John Piper is BAD!  (HT to Team Redd)

I watched the video linked in Alastair’s post, the one for Jesus Camp. I shouldn’t have.

This was my childhood. It gave me chills and flashbacks. Lord, have mercy.

Greg:  Sorry…

wrong conference.  The conference this weekend features Henry Wright.

Bob Jones was there in August...

I’ve been saying for nearly a year that this church is “just a little” off the rails…

Tim Challies has posted his summary of Mark Driscoll’s talk at the DG National Conference. I’m glad to hear Driscoll point to missionary theology as the fork in the road that some Calvinists are unwilling to take. The difference between emergent liberals and missional emerging churches doing real evangelism is missionary methodology. Missionaries contextualize rather than compromise.

I am interested in how Driscoll identifies the incarnation as somehow a danger zone for demoting Christ from his place of supremeacy by way of too much emphasis on his humanity. The incarnation has always been the heart of understanding God. The truth about God is available to us only because of the incarnation. The wonder of the greatness of God is incomprehensible to me without the incarnation. There is no room in the Bible’s description of the incarnation, or in the creeds, for a human, liberal, compromised Christ.

I have seen a number of reformed bloggers speak almost negativvely of Christians who emphasize the incarnation. Please, let’s not go in that direction.

Not Bob Jones (senior, junior, III or more) of Bob Jones University.

THIS Bob Jones

Ellen: That is the oddest thing I’ve heard today. That Bob Jones I would never connect with the Christian Reformed Church or being “in health” – though I admit I haven’t kept up with any of those guys for many years. Still, that’s kinda funny. Can you elaborate?

Brian:  My first thought was “he’s painting with too broad of a brush”

My second was:  “Even as we speak, the Christian Reformed Church I used to attend is having a conference; the main speaker is Bob Jones (Kansas City prophet).  The topic is  “Be In Health”

I think that there are a lot of healthy evangelical churches out there; only the weird ones get the press.

Charles Colson and Co. have a new blog called “The Point.”

So, I get the feeling that Alastair might have some problems with evangelicalism.  Maybe.  Does anyone else read it this way?

BHT Chair of Theology Alastair lets it fly.

Is there any section of the Church that is more messed up than what passes under the name of Evangelicalism? Like it or not, most people who call themselves evangelicals in the US and the UK today are holding a form of religion that only bears a tenuous relationship to the historic Christian faith. Whilst we would like to quibble about the historic meaning of the term and complain that it has been hijacked by fruitcakes, there comes a time when we simply have to accept the fact that the term ‘evangelical’ now carries a radically different meaning to anything that it ever held in the past. The weird, the heretical, the fad-driven, the fruity, the fanatical, the culturally and intellectually bankrupt has become the mainstream.

People, evangelicalism is a greater threat to Western civilization than Islam is. Islam may oppose the Christian faith, but modern evangelicalism trivializes, parodies and cheapens it to the extent that it is no longer deemed worthy of opposition and cannot be taken seriously. With all of its handwaving emotionalism, kitschy culture, intellectual vacuity, collective narcissism and blinkered politics, modern evangelicalism demands all the respect of a shabby circus freak.

IM Radio Podcast 24 is an interview with Noel Heikkinen and Dan Price.

About movies…Vanna UMC is just below Royston, Ga, the home of Ty Cobb. Many of my parishoners were extras in the movie Cobb. The church itself was featured complete with choir and musicians. They sang “There Is a Fountain.” that movie was pretty raw, though. It was kind of a scandal that the Methodists would be in such a worldly endeavor.

Warning: Way Off Topic:

Light colored carpet in the parsonage is a deal breaker for my next appointment. Don’t get me wrong. There are parsonage horror stories out there and I’ve been able to tell one or two. This is a nice home and I’m glad to have it but constantly steam cleaning this carpet is wearing me out.

Wyman:  I did see that the church was in GA and wondered if you were near it.  It also seems that they are really taking this “film ministry” thing seriously and have some decent reasons for doing it, IMO.  I am just amazed that they could make a movie with that much money and almost all local talent that is not terrible and corny.  It will be interesting to see how it is received.

Listening to Matt Chandler’s sermons on Ecclesiastes. He’s quickly become one of my favorite young preachers, despite some emerging church quirkiness. Throughout this series, he pictures Solomon as a grandfather having a conversation with his college-age congregation. I especially like the way he contrasts the use of illustration and humor with deadly serious application. It’s also refreshing to hear strong invitations to Christ that aren’t Baptist altar calls. Instead, Chandler typically will direct people to things like recovery groups, Biblcial counseling, grief/abortion/miscarriage/infertility recovery and other ministries of the church.

New Belkin router at work on the system this morning.

Lots of travel coming up this week. I have two school trips Mon and Tues, winding us up in Murray Ky, where Denise and I lived our first year of marriage. Denise graduated from MSU with her BS in Nursing in 1979. Then Thursday through Saturday, we’re doing a first: travelling to stay with our daughter and son-in-law for a couple of days in central Ohio.

Reading the blog summaries of folks attending the Desiring God National Conference, it seems to be the concensus that the emerging church is the problem because it’s not proclaiming the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Of course there are examples of that error, and it’s to be deplored, but is that really the crisis? On the other hand, it’s conservative evangelicalism that has displaced Christ with politics and the culture war. Why is a compromised Brian Mclaren more of a threat than a Christless, culture warrior agenda? Is it because the culture warriors flatter evangelicals, particularly on the issues of homosexuality and abortion?

