related to our justification. But the word “blessing” is also used in English and in the biblical languages to describe “some beneficial thing for which one is grateful” (New Oxford American Dictionary. Third Edition. Oxford Press, 2010.) or something “pertaining to being happy, with the implication of enjoying favorable circumstances” (Louw & Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, UBS, 1996, vol.1, p.301).

In speaking of justification the Bible says that God has “blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” (Eph.1:3). But if those absolute, heavenly “blessings” which relate to our salvation are not differentiated from the varieties of temporal and eternal “blessings” which are said to be granted based on our daily choices, decisions and behaviors in sanctification, then we will inevitably err in dismissing or ignoring a large category of conditional promises that relate to our daily Christian choices and decisions. Most commentators are careful to note this distinction. For instance, Peter O’Brien reminds his readers in the Pillar NT Commentary on Ephesians that they must not forget the context when they consider the parameters of the phrase “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places”. He writes, “The nature of these gracious gifts is made plain in the following words of the eulogy (vv. 4–14), and include election to holiness, adoption as God’s sons and daughters, redemption and forgiveness, a knowledge of God’s gracious plan to sum up all things in Christ, the gift of the Spirit, and the hope of glory” (p.95).

To distinguish, note how in the following verses the varied blessings of “enjoying favorable circumstances” are persistently tied to how we respond to the commands and directives of God’s word.

But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

James 1:25

A faithful man will abound with blessings…

Proverbs 28:20a

So may the Lord reward you with good for what you have done to me this day.

1 Samuel 24:19b

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up.

Galatians 6:9

Whoever despises the word brings destruction on himself, but he who reveres the commandment will be rewarded.

Proverbs 13:13

For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do.

Hebrews 6:10

…lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Matthew 6:20

Because, contrary to justification, there is a contingent, conditional, “this-for-that” relationship tied to the blessings and rewards which are part of our sanctification, many pushing “gospel-centered sanctification” loathe to think about them, talk about them or teach on them. (Outside of his misuse of Lewis’ one quotation on rewards, Tchividjian only mentions rewards in one other paragraph of his book, which he defines as something uniformed and guaranteed for all Christians, even though his reference to Matthew 5:12 is actually about the varied rewards for those who are variously persecuted.)

Ignoring the doctrine of rewards in a book on sanctification is worse than unfortunate, because so much of the Bible speaks of these rewards. These promises are designed to motivate, encourage and spur us on to choose to do what is right. They are not base motivations or fleshly. They are a part of God’s parental strategy, which is a part of his kind and generous oversight of our lives. Some of these “just” rewards (as Hebrews 6:10 calls them) for our obedience and faithful service are realized now, but most are realized in the next life. As John Wesley writes,

There is an inconceivable variety in the degrees of reward in the other world. Let not any slothful one say, "If I get to heaven at all, I will be content:" such a one may let heaven go altogether. In worldly things, men are ambitious to get as high as they can. Christians have a far more noble ambition. The difference between the very highest and the lowest state in the world is nothing to the smallest difference between the degrees of glory. (John Wesley’s Notes on the Revelation of Jesus Christ, cp. at Revelation 7:9).

The doctrines of grace do not annul these kinds of rewards. These blessings should not be ignored or disdained. They are a part of the Christian’s godly thoughts and noble desires. They can and should rightly be utilized in the Christian life to drive us on in our sanctification.

Each day our decisions are making an impact. They are either a fragrant offering to God (Phil.4:17), to which he responds with numerous blessings, or they are grievous to him, which may provoke his loving discipline. We are either serving him with “gold, silver and precious stones” that bring glory to him and store up treasure in heaven, or we are piling up “wood, hay and straw”, which will result in a loss of reward on our day of accountability (1Cor.3:11-14). Our choices are not irrelevant, unimportant or inconsequential – they matter to God and will always make a difference in heaven and on earth.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 8)

---

The confusing of one’s view of justification with one’s view of sanctification is often aided by a failure to distinguish and/or rightly apply the New Testament passages which have the ceremonial law of the Old Testament in view, from those passages which are addressing the moral law of God.

For instance, in Jesus + Nothing = Everything consider Tchividjian’s use of Colossians 2:16-17 (“Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ”). His discussion of this passage is set in a chapter entitled “Out of the Shadows”, which is intended by the author to help us avoid “legalism’s sinister threat” (p.105). This chapter serves to fortify his view of “gospel-centered sanctification” or “true life”, as he calls it, which “does not lay emphasis on anything we must do” (p.105).

After quoting Colossians 2:16-17, and appropriately categorizing its subject as “ceremonial law”, Tchividjian goes on to apply this text by saying, “Whenever we find ourselves focusing primarily (almost exclusively sometimes – at least, I’m guilty of that) on an expectation of rules and standards and values, and we’re imposing those things on others, then we’re building our life on shadows; we’re missing the substance” (p.114). The problem with the previous statement is that the Bible’s shadow/substance distinction, as well as the concern of this passage in Colossians, is unmistakably about God’s rescinding of the ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, and his condemnation of those who were wrongly imposing them on New Testament Christians. Tchividjian can’t possibly be admitting that he sometimes “almost exclusively” focuses on the “shadowy” ceremonial laws of the Old Testament. No, as he quickly makes clear, he is employing this passage to reinforce his book’s theme that a focus on God’s moral law in Christian sanctification is “anti-gospel” (pp.46, 105, 119). He continues in the rest of the chapter to strongly downplay any focus or imposition of “moral renovation”, “piety”, “devotion” and “spiritual disciplines” (pp.117-122), not a focus or imposition of ceremonial rules regarding “foods”, “festivals” or the “Sabbath”.

By way of contrast, Paul continues on in the next two chapters of Colossians, not pulling the Christians’ focus away from moral renovation, piety, devotion and spiritual disciplines, but toward them (Col.3:5-4:6). This is not for the purpose of getting the Colossians to try to earn their justification, instead Paul “focuses on” and “imposes” God’s moral laws on the Colossian Christians for the purpose of advancement and progress in their spiritual growth and sanctification.

A Brief Primer on Types of Old Testament Laws

While much has been written on distinguishing types of Old Testament laws (with some modern scholars calling the whole effort into question), it doesn’t take much effort for the thoughtful reader of the Old Testament to perceive that not all Old Testament commands are of the same variety. They can easily be classified in at least three ways.

Many laws, which were given by God to the Israelites who had just “exited” out from under the governmental oversight of Egypt, were clearly directed to provide what was then missing – a judicial law code. This budding nation needed a civil, criminal and penal law code to adjudicate disputes, deal with thieves and murderers, and define the community’s property rights, taxation, and political affairs. If the Israelites were to be a nation living among nations, they needed a set of laws with which to function. And so God gave them. Traditionally this category of laws has been called the “civil law” of the Old Testament. At present, the church of Jesus Christ is not a nation among nations, but rather, an international organization called to function peaceably within whatever government it may be under, making the church’s adherence or enforcement of this Old Testament civil law code unexpected and largely obsolete (Rom.13:1-10).

The second category of laws, which God gave in the Old Testament, related to the prescribed form of worship, the practice of ceremonies, the participation in rituals, and the structure of a religious hierarchy, which we learn from the rest of the Bible was to be an instructive expression of how God was going to deal with the problem of sin. The laws of “clean and unclean”, the rules regarding food and animal sacrifices, the dietary restrictions, the requirements for priests and high priests, the establishment of a religious calendar, the monetary obligations to underwrite it all – these were all a part of God’s temporary plan to symbolize and ritualize the then forthcoming real and ultimate solution for people’s spiritual “uncleanness”, which would later be fully realized in Christ. Traditionally this category of laws has been called “ceremonial law.” A great deal of the New Testament is given to explaining why these rules are now “obsolete” and should be “set aside”, since they were only “a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb.7:18; 8:13 - 9:1; 10:1).

The third category of Old Testament rules is traditionally called “moral law.” These laws are not about religious calendars or criminal restitution. They do not contain the symbolism of “clean and unclean” foods or fibers. They are not about incarceration or the reign of earthly kings. These rules are expressed from Genesis to Malachi and teach us what is moral, ethical, honest, virtuous and righteous. Unlike the civil and ceremonial laws, we cannot look to just one passage to find them. They are not contained in one list or a single book of the Old Testament. They punctuate the narratives of Scripture and they can be extracted from the wise counsel that unfolds within each installment of God’s inspired library. Each of these rules reflects something of God’s good character. They are an expression of his moral virtue. They give us an articulated standard of what is right. These are laws we love because of what they embody and reflect. They are never obsolete and must never be put aside. And because these laws are the guide for Christian living, we find them repeated, emphasized, and reinforced on just about every page of the New Testament.

Why This is Helpful

Keeping this brief summary of the three distinguishable aspects of the Old Testament rules in mind, we can begin to see why it is possible to mistakenly downplay or even dismiss the moral rules of God when we read a New Testament passage without first determining which category of “law” the passage is talking about. And because moral laws and ceremonial laws are both abbreviated in in the New Testament by the word “law”, we must be careful to always examine the context. One cannot simply quote a New Testament passage about the law if one hasn’t clearly determined which kind of law the passage has in view.

In Paul’s letter to the Galatian churches for instance, we find passages that are condemning the false teachers’ heresy of requiring an adherence to the ceremonial law of circumcision. In some situations described in this letter, the heresy is in the form of requiring the ceremonial law for one to be justified. (Whether it is moral law or ceremonial law, the Bible clearly teaches that there is no keeping of any laws which can justify someone before God.) In this letter we also find that Paul is condemning a return to the ceremonial law of circumcision as an act of sanctification. Whether it was to boost their religious reputation, avoid persecution, or to keep up appearances, Paul denounces any use of the obsolete ceremonial law as part of one’s sanctification.

This is the opposite of what he and the rest of the New Testament writers teach regarding the moral law and sanctification. The moral law does in fact serve a major role in our spiritual growth – the ceremonial law does not! Therefore, it is critical that we don’t quote passages that downplay or condemn “the law” in a Christian’s life until we carefully discover which “law” is in view. This distinction is crucial, and I find it is often missed in the discussion regarding “law” and sanctification.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 7)

Part and parcel of the promotion of “gospel-centered sanctification” is its juxtaposition with God’s moral law. Unfortunately the classic “law-gospel” contrast is taken to unbiblical extremes in this view of the Christian life. This view does not simply affirm or reaffirm that moral law-keeping is impotent in justification, but, by definition, “gospel-centered sanctification” goes to great lengths to tell us that God’s rules should be downplayed (if not completely ignored) in our sanctification. Much is made by Tchividjian in Jesus + Nothing = Everything for instance, that we are all natural born legalists, and all that the rules will accomplish for us (even as Christians!) is to put us on a damnable, anti-gospel, self-justifying, moralistic path of increasing sin (see pp. 40, 46, 98, 105, 152, 172).

As it regards God’s moral law and our sanctification, we must weigh such austere admonitions against the teaching of Scripture. Helpful in this discussion is Calvin’s widely embraced summary of the moral law’s three uses as observed in the Bible (see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book 2, Chapter 7, Sections 7, 10, & 12). In summary, these are:

1) the role the law serves in revealing our sin and our need for salvation 

        (Rom.3:20);

2) the role the law serves in restraining evil in the general population 

        (Rom.13:3-4);

3) the role that the law serves in directing Christians in living a godly life  

        (Rom.13:9- 14)

(Note: Often you will hear the order of the first two inverted as a result of the codification in the Formula of Concord and the early Lutheran theologians’ use of the triad, “Sündenriegel, Sündenspiegel, Lebensregel” meaning “a restraint against sin, a mirror of sin, and a rule of life” or oft-used English summary, “political, pedagogical and didactic” uses of the law.)