What Capon quotes are you reading? :-) These seem to be about how the church handles the grace of God given in the Gospel.

The Republicans in congress are getting so awful it’s surreal. Now a member of the Missing and Exploited Children’s SubCommittee is trying to pick up pages.

Just returned from a high school football game. Very cold. Very bad.

The Capon quotes are a devastating rejoinder to all who affirm salvation and God’s acceptance by works of righteousness.  Everyone who affirms that raise your hand.

I am way behind on all things popular but this week is the first I heard about the movie Facing the Giants.  From what I understand a church raised $100K, staffed the production, hired some limited expert help, and made this movie.  Now it is being released as a major motion picture and many people say it looks like a real movie.  If anyone sees this weekend, I would be interested to hear what you think. 

Our Daily Capon...

“You’re worried about permissiveness—about the way the preaching of grace seems to say it’s okay to do all kinds of terrible things as long as you just walk in afterward and take the free gift of God’s forgiveness… While you and I may be worried about seeming to give permission, Jesus apparently wasn’t. He wasn’t afraid of giving the prodigal son a kiss instead of a lecture, a party instead of probation; and he proved that by bringing in the elder brother at the end of the story and having him raise pretty much the same objections you do. He’s angry about the party. He complains that his father is lowering standards and ignoring virtue—that music, dancing, and a fattened calf are, in effect, just so many permissions to break the law. And to that, Jesus has the father say only one thing: “Cut that out! We’re not playing good boys and bad boys anymore. Your brother was dead and he’s alive again. The name of the game from now on is resurrection, not bookkeeping.” – Robert Capon, Between Noon and Three

“For the essence of heresy isn’t a fondness for wrong ideas. It’s a preference (“heresy” is from ahirein, “to take,” “to select”) for one aspect of a truth over the paradoxical wholeness of that truth.”

“Too often the church preaches resurrection but effectively denies the death out of which alone the grace of resurrection proceeds. Its cure of choice, for its own hills or for the world’s, is not death but simply more doomed living. The church, for example will keep sinners (the morally dead) in its midst only as long as they do not presume to look dead—only as long as they can manage to make themselves seem morally alive. Moreover, ecclesiastical institutions are no more capable of accepting death for themselves than they are of tolerating it in their members. Like all other institutions , they cannot even conceive of going out of business for the sake of grace: given a choice of laying down their corporate lives for a friend or cutting off the friend at the knees, they almost invariably spare themselves the axe. Worst of all, when the church speaks to the world, it perpetuates the same false system of salvation. It is clearly heard as saying that the world can be saved only by getting its act together. But besides being false, that is an utterly unrealistic apologetic. For everyone knows perfectly well that the world has never gotten its act together and never will—that distaste has been the hallmark of its history—and if there is no one who can save it in its disasters, there is on one who can save it.” – Robert Capon, Kingdom, Grace, Judgment

Michael:  thanks for the passage, another example:

Col 1:29 For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.

NOTE:  In the interest of context… the “this” in the above is not anything to do with salvation but refers to teaching and ministering the truth of Christ.

Well, I think Calvin and Melancthon did get along.  But there were other cases where Calvin did not treat his brothers and sisters in Christ in such a gracious manner.  I.e. – Anabaptists.  Of course, I’m sure he saw them as lost and usurpers and enemies to the peace of the land et al. 

Michael: I, too, am not the biggest fan of the Reformation. I find myself willing to follow Lewis just about anywhere.

Concerning Melancthon and Calvin’s relationship, I can’t comment – because I have no idea who the heck Melancthon is.

And now, I willingly give way to the next topic.

Next topic. Please. This makes four major outings on this topic since the BHT began. Yeeehaw.

My friend Noel Heikkinen has a frequently updated podcast at www.dailyjeezit.com. He answers questions. Today’s on an authoritarian church is very good.

I’ve always liked the New Living Translation, and Noel used the second edition for preaching. I was really impressed and I’ve purchased one. Anyone else like NLT2?

I’m reading Garrison Keillor’s Homegrown Democrat. Keillor is a writer who just has it. Whatever it is, he has it. Great stuff on public schools, a sense of shared community, the boneheaded mistakes of conservative Christians, etc.

I’m somewhere near a major venting event regarding legalism on our campus. I’m going to be specific and I’m going to put it up where everyone can read it. I’m really sorry that so many folks who sincerely want to help kids have legalist ideas that they believe have to be swallowed whole and entire, but I’ve been silent to long. Some of these ideas are not just wrong; they are warped.

Example: Fermented wine symbolized God’s wrath in the Bible, and therefore Jesus never drank it or used it. crickets Or something like that.

For the love of pete, people.

I fully affirm what Calvin would have believed about baptism if he had lived long enough to realize he was wrong.

Brian:

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

Capon is to “blame” to the extent that he has no problems offending his readers in order to allow the truth of the Gospel to utterly transform you.

What I am articulating here is pure, 100% Luther (before the Calvinists got to him.)

Didn’t Melancthon and Calvin get along?

Michael: I apologize for the “yes or no” query. It was unnecessarily provocative. Sorry.

Michael, I don’t see you as a threat. I see you as a wonderful brother, a gift to the church in many capacities, and probably a better Christian than I (I know, I know, what constitutes a “better Christian”?). I view a discussion like ours as iron sharpening iron. If I knock a rough edge off of you and you do the same for me, then we’re both the better for it. My response to you in this conversation is more like “hey, I think you might be getting too close to the edge there, buddy. look out. be careful. I’ve known guys who have fallen off that edge before never to return”.