Unfortunately, many who confound their view of sanctification with justification speak often of Calvin’s first use of the law (to show us our sin), but speak much less, sometimes not all, of the third use of the law (to show us how we are to live). When the moral laws of God are spoken of, preached or taught by them, the first, dominant and sustained focus is on how we fail and fall short. This emphasis is easy to understand. If our focus is perpetually set on justification, then that is the appropriate perspective concerning God’s rules – they show us how incapable and defeated we are. In evangelism we must utilize the law in this way. And as we reflect on the gospel at the Lord’s Supper and in worship, we should humbly see the magnitude of God’s grace as we recognize the holy and perfect standard of God. But if this is our only perspective and it is our mission to think singularly about justification, then there is nothing left but the worst version of “miserable-sinner Christianity”, which is weighted with chronic defeat and dejection.

By contrast, in our call to pursue biblical sanctification, we are to see the law as an expression of God’s righteousness that we are privileged and resolved to reflect in an unrighteous world. It teaches, guides and even motivates us to live as reflections of his holiness (not only his grace). We “are the salt of the earth” and “the light of the world” and are called to “let our light shine before others, so that they may see our good works” (Mt.5:16).

When we passionately and joyfully embrace the high calling and privilege to uphold God’s righteous standards in this world, we are not being “self-righteous” or seeking “self-justification” or engaging in “sanctimonious legalism”; we are instead seeking to please and obey our heavenly Father who commands us to be “be zealous for good works” (Tit.2:14b) saying “show yourselves in all respects to be a model of good works” (Tit.2:7).

This was Christ’s purpose “to redeem us from all lawlessness” (Tit.2:14a). The downplaying of the privilege of engaging in the “third use of the law” is a kind of “lawlessness” that Jesus came to prevent among his redeemed people. “Sin is lawlessness” John writes, “You know that he appeared to take away sins” (1Jn.3:4b-5a). Clearly concerning God’s people who are pursuing sanctification, this statement encompasses more than the penalty of sin, it also includes the practice of sin.

Far from disparaging the law, when God’s favored people understand the law’s role in sanctification we learn to love his rules. Knowing he has “commanded his precepts to be kept diligently” (Ps.119:4) we “praise [him] with an upright heart when we learn [his] righteous rules” (v.7). We “delight in his statues” (v.16), our “soul is consumed with longing for [his] rules at all times” (v.20), and we “find delight in [his] commandments, which [we] love” (v.47). That partial testimony from Psalm 119 is being scolded in many circles today as a legalistic, self-righteous, moralistic, self-justifying, heretical orientation. But remember that these inspired lyrics are part of a God-breathed song book that was also quick to celebrate the unmerited favor of God, the forgiveness of the Holy One, and whose writer knew just “how blessed” the person is “whose transgression is forgiven” and whose “sin is covered” (Ps.32:1). There was no doubting that not a single person “could stand” were the Lord to “mark iniquities” or “keep a record of wrongs” (Ps.130:3).

Yes, those who sing of the grace of God should also celebrate their love and enthusiasm for aggressively seeking to keep God’s law day by day.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 6)

---

Much of the problem with the popular discussion of “gospel-centered sanctification” stems from a one-dimensional understanding of the biblical word “sanctification”. Yet the Scripture clearly uses the word “sanctification” in two distinguishable ways.

The English words “sanctification”, “sanctify”, “sanctified” and “sacred”, which appear in our English translations of the New Testament are all derived and translated from the root word “holy” (hagios) found in the Greek New Testament. The core non-technical meaning of this word refers to something that has been or is being “set apart” or “separate”. It can rightly refer to God himself, who is “set apart” in a variety of ways from every other being. It can refer to things that are “set apart” for some special use, as in the case of the temple’s furnishings. And it can also refer to Christians – in two distinct ways:

1) Christians, positionally, at justification have been “set apart” to be God’s own possession;

2) Christians, practically, are being increasingly “set apart” from sinful actions and associations.

Notice for instance, when Paul enlists the analogy of marriage to both instruct and illustrate Christ’s relationship with the church. He writes, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word” (Eph.5:25-26). Here “sanctify” speaks to the “setting apart” of Christians to be Christ’s bride. This takes place positionally for each regenerate individual of the church when he or she is justified by faith in Christ.

To the Thessalonians, on the other hand, Paul writes, “Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality” (1Th.4:1-3). Here “sanctification” speaks to the “setting apart” of a Christian’s life. It speaks of Christians moving away from their sinful activities and progressively participating more-and-more in God-pleasing behavior.

Forms of the word “sanctification” are used in these two distinct contexts throughout the New Testament. The first context is a once-for-all forensic and legal reality, which describes our status as God’s people who have been purchased, adopted and redeemed. The second is a progressive and ongoing reality, which describes our practice as people who are becoming increasingly holy, godly and Christlike. To distinguish these two, the first is often designated “positional sanctification” or sometimes “definitive sanctification”, while the second is usually designated “practical sanctification” or “progressive sanctification.”

When the word “sanctification” is used by Tchividjian in Jesus + Nothing = Everything he is presenting to us a way to understand our progressive sanctification. The book is about contrasting ways to approach our daily, practical sanctification – either by “resting” and “relaxing” (which he advises – pp.11, 46, 120, et al.) or “working” (which he labels “legalism” and “anti-gospel” pp.45ff.). The problem is that much of his advocacy throughout the book for what he calls “gospel-based sanctification” (pp.191, 207) is constructed on biblical references which include the word “sanctification” or “sanctify”, but are clearly referring to our “positional sanctification” (i.e., our justification). You can see examples of this conflated use of the word “sanctification” throughout Tchividjian’s book (e.g., pp. 46, 83, 102, 140, 172).

This is a widespread problem in the entire discussion concerning this topic on blogs and in other recent books. We cannot look to passages which refer to positional sanctification and treat them as though they are referring to the same reality as progressive sanctification! That results in an odd assumption, namely that what is revealed in the Bible to be “progressive” is in fact already complete. What the Bible is calling for us to work at (i.e., our progressive sanctification) is now wrongly castigated as sinful effort because we are told in essence that our “progressive sanctification” is in reality the same thing as “positional sanctification”.