My uninformed guess is that the influence of Capon is to blame. I could be totally off on this. I’ll admit I’ve not yet read him, but it concerns me whenever anyone I know begins to have what seems to be an over-reliance on a guy who at the least is perceived as “edgy” or radical in his approach. Honestly, it seems to me that Capon should be the patron saint of the BHT rather than Lewis. I’m pretty sure that Capon is the guy you most often quote, while Lewis gets very little press.

It was Lewis who said “I am, indeed, far from agreeing with those who think religious fear barbarous and degrading, and demand that it should be banished from the spiritual life. Perfect love, we know, casteth out fear. But so do several other things – ignorance, alcohol, passion, presumption, and stupidity. It is very desirable that we should all advance to that perfection of love in which we shall fear no longer; but it is very undesirable, until we have reached that stage, that we should allow any inferior agent to cast out fear.”

This quote from Lewis reminds me of JS’s statement that he espouses a robust view of sanctification because he occasionally needs a kick in the ass. Along those lines, I would say that perfect love is the goal, but fear of God keeps me in line when the love grows cold. Yes, I fear reaping what I have sown, and plead for God’s mercy. I fear shrinking back and being destroyed, and ask for courage. I fear being deceived, and ask God for the spirit of wisdom and revelation. I fear my heart getting hard, and ask God to pour out His love on me and keep my heart soft.

I agree with you, Michael, that obedience is essentially evidential. However, I think one could easily make the case that obedience also has a sustaining role in our faith. When I choose to clean the house to make my wife happy, that is evidence of my love for her, but in the doing of it, I believe my love is sustained and even grows. As the Apostle John said, “if anyone obeys His word, God’s love is truly made complete in him.” I think evaluating anyone’s motives – including our own – is very unhelpful. We should leave that part up to God. Ours is simply to trust and obey.

Wow, my internet was down for a day, who knew what I was missing?  I would say that scattered through all the posts here on sanctification or the lack thereof, there have been some great thoughts.

Dallas Willard has a quote in one of his aricles (“Jesus the Logician”, I think).  He says:

Grace is not opposed to effort but to earning.

Paul Owen is posting again over at Communio Sanctorum.  I’m glad.  I was getting lonely.  Anyway, he’s back in all of his controversial best.  For instance:

7. Calvinism, when separated from a healthy Catholic ecumenism, is neither true to Calvin, nor a help to the Church. Total depravity affirms the necessity of the priority of grace in conversion. Unconditional election preserves the gratuity and mystery of predestination to glory. Limited atonement affirms the certain efficacy of Christ’s death viewed in its subsequent relation to the mystery of election. Irresistible grace affirms the fact that faith is to be seen monergistically as a gift from God, outside our natural capacity, and ultimately dependent upon the mystery of his will. Perseverance of the saints means that all those secretly predestined to glory will surely attain to that end because of God’s decree. When Calvinistic doctrines are misunderstood, and used primarily as a tool for attacking the shortcomings of Roman Catholic and Arminian Christians, then they lose their proper place within the role of Christian theology. Calvinism is best understood simply as a more consistent affirmation of the basic Christian truths which all believers intend to affirm. Calvin’s love, respect, and cordial unity in Christ with believers like Melanchthon should provide a pattern for how Calvinists relate to believers of other theological viewpoints.

Greg: I’ll thank you in advance for not dictating to others how to answer your questions. I’m not on trial here, believe it or not.

What I’m hearing, Greg, is that you are suggesting that obedience is either a) causative or b) sustaining or c) both. You are either saying that or saying that faith equals works, a la Macarthur. I’m happy to be corrected on that if I am mistaken.

Obedience is the evidence of faith. The evidence of; and the relation, while a living one, is neither causative, nor sustaining. To believe otherwise is to open up the subject of sola fide and justification by faith alone by grace alone by Christ alone. Are we really going to expound this issue from James?

Listen. I have friends all over the world who say, “I just don’t believe anyone could be a Christian and…..” Fill in the blank. Pastors say it about churches. GOPers about Democrats. Weaker brothers about stronger brothers. Me about Yankee fans.

It’s not my problem to demonstrate that law and Gospel are two different things. And if you want to say that I am a gnostic antinomian endangering churches everywhere, then find a blog and do it. I know some that would love to host that post. But don’t act like I’m out in left field. I’m not. I’m not one to quote the names and addresses, but it’s pretty much the whole Reformation from Luther up till Finney, minus some enthusiasts and oddball Puritans.

Michael: I knew that sentence would be too loaded for you to resist. Its like throwing a bone to a dog. So, are you saying obedience is optional for the Christian? A simple yes or no will do.

Phillip, I think you and I are on the same page in that both/and isn’t part of the gospel. The good news is what it is. (now there’s an argument starter) Still, I think if we let the both/and have a little more importance on those seemingly opposite ideas in the Bible that deal with God’s people, then many of our (the blogosphere’s, that is) arguments become impotent.

I’m pretty sure our assurance should be based upon how much chili we eat, so I’m doing fine. (skyline chili doesn’t count for although superbly delicious, it isn’t really chili)

>Obedience is not optional for the Christian, and any teaching that implies such is dangerous.

OK. Since my obedience will never be complete or motivated by pure love, where are we? The Gospel says the obedience of Christ is 100% of my righteousness.

So now what is my obedience? In what sense, other than evidential of a vital relation, does that obedience exist? If it’s not optional, then is it necessary? In what sense is it necessary? Sola fide + obedience? Percentage breakdown of that, please, and where do I look to see it.