Because the Bible uses the word “sanctification” in two distinct ways we should always be careful to not confuse the meaning of what we are intending to talk about. It is because of this potential risk of confusion that Protestant evangelical discussion has usually employed the word “justification” to represent and include the idea of “positional sanctification”, and has left the word “sanctification” to refer to our “progressive sanctification”. Or, as has been the practice of most Christians, there is the simplified talk of “being saved” (being set apart by God to be his adopted child) and “growing” (being increasingly set apart in holy behavior).

With that in mind we could return to more of J. C. Ryle’s classic, historic, and soundly biblical distinctions between Christian “justification” (positional sanctification) and Christian “sanctification” (progressive sanctification).

“Justification is the reckoning and counting a man to be righteous for the sake of another… Sanctification is the actual making a man inwardly righteous…”

“The righteousness we have by our justification is not our own… [it] is imputed to us… The righteousness we have by sanctification is our own… imparted [to us]”

“In justification our own works have no place at all… In sanctification our own works are of vast importance…”

“Justification is a finished and complete work… Sanctification is an imperfect work…”

“Justification admits no growth or increase… Sanctification is eminently a progressive work…”

“Justification… is not easily discerned by others. Sanctification… cannot be hid in its outward manifestation from the eyes of men.”

(J. C. Ryle, Holiness, Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001, p.19).

So then, let us always remember that just because we are regenerate Christians, who have already been set apart as God’s own possessions at the point of conversion (i.e., we have been positionally sanctified), it does not mean that all of today’s choices will set our behavior apart from the sinful behavior of the world around us (i.e., making progress in our practical sanctification). Positional sanctification is something every Christian already has, while progressive sanctification is something every Christian is called to diligently pursue.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 5)

---

Much of the so-called “gospel-centered sanctification” promoted in books like Jesus + Nothing = Everything so badly blurs the lines between sanctification and justification that many important biblical doctrines are forgotten, downplayed or ignored. The Bible’s teaching on regeneration is certainly near the top of that list.

To be “regenerate” means to be reborn or made new. God does this to us when he saves us (Jn.1:13; 3:3-8; Eph.2:4-5; Col.2:13; Tit.3:5; Jms.1:18; 1Pt.1:3; 1:23; 1Jn.2:29; 3:9; et al.). Regeneration is a very prominent doctrine in the New Testament and cannot be discounted or we will fail to see the radical differences between being dead in our sins and being alive in Christ.

So often you will hear Christians enlisting all sorts of self-deprecating words and phrases to describe themselves – not as who they once were, but as who they now believe they are. Tchividjian is boldly called a “loser” in the opening endorsements of his book (p.3), a label he later accepts while he is deriding the “modern church” which he calls “narcissistic” because it proffers the “‘you can do it’ songs and sermons” (p.50). We should not adopt such assessments as appropriate forms of Christian modesty or humility, because often they reflect a serious misapplication of scriptural descriptions and realities that, in biblical context, depict an unredeemed and unregenerate life.

Though the Bible says there is a stage of redemption yet to come (Rom.8:23), which means we will for the time being continue to battle the sinful impulses and appetites that are associated with our fallen humanity or “flesh”(1Pt.2:11), the New Testament consistently speaks of a transformation that takes place at the moment of our conversion. We “were dead in trespasses and sins” but now we have been “made alive together with Christ” (Eph.2:1, 5). In Christ we are “a new creation” for “the old has passed way” and “the new has come” (2Cor.5:17). “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rom.6:4). He saved us, “according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” (Tit.3:5). Something fundamental and profound has changed about who we now are. It is something hopeful, positive, and genuine. It is something that transforms our core desires even though we continue to be encased in a fallen and unredeemed body. We “have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator” (Col.3:10). We now as “living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1Pt.2:5).

This is not to deny that we are undeserving of the blessing of being made new. This should in no way detract from the fact that we are still fully reliant on the mercy and unmerited favor of God. This is not to say that as regenerate people we are now somehow inherently worthy of the gifts God gives. It is simply to underscore that to nurse the defeated, dejected, self-deprecating view of the Christian life, which is so increasingly popular today, is to ignore the realities, privileges and renewal that accompanies our regeneration.

Even Princeton’s famous Calvinist professor of a hundred years ago, Benjamin Warfield, who embraced and utilized the “poor sinful man” and “miserable sinner” terminology of the Reformed catechisms and confessions, went to some lengths to salvage these terms from the kind of defeatist and hopeless use of them that I find is so common today. Warfield writes,

The Christian is conceived fundamentally in other words as a penitent sinner. But that is not all that is to be said: it is not even the main thing that must be said. It is therefore gravely inadequate to describe the spirit of “miserable-sinner Christianity” as “the spirit of continuous but not unhopeful penitence.” It is not merely that this is too negative a description… It is a wholly uncomprehending description, and misplaces the emphasis altogether. The spirit of this Christianity is a spirit of penitent indeed, but overmastering exultation. The attitude of the “miserable sinner” is not only not one of despair; it is not even one of depression; and not even one of hesitation or doubt; hope is too weak a word to apply to it. It is an attitude of exultant joy. (Perfectionism, Part 1. Baker Books, 2003, p.114.)

Not only is our outlook to be positive because of Christ and our changed status, but we should rightly celebrate the truth that God has profoundly changed our core appetites and desires. Any acts of obedience, while always being credited to God’s gracious provision and enablement, stem not merely from our new relationship with God (though that is indispensably so! Gal.2:20), but also from the cooperative activity and effort of our regenerate nature (Mt.7:17). These new holy desires, appetites and inclinations are endowed by God with our new birth. As F. F. Bruce writes in his comments on Colossians 3:10, “The new man who is created is the new personality that each believer becomes when he is reborn as a member of the new creation whose source of life is Christ” (Eerdmans, 1957, p.273).

This miracle of regeneration will necessarily be ignored if we indiscriminately apply the same definitions of depravity and inability from our doctrine of justification to our understanding of sanctification.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 4)

---

In carefully reading “Jesus + Nothing = Everything” it becomes clear that a failure to adequately distinguish our sanctification from justification can result in a kind of theoretical view of how we relate to God and how we think God relates to us. We can begin to wrongly assume that what we do today has little or no bearing on our relationship with God. Tchividjian writes, “Jesus won for me, I was free to lose” and “Jesus succeeded for me, I was free to fail” (p.24). Throughout the book Tchividjian encourages us to remove our attention from what we do in sanctification. He writes, “I think too much about how I’m doing, if I’m growing, whether I’m doing it right or not” (p.174). He tells us such thinking is wrong and will only make us “neurotic and self-absorbed” (p.174). After all, in Christ, he tells us, “it’s all said and done” (p.174).

Such advice is far from the biblical exhortations we find in Ephesians 5 to “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (vv.15-17); and “Walk as children of light (for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), and try to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” (vv.8b-10).

More Than Theoretical

When the preponderance of my thoughts about my daily life with God are only seen from the perspective of Christ’s substitution and my unworthiness to merit his favor, not only do I miss the joy and motivation of knowing my deeds today can actually please God, but I can be left with a distant, abstract, academic view of my relationship with him. I can begin to assume that it is only the perfect Christ that “God sees” (as though it were all some visual reality and not a relational reality). It is as if I am now, at least theoretically, absent from the relationship and if not absent, in some way made so irrelevant that my thoughts and actions can neither please him or grieve him in any real way.

And yet the Bible tells us something different. Scripture tells us that his redeemed children not only have a very real opportunity to actually please him, but we also have an abiding opportunity to truly displease him. We are told that when Christians, who have been declared holy in justification, choose to engage in unholy behavior as they sin in their walk of sanctification, that they “grieve the Holy Spirit of God” (Eph.4:30). In the New Testament the reality that our actions actually affect the God with whom we now relate is used as motivation to prompt growing Christians to choose to “be kind to one another” and “forgiving” instead of choosing to engage in “corrupting talk”, “bitterness”, and “slander” (vv.29, 31).

When Paul is exhorting the Corinthians to pursue holiness in 1 Corinthians 10, he compares them to the Israelites following their exodus from Egypt. He goes to great lengths to say that they, like the Corinthians, were graciously chosen by God as his people through the merits of another, specifically the Christ “who followed them”(cf. vv.1-4). But the instructive warning of the passage is, that in spite of the fact that by grace they were considered God’s chosen people, “with most of them God was not pleased” (v.5). Their complaining and intemperance stirred God’s displeasure toward them to the point that he responded by ending their lives (vv.6-10). Paul recounts all of this history as preparatory motivation leading up to the familiar verses regarding our need as Christians to escape temptation and flee from all forms of idolatry (vv.13-14).

A Real Relationship with Our Father

When I recognize and affirm that in my walk of sanctification, I can in one act please God and in another displease him, my daily relationship is moved away from any category of abstraction or theory, and I come to sense the biblical reality of truly relating to God on a daily basis.

Yes, again, we are accepted solely by the work of Christ! Our actions cannot earn or keep a place in God’s family, but as the graciously adopted members of God’s family, we are not dealing with an equation, or a software algorithm, we are dealing with and relating to a Person. One who has accepted us by the merits of his Son, and deals with us day to day as his children. To affirm this, one must acknowledge that there is a significant distinction between being accepted by God and being pleasing to God. It is exactly this distinction that is not made clear by those who confuse justification and sanctification.

The recurring biblical analogy of “Father and child” should help to clarify this distinction. The difference should not be hard to identify, especially if you are a parent. How terrible would it be to have our children do their chores with the idea that they were trying to earn their way into our family or keep their place in our family. No, we want them to recognize that as our children they are accepted by their parents and have a secure place in our family. But that does not mean that their behavior doesn’t bring very real pleasure or displeasure to their mom and dad. An accepted and settled place in the family is not the same thing as whether they will bring joy or pain to our hearts today.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 3)

---

In 1786, at a meeting of pastors in Northamptonshire, England, the young William Carey stood up to champion the cause of sending missionaries to foreign lands. To which the now infamous retort rang out from the senior ministers: “Young man, sit down; when God wants to convert the heathen, he will do it without your help!” To his theologically astute colleagues, Carey’s passion to carry so much concern and expend so much effort for the lost only invited the insult of being called “a miserable enthusiast”.

Thankfully, William Carey was not dissuaded. His “enthusiasm” won for him a very different nickname from his spiritual progeny: “the father of modern missions.” We can be glad the pervasive form of hyper-Calvinism, which held sway in so many churches of his day did not extinguish Carey’s resolve to respond wholeheartedly to the plain teaching of Scripture.

The problem with the influential “theologically astute” in 1786 (as with many today) wasn’t that they were not serious about the Bible or theology; it was just that too many of them had grown accustomed to utilizing biblical truths in unbiblical ways.

When it comes to missions for instance, there exists the classic tension between what we read in the Bible concerning divine sovereignty and human responsibility – responsibility, both on the part of the lost person and the missionary. And like all theological truths in tension, if Christians seek to eliminate the tension in their minds or in their practice, one can be sure their theology has become unbiblical and their lives disobedient. The eighteenth-century religious establishment had affirmed divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. And while attempting to meld those two concepts in our minds can cause a headache, they both have to be affirmed in order for us to remain biblically faithful.

The pastors of Carey’s day needed to say (as many later did), yes, God is sovereign in choosing to convert people, but God has also laid on the sinner the responsibility to repent and believe the gospel. To quote Romans 10:14-15, “And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!’” To be obedient and biblical, we must work hard to reach the lost and then give credit to God for any success we see on the mission field.

That’s how it must be for missions, and it’s not much different when it concerns the topic of sanctification. There is a similar kind of tension in trying to understand what takes place in the process of our sanctification.

Biblical Tension in Sanctification

On the one hand, the Bible speaks of God working in us for his good pleasure (Phil.2:13). It tells us that without Christ being an organic part of our daily life we cannot bear any good fruit (Jn.15:4). It says that God equips Christians to do his will and then works in them to bring about what is pleasing in his sight (Heb.13:21). These truths are clear, cannot be denied, and should not be downplayed.