I’m all for obedience. I’m all for Christ’s obedience, and I’m all for the proper context of my own. i.e. contributing nothing to my salvation.

Manning may be murky and convuluted at times, but he gets the Gospel right, and Philip Yancey is totally on target as far as I’ve read him, for what it’s worth.

UPDATE: Let me use an illustration here. Two sentences, both using Greg’s chosen words. You can see what I’m getting at I’m sure.

“Breathing is not optional.”
“Faithfulness to this marriage vow is not optional.”

Sanctified people close their tags.

Heathen.

Bill: Is someone advocating our level of righteousness as a metric for assurance?

Let’s see: “I can look back over my life, and see how I�ve grown in Christ. I take some assurance in that. Imperfect growth, imperfect assurance to be sure. Just the fact that I want to conform my life to Christs (sometimes) and try to conform my life to Christs (even less sometimes) gives me some assurance.”

So yes, a little bit. Not solely by any stretch, but enough that a major life meltdown would hopefully prompt a minor reevaluation of those sentences. Heck, even reading the sentence give further context in the bar might prompt that! Maybe “assurance” was meant in a different way, for example, but certainly those statements could prompt one to wonder.

How do you know they are not the focus? I meant ”... of the Christian life.” Any given conversation can, of course, focus on anything, up to and including the price of tea in China. But it didn’t seem to be the primary focus of the New Testament. Important, not void, but not the Gospel. A natural result of the gospel, even, but not the Gospel.

Jason: I tend to be quite fond of the both/and, and certainly my first post on the subject went there, but I’m especially leery of applying both/and to the Gospel. Faith-plus is both/and, but wrong.

But yes, overall, an environment which tends to the libertine needs to read, well, all of the epistles at least, while an environment which tends to legalism needs to be reminded that it is by God’s grace alone we’re saved and live and are sanctified. Both are true.

In most parts of America and the web, the legalists are more prevalent, it seems to me.

Tim Horton’s chili is also very good.

Is it time for an attempt at a both/and?

I don’t know that there really has to be an argument here on the whole sanctification/assurance thing. I think JS pointed to this by contrasting his and Michale’s experience. Instead of having to advocate for one extreme or the other, though I don’t believe anyone is intending to do it so strongly, we need to be comfortable with the fact that the Bible has verses laying out both the need to put our hope in Jesus the Christ plus NOTHING, and the need to desire to be better than we are simply because the one who made us is perfect, even though we are 100% certain to fail.

If you’re talking of assurance, then I’m going to point you in Michael’s direction. A few months ago, I posed a question on this forum because someone important to me was having assurance issues. These issues were the result listening too much to someone who is so wrapped up in puritans, Spurgeon and MacArthur that they will flat out tell you that if you aren’t more Christlike than you were a year ago, then you probably are not a Christian. As Michael has said of himself, this kind of thinking drives one to despair. To that person, preach grace, preach Christ crucified and risen, preach the fact that all we do is dung but thanks be to God for sending His Son to pay our debt.

If you’re talking of sanctification, then I’ll point you to JS. All the commands to be holy and perfect are there for a reason. Since the grace that saves us is so amazing, it’s easy to sit back and do nothing but wait for the return of our Lord. To these, be careful not to drive someone to despair, but challenge them. Listen to Paul when he asks his rhetorical questions. Should I go on sinning that grace may increase? By no means! Or listen to Jesus: Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Where is the straight path? Is it not in the middle of these two seemingly opposite ideas? Maybe, just maybe, the scriptures are not saying these things to make us legalists or libertines. Rather, they could be the rails on which the straight path runs.

Am I reading everyone right, or am I just crazy?

In the end, I say let’s find a way to be at peace over it, and I’ll spring for a keg of the bar’s finest for all to enjoy.

The powers that be in NYC are thinking about banning doughnuts. Wow. This would never fly up here where Tim Horton is king.

I need my ass to be kicked, and good. When I argue for a robust view of sanctification, I’m arguing from my own need for discipline.

JS: You have such a wonderful way with words. I too need my ass kicked from time to time.

Phillip: Thanks for your post. Very well said. I agree with pretty much all of it. However, I must say again that my point has never been about assurance, but was simply a reaction to someone questioning whether sanctification is a reasonable goal for a Christian. Rather than assurance, I’m seeking to address the simple question “what is expected of us as Christians?” It seems to me that most of Michael’s arguments are against a straw man, or, more accurately, a number of religious hypocrites that he has likely encountered in his lifetime (as we all have). I was simply stating, along with James, “show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do”. Now, when I align myself with that scripture, most people bring all of their baggage to the hearing of it, and assume they know what I mean. In my mind and heart, and to the best of my ability, I hope to mean what James meant. I believe that James had a concern, as did John in particular, about a form of “easy believism” – a “love God and do what you want” mentality that threatened the Church in his day. James urged his readers to “not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” Among many other concerns he was addressing in his letter, James knew this teaching would rob Christians of life, because “faith without works is dead”.

So, I am simply responding out of concern to what I see as unnecessary flirting with this deadly “love God and do what you want” mentality. As I have said before, I have actually seen up close and in person an SBC church of over 1000 people get sucked into this teaching to such a degree that this church has now openly embraced universalism and has been disfellowshiped by the Arkansas SBC. Worst of all, untold people’s faith has been shipwrecked. I have helped some of these people rebuild their lives, and being able to acknowledge that we reap what we sow is an important step in the process for them. Obedience is not optional for the Christian, and any teaching that implies such is dangerous.