At the same time the Bible also states that Christians must work out their salvation (Phil.2:12). It says that we must make every effort to supplement our faith with virtue and good works (2Pet.1:5-7). It commands us to be resolute about always abounding in the work of the Lord (1Cor.15:58). As a matter of fact, a good portion of the New Testament is grammatically laid out to Christians as commands, directives and instructions – things we are exhorted to choose and decide to do. There is no getting around it. The Bible requires that Christians volitionally work to do what is right. This is a biblical tension that must be kept and never be resolved. Unlike the eighteenth-century pastors we dare not use biblical truths in unbiblical ways, thinking ourselves to be “miserable enthusiasts”, “anti-gospel”, or engaged in self-righteous “performancism” for carrying around so much concern about holiness or working so hard to expend so much effort at sanctification. May we never secretly be tempted to think, if it’s God who decides to work all this in me and through me, then when he chooses to bring forth good works in my life, I guess he will just do it without my help.

For many of the new proponents of the so-called “gospel-centered sanctification” and readers of books like “Jesus + Nothing = Everything”, there is an unbalanced view of the Christian life that leaves a lot of its adherents with a diminished and sometimes even abolished tension within their understanding of sanctification. For some, any talk of effort, choices, decisions or duty is seen as aberrant, injurious and even heretical.

As I have said previously in this blog, much of the problem rests on a conflation of our understanding of justification and sanctification. Maintaining the appropriate distinctions we find in the Bible is critical to avoid this imbalance. One of the most important distinctions has to do with the role of good works.

A Biblical Doctrine of Good Works

When it comes to our justification, works are useless. That’s what the Bible teaches. There is no “good thing” we can do to gain our acceptance before God. As fallen people there is no moral deed which can bring us any closer to God or garner his favor. As unredeemed people our best efforts and our greatest attempts at performing righteous deeds are all considered by God to be filthy rags (Is.64:6). Anyone who is ever justified “is justified apart from the works of the law” (Rom.3:28). That is the doctrine of “good works” as it relates to justification. But there is a big problem with sliding this doctrine of good works over on top of one’s view of sanctification – that’s not what the Bible teaches. God tells us he takes great pleasure in his “favored ones” doing what is right. “The Lord is righteous; he loves righteous deeds” (Ps.11:7). His favored ones are not favored because they do right, but as graciously favored people, God loves their good deeds.

When Paul wrote the Philippian Christians and praised them for their act of financially supporting him, he said that their deed was “a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God” (Phil.4:18b). The writer of Hebrews exhorts his readers saying, “Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Heb.13:16). These depictions would surely take one’s mind back to the Old Testament Israelites who, already having been granted a favored status before God, purely by grace (not by works), were obediently, sincerely and gladly offering up their evening sacrifice on the altar; and those sacrifices which were being received by God with pleasure and joy (Ex.29:41).

With this same metaphor in view, Paul calls the redeemed and accepted Christians of Rome to gratefully offer themselves day by day, “as living sacrifices” which are said to be “holy and acceptable to God” (12:1). And as they refused to be conformed to the world, and were renewed in their minds, they would learn to discern what the “will” of God is, that which is “good and acceptable and perfect” (12:2). Note that these are the things that God “wills” – that is, what he “wants” or “desires”. Those real feelings exist in the mind and heart of God.

The Bible tells us as Christians we can choose to do what pleases God and that these resultant acts are acceptable to him (Rom.14:18). He embraces them, accepts them, and takes pleasure in them. This perspective does not overlook the truth that the acceptability of ourselves or our acts was and is only made possible because of our new status in Christ (more on that later). The radically distinct acceptance of our good deeds is predicated upon, and possible only because we are now accepted, loved and adopted as God’s own children through the redemptive work of Christ. That is why we will often find the addition of this simple, yet profound phrase “in Christ” as it relates to our work and efforts to obey. Again this “acceptable and pleasing sacrifice” motif is repeated in 1 Peter 2, where Christians are compared to the Old Testament temple and its sacrifices, “you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1Pt.2:5). Christ is our high priest; he is the cornerstone (v.6). But we are the cherished building and the approved priests who are offering acceptable sacrifices.

As it relates to the Christian life, a proper “doctrine of good works” will move us from seeing our works as “filthy rags” to seeing them as “acceptable sacrifices.” And that change can make a world of difference. We can begin to find great joy and motivation in our work of sanctification, knowing that God takes pleasure in our good works and loves it when his children do what is right.

Much more to come. Stay tuned.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 2)

---

At the upcoming Equipped Conference we will be tackling the topic of “Aggressive Sanctification”. Unfortunately this sounds like heresy to many who have gained an imbalanced perspective from the recent emphasis on what some are calling “gospel-centered” sanctification. So let’s continue our look at some of the problems associated with this movement by getting back to our examination of the broadly-promoted new book by Crossway Publishers.

Another Look at “Jesus + Nothing = Everything”

In Jesus + Nothing = Everything Tullian Tchividjian tells his readers that the greatest threat Christians face is when “behavioral obligations are divorced from gospel declarations” and “when imperatives are disconnected from gospel indicatives” (p.46). [Note: “imperatives” refer to the grammatical designation of verbs which direct us to do something (i.e., to obey God’s moral commands), while “indicatives” refer to verbs which express statements of fact (i.e., what Christ has accomplished by living and dying in our place).] Unfortunately, what Tchividjian goes on to describe as his view of sanctification is not a balanced “marriage” or “connection” between “gospel declarations” (indicatives) and “behavioral obligations” (imperatives), but a comprehensive substitution of the former for the latter. And so, as the title of the book declares, we are led to see our sanctification in terms of Jesus + nothing = everything. “Resting in Jesus and what he accomplished” (p.46) is the strategy for sanctification championed throughout the book. This is Tchividjian’s explanation for how we are to understand that “the gospel is for Christians too” (p.78). And because, as he repeatedly insists, “the gospel says it’s not what you must do, but what Jesus already did” (p.140), then there is no room left in our sanctification for a biblical balance between “behavioral obligations” (imperatives) and “gospel declarations” (indicatives).