I am not the only one concerned about the dangers of “easy believism” or cheap grace. I want to recommend an excellent article by Andy Comiskey. In the article, Comiskey challenges this dangerous mentality as it has been advoctated by Brennan Manning, as well as Phillip Yancey. Like a lot of folks, I have enjoyed Manning’s ministry with his emphasis on the love of God, and have read and enjoyed many of Yancey’s books. However, as this article articulates, grace without truth is a very sippery slope. Postmodernity has accelerated our move into rampant grace without truth. This negative affect of postmodernity on our culture and the church (along with some positive affects) has most folks gleefully sliding down that slippery slope with no thought as to where their ride will end up. I believe we should warn them, and I think “love God and do what you want” doesn’t get the job done. I think faithfullness to the teachings of Christ, all of Scripture, and to the church requires as much.

Finally, a quote from C.S. Lewis:

“You do not fail in obedience through lack of love, but have lost love because you never attempted obedience”.

Is there a point at which, in higher education, paradoxes become unacceptable?

I find it interesting that Michael has automatically connected the sanctification discussion to assurance. Like Bill said, I don’t think any of us on the “pro-sanctification” side actually said anything like that. However, it makes sense given the context that Michael’s working in, where sanctification-based assurance is a big deal and any discussion of sanctification probably has a significant subtext of “Do this or you’re not really saved.” Michael, am I correctly assessing this?

My problem is completely different. I can truly say that I have no trouble with assurance at this time in my life. In fact, my tendency is to be too cock-sure and rely on cheap grace. Michael’s “all grace, all the time” approach will cause me to live licentiously, and has been proved to do so in my own past, and the comfort that it provides is not a comfort that I’m lacking. I need my ass to be kicked, and good. When I argue for a robust view of sanctification, I’m arguing from my own need for discipline.

The conversation that points to the cross of Christ is the right one.

That depends.

Does that mean that the commands and promises of Scripture related to holiness and purity and the fruit of the Spirit are void? No, of course not. But those things are not the focus,

How do you know they are not the focus?  It depends on the context of the conversation.  If I say, in the course of a bible study  of James for example, that we ought to pray for patience and watch what we say, then bringing up the Cross and/or assurance is simply a non-sequitur (it could work back around to those, possibly, but it isn’t required) .  If someone pops up and screams “works righteousness”, I’m going to bean them with half a brick and keep teaching while they drag out the corpse.

No one is denying Michael’s, or anyone else’s salvation here, and I don’t see the huge rift.  We’re simply talking out our perspective here and trying to understand what the other is saying.

and they cannot be relied up on for assurance of salvation. Only the cross is useful for that; all else is sinking sand.

Fine.  I agree.  Is someone advocating our level of righteousness as a metric for assurance?  If so I’ve missed it.

Michael: I often speak of the danger of “Christian Olympics,” ... You sound more and more like Richard Foster.

Just when I think I’m doing so well. I’m waiting for my husband to get his nuclear stress test and I’m being SO pleasant to others in the same area. I am SUCH a nice person. People have been nice to me in my life and it’s easy to be nice back and I’m thinking AGAIN what a nice person I am.

But, here I am NOW sitting next to Mr. Talk, Talk, Talk. Can I tell you that he knows EVERYTHING, he’s been EVERYWHERE and he’s using this fake accent and he’s driving everyone in the waiting room CRAZY.

I am such a bad person.

sigh

Sanctification.

On Sanctification: I’ve gotten a scad of emails on that post of mine, and I think I’ve been quoted by both sides in this debate, but I want to add thoughts that will surely disappoint my new fans.

Michael’s more right than Greg, and here’s why: Michael lives like God via Paul commands, but emphasizes the pure unadulterated gospel of Christ to the extent that people might get the impression that he doesn’t.

I have been saying for a couple of years now that I suspect all heresy is ultimately tied to assurance, and this is no difference. On the one side, as Michael correctly points out, if my assurance is tied to my behavior, then I’m headed straight to hell. The things I want to do I do not do, and the things I do not want to do, I do. That’s me, every day. Every hour, most days. The part of the Anglican liturgy I like least is the confessional prayer in the Holy Communion service that talks about the sins I have “from time to time” committed. Yeah, it’s more like 24/7. If you don’t think that’s true for you, I suspect you’re not counting things as sin that I do—and God does. (How’s that for a personal and arrogant statement? I’m sorry.)

On the other side, if I don’t recognize some progress in my life, comparing me today to me five years ago, then I could start to question the promises of God to grow me, and there’s my assurance again. Heck, I could start to question my existence as a human being, for that matter! Even non-Christians mature with time, generally speaking.

But the reason I side with Michael when it comes down to it—and in part because I know enough of him to know he is a Christian - is because of what happens when you flip it around. If Michael’s right, then my assurance can be 100% sure because Christ is 100% perfect and did 100% of the work, and me 0% of it. If Greg is right, then a noble and mature atheist who is a better father by external standards than I am has more claim on assurance than I do, yes? No, of course not, because Greg hasn’t stated such. He has stated that Christ is the foundation and the gospel is true, but that after that we should strive to be holy and show growth and so on. And if we don’t? What’s the time period? If I regress for six months, am I no longer saved? If I take one step forward and three steps back, is that progress in sanctification? See, the questions are all related to my actions, not the cross, which tells me that the conversation has gotten off track.

The conversation that points to the cross of Christ is the right one. Does that mean that the commands and promises of Scripture related to holiness and purity and the fruit of the Spirit are void? No, of course not. But those things are not the focus, and they cannot be relied up on for assurance of salvation. Only the cross is useful for that; all else is sinking sand.

So I strive to confirm my life to Christ’s, as I know Michael does, but I fail more than I succeed, as Michael has suggested he does. What does this mean to me as a believer? Only that I cannot trust in any external measure of sanctification, in myself or in anyone else.

The amazing part is that when I look back over a sufficiently long period of my life, I can point to the work of God in sanctifying me in some areas, as I’m sure Greg and Michael would both affirm. And it’s all God, despite me, as I’m sure both would agree. I can also point to areas of my life in which I’m even worse off than I was, even more sinful and disgusting, areas in which I might have other people fooled externally, but which I recognize are soaked in dirty nasty pride and are therefore as filthy as can be. Those are my efforts toward sanctification, and they are worse than useless; they are actively harmful. I think Michael and Greg would both agree with that as well.

So to my children (as Kent correctly recognized), I say this: Firstly we know that Christ is our Lord and that we serve Him. Secondly we know that our efforts to serve Him are bound to fail. Fortunately, He expects us to fail, because we’re broken people, and He knew all that when He made us His people. So when we fail, we just get back up and keep going, knowing that God is making it possible to try again, and that Christ is our Lord the whole time.

On Baptism: I checked with Peter Sanlon, and the passage to which he was appealing in his treatment of baptism was Romans 14. It seems to him, and to me (I think) that baptism is an area like eating meat. We should defer to each and accept each other as believers, despite differing views over baptism. Hard to work out in practice, but then, so is the meat issue. Trust me, my wife is vegetarian. And Peter’s wife has a different view of baptism. We compared notes. :)

I’ve been out-of pocket the last few days and am completely lost in the sanctification discussion.  So this is off-topic. 

1.  Did anyone on here who watches college football feel sorry for my Gamecocks last night in their loss to #2 Auburn?  I’m still crying.  Thought we could’ve gotten that one.

2.  I have not read this – and this may have already been discussed here – but did you know that John Bunyan (a Baptist…kind of) wrote a book entitled Differences in Judgment About Water Baptism No Bar to Communion?  I’m late in discovering this and, apparently, Piper appealed to Bunyan in his efforts at Bethlehem.  As I have not read it yet and have no idea what Bunyan’s position was, this is not an endorsement.  For interest sake, though, here (.pdf) it is. 

Bill: Your Piper comment is quite astute. As the primary minister to a diverse staff, I often speak of the danger of “Christian Olympics,” where the Charismatics outdo us in worship enthusiasim, the Holiness in scouring our lives for worldliness, the reformed for Bible Study and so on. Comparative righteousness is a sinkhole, and there is no assurance in it. Not with others. Not with ourselves. Compare to Christ, and you’ll get somewhere….the cross.

progress in external righteousness, even if it saves my marriage, makes me generous and sacrificial or transforms my relationships with others- cannot be the place I ever look for assurance

I agree, because then when I act like a jerk it goes flitting away.

Nothing that is demanded of us can EVER be done sufficently, purely enough, consistently enough or from the right motives enough to provide ANY assurance that we are a Christian.  

I agree with the spirit of this statement, but let me try to temper it a bit.  I can look back over my life, and see how I’ve grown in Christ.  I take some assurance in that.  Imperfect growth, imperfect assurance to be sure.  Just the fact that I want to conform my life to Christs (sometimes) and try to conform my life to Christs (even less sometimes) gives me some assurance.  I guess I’m looking a little further inward than what we’ve been talking about, but what is inward eventually comes out in actions.

My struggles with assurance take a different form.  I have very little emotion tied up with my faith.  I mean very little. If I did not have objective verses like Romans 10:9,10 to go back to, I’d be sunk.  If I hung out with Piper for any length of time, I’m pretty sure I would come to the conclusion that I was lost.

Greg: I believe a “love God and then do what you want” mentality greatly threatens the church today  

Be careful with this one.  This isn’t actually a bad statement, as long as one looks at it completely.  A informs B, if you will.

(Not the current BHT rule 37. The old one where I cataloged what people called me.)

Greg: On the sidebar of this page there is the following quote:

“Jesus came to raise the dead. He did not come to teach the teachable; He did not come to improve the improvable; He did not come to reform the reformable. None of those things works.”—Robert Farrar Capon

Capon’s quote is the message of the Bible. I would urge all my readers to understand the following:Anything that is measured in comparative righteousness is not the Gospel.

In order to believe that- which Jesus taught over and over and over again- you must be willing to forego your own improvements as a measure of faith. Greg, I assure you that if clinging to Christ alone is gnosticism, antinomianism and libertinism, I’m quite willing to be called that. I’ve been assaulted for years by people who believe we “improve” from Romans 7 to Romans 8, as opposed to living in Romans 7 AND in Romans 8. The Gospel of salvation and righteousness by Christ alone and by faith alone, not by works and not measured by any work, is the most decontructing, humbling message in all of history. Taking away all measurements except Christ, and allowing no righteousness except Christ’s, strikes fear into the religionist who deep-down wonders how we can ever get people to do what Christians ought to do without the “oughts.”

If we simply leave the Prodigal to do as he pleases, how can we be sure he’ll be a good son? You can’t. There is no way. We’re all one thing, and our comparative improvements may save our marriages, raise good kids and keep us ought of jail, but we have only one thing in which to boast (and only one measurement of what is boastable): 2 Corinthians 10:17 – 11:1 17 “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” 18 For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.