That is the essence of the problem of utilizing your theology of justification as an unaltered template for your view of sanctification.

But as J. C. Ryle was careful to point out in his 1879 book entitled Holiness, “In justification our own works have no place at all and simple faith in Christ is the one thing needful. In sanctification our own works are of vast importance, and God bids us fight and watch and pray and strive and take pains and labor.” Or more recently, as R. C. Sproul put it in Chosen by God, “Sanctification is not monergistic [i.e., God’s work alone]. It is synergistic [i.e., our work and God’s work]. That is, it demands the cooperation of the regenerate believer. We are called to work and grow in grace. We are to work hard, resisting sin unto blood if necessary, pummeling our bodies if that is what it takes to subdue them.” Of course, this is precisely what the Bible teaches as it calls us to “Fight the good fight of faith” (1Ti.6:12), “Pursue righteousness” (2Ti.2:22) and “Put to death therefore whatever is earthly in you” (Col.3:5).

This balanced focus on work and effort regarding “behavioral obligations” is why we find Paul making statements like these: “Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor” (1Th.4:1-4). It goes without saying that such exhortations are certainly appropriate in calling Christians to vigorously pursue their sanctification.

Sadly though, when Tchividjian evaluates those who are concerned about “behavioral obligations”, over and against his call “to rest”, he leads his readers to disdain any efforts regarding these “obligations” through a series of subtle yet effective strategies.

Ways “Behavioral Obligations” are Maligned

Firstly, he introduces the concern about the imperatives and gospel indicatives under the topic of “legalism” (p.45). This word quickly sounds the alarm for well-taught Christians. The word “legalism”, though not found in the Bible, is usually understood as a description of those who would attempt to earn their salvation through their own good works. As such, it is the damnable problem addressed in passages such as Romans 4 and Philippians 3. Certainly any attempt at earning salvation is a tragic and satanic error, but the context in which Tchividjian makes the charge of “legalism” is amid his warning about the biggest threat regarding our sanctification, specifically “when imperatives are disconnected from gospel indicatives” (p.46). Well, if there is a proper “connection” between imperative and indicative, then appropriate effort given to these commands certainly wouldn’t qualify as the “legalism” that most people think of when that incendiary word is used.

Secondly, Tchividjian unpacks his idea of the “behavioral obligations” he has in mind, when he describes the Christian “trying to keep his or her preferred list of religious rules” (p.46). But wait, a “preferred list of religious rules” certainly cannot be equated with the biblical commands that the Scripture provides regarding our sanctification. But this is a conflation Tchividjian sustains as he quotes Mark Driscoll’s list on “How to Become a Legalist”, which begins with “Make rules outside the Bible” (p.54). The problem is that interspersed between these clear references is a discussion about “good works” (p.47) and “progress in obedience” (p.51). If this section of the book is about the other kind of “legalism” Christians refer to when they speak of people putting human traditions and preferences on par with God’s commands, then we can all agree that this a serious error (Mk.7:1-13). But if we are talking about biblical “good works” and “progress” in biblical “obedience” that should be pursued by Christians, then it is a spiritually catastrophic problem to confuse the two.

Thirdly, Tchividjian vigorously impugns the motives of those who haven’t replaced their efforts regarding the imperatives with the work of resting in the indicatives. Those who do not agree with Tchividjian’s newfound strategy for Christian sanctification he labels as being ensnared in an insidious form of “idolatry” he calls “performancism” (p.45). He describes such Christians as being on a “self-morality quest” (p.47), as being “prideful” (p.46), “anti-gospel” (p.46), “self-rescuing” (p.46), “self-righteous” (p.47), “stroking our egos” (p.47), devoted to right because we are “frightened” (p.47), and all the while being unable to see the problems because of the “versatile craftiness” of our sinful hearts (p.46). Ultimately we are told it is a problem of insecurity and our failure to believe the gospel’s declaration that we are accepted by God. So universal is this problem for those who seek to obey God’s commands that Tchividjian confesses, “I haven’t met one Christian who doesn’t struggle daily with believing – somehow, someway – that our good behavior is required to keep God’s favor” (p.49). Such indictments on every regenerate Christian’s motives for obeying God’s imperatives is unreasonable and certainly not the obsession of Christ and the Apostles who unabashedly call God’s people to “let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Mt.5:16), be “zealous for good works” (Tit.2:14), and to “stir up one another to love and good works” (Heb.10:24).

There is more to say, but I will leave it for next time. Over the next few posts I will seek to show the importance of rightly distinguishing sanctification and justification, and the problems that arise when we don’t. More to come.

-- Pastor Mike

Aggressive Sanctification (part 1)

---

In recent years the topic of “gospel-centeredness” has received increasing amounts of press in Christian books and blogs. Unfortunately, some recent writings under this theme do not square with the clear teaching of God’s word – particularly those writings that blur the distinction between justification and sanctification.

Sanctification & Justification

“Sanctification” is the word we use to describe our increasing progress in personal holiness as Christians. The word shows up in our English New Testaments as a translation of a form of the Greek word hagios which is usually translated “holy”. Romans 6:19 for instance, tell us “For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification (hagiosmos).” Throughout the Bible God tells his people to “be holy” (Lev.19:2; Rev.22:11). When Peter recites this oft-repeated command he elaborates with the words, “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct” (1Pt.1:14-16). The many biblical passages that speak to the Christian’s responsibility to be holy or live righteously is what we mean when we speak of “sanctification.”