Readers: I have addressed these issues extensively in “When I Am Weak” and “Our Problem With Grace.” Send your “Yes, but…” responses to our home office in St. Sadies.

And one more thing. Though Josh and I can’t have a civil conversation, I couldn’t agree more with him on this. We both, I suspect, would say that it’s hard to get past what Luther wrote, lived and preached on these matters.

Via CT:

The World Methodist Council affirmed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification on July 18. Co-published by the Lutheran World Fellowship and the Roman Catholic Church in 1999, the declaration aims to resolve some of the differences that caused the Protestant Reformation. However, more than 140 German Protestant theologians rejected the statement at that time as not reaching true agreement. The 500-member governing body of the World Methodist Council unanimously approved the July decision, saying the declaration “expresses a far-reaching consensus.”

I’m glad to hear that the Reformation was just a misunderstanding.

Michael: Its late. Two different times this week I have heard the statement that commuication is 55% non-verbal, 38% tone, and 7% words (something close to that). That must be at least part of the reason that I keep feeling like you are putting words in my mouth, and you probably feel the same way.

The only reason I am willing to pursue this type of discussion is that I am truly concerned about what I believe is a dangerous trend in the western church today toward gnosticism and antinomianism. I am equally concerned about legalism and externalism, but these do not seem to have as much pull on Evangelicals, or here at the BHT for that matter. I believe a “love God and then do what you want” mentality greatly threatens the church today – especially the younger generation with whom you are constantly involved. I’m advocating a “love God and then do all you can” mentality, which I believe is clearly the mentality of the New Testament (yes, in response to and dependence upon the grace of God).

Honestly, I don’t think legalism is nearly as great a threat as gnosticism. For one thing, post moderns will never embrace legalism. Please. On the other hand, gnosticism and/or antinomianism greatly appeal to postmoderns. It fits their paradigm quite well. Additionally, legalism sucks the life out of you and makes you desperate for relief – therefore it has little staying power in our day of instant gratification. On the other hand, Gnosticism and antinomianism simply lull you to sleep – they slowly but surely put the fire out until folks are numb, void of zeal for God, and unable to believe His promises.  

Greg: The statement that “no one will see the Lord” without holiness is summarizing the essence of the Gospel as a demand. I’ve heard Reformed Baptists use that verse for years to define faith as striving after holiness. Quoted as you quoted it, it’s not a footnote and its not obvious that salvation is by faith, not by striving. It’s the door to heaven. I believe the usual citation of that verse ignores the chapters of Gospel that precede it. It’s not a leap on my part at all. Quoting that verse, plain, to a room full of weak Christians is either 1) confusing or 2) certain to produce despair. It’s the citation of that text as you did that has me up on a box. No disrespect to you, but that’s a verse that needs some help to be helpful.

On your citation from 2 Cor: Are you saying that Paul is commending boasting? I thought he went out of his way to say that the kind of thing you quote was what he had to do in addressing the bratty Corinthians who were denouncing and rejecting his apostleship. He called it “foolish.”(See 2 Cor 10-11) So you might catch me saying the same thing in a similar church discipline context, but frankly, if someone expressed their faith to me in those terms, I would assume they were saying that in a particular context they did the right thing and didn’t act like the world. I wouldn’t assume they were saying their progress and obedience was the ground of assurance. Comparative behavior change is a fact. I’m not foolish enough to deny that.

Listen Greg, if your obedience and behavior bring you assurance, I’m the last man to disagree with you. Enjoy what I don’t have. I don’t condemn you. I just don’t have it.

Micheal: Did I claim to be “summarizing the New Testament” when I simply quoted Hebrews 12:14? Wow. What a leap.

Michael: In your previous post, you said:

“I am simply unable to look at what I do- DO- and come away praising God. What God does in me? I can praise God for that, but I know what a house of cards it is. I can praise God for what he has done for me in Christ, and after that, I’m on shaky ground.”

How do you think that jives with this statement of Paul’s in 2 Corinthians?

-StartFragment->“Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, in the holiness and sincerity that are from God. We have done so not according to worldly wisdom but according to God’s grace.”

Greg: You know, when I hear the message of the New Testament summarized in this sentence, I am frankly stunned.

The truth is that we are told in the New Testament that we should strive to be holy, because “without holiness no one will see the Lord”.

Screwed. If that is the truth, I’m doomed. My striving for Holiness is pretty awful. Holiness scares the holy _______ out of me. I want so little to do with holiness that just singing songs about it creeps me out. I totally get why the disciples, the Israelites and everyone else are freaked out by Yahweh and Jesus, because holiness is lethal to me. I get all those commands to be holy, loving, repentant, obedient, faithful, covenant keeping, etc. I get them right through the heart.

They kill me. They killed me in Romans 7….and they keep on killing me. Every time I meet them as God’s demand, I’m done. Stick a fork in me.

I am not the kind of Christian you guys are. I guess that’s obvious. When I read Psalm 119 about loving the law of God, I’m looking around for who it’s talking about. I could make a list of things I “do” because of Christ. God has graciously done many things for me and in me. And I’ve responded by being a big loser as a Christian. Fortunately, that’s the main qualification to be a Christian, so I’m expecting a promotion soon. But when I get around people trying really hard to do stuff Christians do, I know I’m in last place, and I need to read Luther and Capon.