The process of increasing sanctification in the Christian life stands in contrast to the biblical description of Christian justification. To be “justified” by faith in Christ is to be declared “righteous” before God and accepted as his adopted and forgiven child. In the New Testament the word “justified” comes from the same Greek word that translates “righteous” (dikaios). God “justifies” us – or declares us legally “righteous” – not based on any of our attempts at being “righteous” but based on the imputed “righteousness” of Christ (Rom.4:1-8). This happens at a moment in time when we become God’s son or daughter by the regenerating work of God’s Spirit. At that moment God officially transfers us from “death” to “life” and we are completely accepted before our Creator on the merits of Christ. This is a great truth to be celebrated as I do here in this clip from a recent sermon on justification.

The Bible clearly differentiates this one time act of justification from the ongoing process of sanctification in our lives. While we are made righteous and therefore acceptable before God by the work of Christ, God commands us as regenerate, accepted, and dearly loved children to get going and purposefully work at our sanctification.

Aggressive Sanctification & “Jesus + Nothing = Everything”

Our upcoming conference at Compass Bible Church will address this kind of sanctification – a sanctification depicted in the Bible as active, intentional and even aggressive. Sadly this is very different than the kind of sanctification that seems to be growing in popularity in many Christian circles today. This popular “passive” form of sanctification is taking root in many Bible-teaching churches, in part, because it speaks so highly of God’s grace, Christ’s indomitable love, and the finished work of the cross on our behalf. Unfortunately, it also severely confuses the biblical truths regarding justification with what the Bible tells us concerning sanctification.

A new book just released by Crossway Publishers is a perfect example of the confusion I am referring to.

In Jesus + Nothing = Everything, Tullian Tchividjian (the pastor of renowned Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida) recounts his struggle to overcome what he calls an “addiction to being liked” (p.23) and his longstanding practice of “depending on the endorsement of others to validate” him and make him “feel that [he] mattered” (p.23). This personal victory is set against the backdrop of a significant congregational crisis regarding his acceptance as the new pastor who is called to lead in the wake of the long and esteemed ministry of his predecessor, Dr. D. James Kennedy. Tchividjian tells of how he not only wins a crucial vote to maintain his position as the pastor in the face of a petition to remove him (pp.194-195), but how he also discovers while studying Colossians “that the gospel alone can free us from our addiction to being liked” and that because “Jesus measured up for us” we don’t “have to live under the enslaving pressure of measuring up for others” (p.23). This discovery, which he calls a “gospel revolution” (p.12), is defined and unpacked in this 209 page book as the “liberating truth” which should “define our lives” (p.24), making attainable “a fullness, a completeness, [and] a life-abundance” (p.30) that he claims is sadly nothing more than “a parroted platitude” for most “religious folks” (p.31).

While we should all celebrate when Christians (especially pastors) cease any attempt to find their validation in man’s approval, we must be extraordinarily careful that the solution does not come at the expense of a proper view and biblical approach to sanctification.

Tchividjian purposefully presses his readers to reconsider their preconceived distinctions between justification and sanctification. He tells us that we need to understand that “sanctification is the daily hard work of going back to the reality of our justification” (p.95). He says that “the hard work of Christian growth therefore, is to think less of ourselves and our performance and more of Jesus and his performance for us” (p.95). The working out of our salvation referenced in Philippians 2:12 is defined by Tchividjian as the “hard work” of “thinking those things through, asking those questions” – that is, thinking and asking “how does the finished work of Christ affect my thirst for security, affection, protection, meaning, and purpose?” and “how does the finished work of [Christ] satisfy my deepest daily needs so that I can experience the liberating power of the gospel every day and in every way?” (p.169). In other words, “the secret for Christian maturity” is to “focus less on what we need to do for God and focus more on all that God has already done for us” (p.185). Any biblical passages relating to our sanctification that call for “work” are repeatedly reduced by Tchividjian as the work of “resting” (p.46) “believing” (p.172), and “giving up our efforts at self-justification” (p.172).

Tchividjian’s newfound definition of the “work” of sanctification is encapsulated and promoted by his repeated call for Christians to relax – “‘It is finished,’ so relax” (p.206); “The gospel tells us to relax” (p.120); “I don’t fret over things as much. I’m more relaxed” (p.11); “God doesn’t dwell on your sin the way you do. So, relax” (p.184). In essence we are told that “the gospel liberates us to be okay with not being okay” (p.120).

But is that really what the Bible teaches us regarding the sanctification of regenerate people and our call to be holy? Can the New Testament commands to “be holy in all your conduct” (1Pt.1:16), to “make every effort to add to your faith” (2Pt.1:5), and to be “abounding in the work of the Lord” (1Cor.15:58) legitimately be understood as calls to relax? Or can we not look to the immediate context of Philippians 2:12 to discover that the work in view is not the effort of remembering, but the work of obedience (“as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your salvation…”). Yes, Philippians 2:13 describes the synergistic reality of such obedience (“for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure”), but certainly the context of this command to work cannot be reduced to be the work of “remembering,” “resting” or “relaxing.”

When many of Tchividjian’s assertions are considered in the context of justification, all of evangelical Christianity should heartily agree. Yes, we are accepted by God on the merits of Christ, with no reference to our efforts, works, or good deeds. “The only thing we contribute to our salvation” as William Temple famously wrote, “is the sin that makes it necessary.” But “expanding” on this quote, as Tchividjian does on page 104, where we read “the only thing you contribute to your salvation and to your sanctification is the sin that makes them necessary” is a radical redefinition of sanctification, which will not hold up to biblical scrutiny.

Coming Up…

Over the next several weeks I will continue to add a series of biblical reasons why it is critically important that we understand the distinctions between our justification and our sanctification. I will compare what the Bible has to say about our approach to spiritual growth and progress in holiness, to the increasingly popular views of sanctification and the Christian life, which are akin to what is described in Jesus + Nothing = Everything.

As we take a closer look at the nature of good works, motives, the realities of regeneration, the ceremonial and moral distinctions in the law, application in preaching, the fear of God, and a variety of other topics, I trust you will be encouraged and excited to celebrate your justification while at the same time you diligently pursue your sanctification. Stay tuned and be sure to join us for our next “Equipped Conference”, in which my fellow pastors and I will be elaborating on Aggressive Sanctification.

-- Pastor Mike