(I’m not denying the importance of discipleship or obedience. There’s just NO ASSURANCE that I’m a Christian in any of that. I hope that’s registering somewhere with someone.) I tell my staff this all the time: Nothing that is demanded of us can EVER be done sufficently, purely enough, consistently enough or from the right motives enough to provide ANY assurance that we are a Christian. That’s a pretty big thing. And I know some of you want nothing to do with it, and that’s fine. It’s why you are a Christian, and I’m something else probably. But I’m going to believe in the Gospel and follow Jesus anyway…just to see what happens.

In honor of this discussion, I propose a drinking song…lyrics by John Erskine. Take it away Johnny. More »« Less

Regretfully, I have not been in on much of the conversation on sanctification, even though I actually started it. I want to add a late amen to JS’s post. I share his incredulity at any Christian who has a problem with the statement “so that you may not sin”. How about the word “holiness”? I’ll admit I don’t use the word very frequently in my teaching & exhortation. And, yes, it does cause a certain reaction in me when I hear someone say it. But, as I believe is the case with most of the posts on this topic, I think my response is more a reaction against religious crap that I have witnessed, been the victim of, or, unfortunately, willingly participated in. The truth is that we are told in the New Testament that we should strive to be holy, because “without holiness no one will see the Lord”. If holiness has nothing to do with us, then why are we told to strive (the NIV says “make every effort) to be holy? It seem to me that most of the posts on this topic are more reactions against legalism, or what Willard calls externalism, than a simple desire to believe and obey the Word of God. I think Bill dealt with the subject very well in his latest excellent post. Thanks Bill.

One more angle on this topic: it seems that many of you are saying “I choose to pursue humility rather than holiness”. Why do you see these two as mutually exclusive? On the contrary, I would argue that humility is the key virtue that must undergird everything, and without humility no one will see holiness (sanctification). The two are not in opposition to one another, but must necessarily work in concert with one another. As Luther said, we are both sinner and saint at the same time. It seems to me that true humility embraces our saintliness just as it acknowledges our sinfulness. True humility celebrates the new creation just as it constantly repents of the relentless old self.

I think we should all do a book study together, like this one from Jack’s Amazon.com wish list.

I just happened to see in my Cokesbury catalog and couldn’t pass it up.

And Joel, you still don’t look like a Joel.

Last night we on an outreach event to go see the Rev. Horton Heat at the House of Blues. I think I am starting to really dig this church planting thing.
On this sanctification stuff I would like to say I am not perfect but am really well rounded. Especially around the waist.

I wanted to comment on the Challies dad thingy earlier this week but my wife spilled a coke on the laptop keyboard and it was a bit hard to operate until we got a new keyboard. His comments are probably from what he has experienced. I myself have a great dad who was at hundreds of ball games, took me fishing and hunting, and supports me in what I do. I agreed with what he wrote and said a hardy amen but then I do not see what Michael does at OBI everyday. A great challenge for us all when we write and share opinions is to consider the lenses from which we view the world and what others experience as well.
I need a new laptop. Any suggestions for a good cheap one. My needs are internet, a little gaming, and word documents.

I’ve long ago demonstrated- “I’m worse than Bill Maher”- that this subject brings out the worst in me. Let’s be honest here: Almost no one is actually presenting the positions that we are posting against or reacting against. I had no intention to ridicule anyone. What I want to do is “amen” Jack, and reaffirm my faith that the only real change is Gospel change, and that is only truly discerned by the one who produced it.

Is Matthew correct? Of course he is. His marriage, like my own, is a place where prayers are answered and progress is made. But- and I say this with enormous affection and respect for all of you on here- progress in external righteousness, even if it saves my marriage, makes me generous and sacrificial or transforms my relationships with others- cannot be the place I ever look for assurance. Is the love of Christ manifested in change? Of course. But now what about when I become worse? What about when I betray my family? When I choose to hurt others in order to bring pleasure and power to myself? What do I have? I’ve given the talk. It goes like this:

“Well, real Christians won’t sin like that. Their overall direction in life will be sanctification. There will be increasing obedience and an increasing commitment.” Whatever this means to many of you, it is Macarthur’s doctrine of assurance in Lordship salvation, and it sends me to the ocean floor. It’s a prescription for despair.

I am simply unable to look at what I do- DO- and come away praising God. What God does in me? I can praise God for that, but I know what a house of cards it is. I can praise God for what he has done for me in Christ, and after that, I’m on shaky ground.

I don’t want to be a jerk; I really don’t. I also don’t want to come anywhere near Bill’s idea that I’m promoting the idea that Christ has no impact on life. He has the deepest possible impact. I simply can’t look at what I do or don’t do and see that impact clearly enough to find assurance.

You have to understand that I am surrounded by moralism 24 hours a day. “Improving” the student’s attitudes and behavior is the all consuming mission of most of my co-workers. My own life has been “impacted” by legalism and phony evangelicalism to the point of despair.

What is the Gospel? What is it? Capon says it perfectly: God has called off the whole sin/religion business. We are reconciled in Christ. We are alive again in him. The new life is here, and will only become more real. Now do what you want. (And what DO you want to do, if you believe that?)

One last thing: This subject presents us with some of the deepest fissures on the BHT. I don’t delight in that. I grieve over it. I don’t condemn anyone. I simply have to fight for my own salvation, constantly, in view of my fallenness.

I am ascending from Nous to the One.

In other news, Ben Myers has penned his “Church” entry in his Theology for Beginners series. Some notable Lutherans recommended for further reading. Hmm…

As side note, could I possibly use the adverb “pretty” anymore often?

And, why can’t iTunes make TV shows available like 5 minutes after they start. Anyone willing to pay $1.99 for LOST or The Office isn’t going to go all the way to the end so they will know what happens first.