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

I’m quite used to hearing that my understanding of the Gospel of “Jesus=salvation” is gnosticism, antinomianism and dangerous libertinism in the church. Martyn-Lloyd Jones said that when one has preached the Gospel, one will hear immediate calls that true Christianity has been undermined.

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”.

Is this the New Testament message for the Christian? Is this the Good News for some of us? If it is, could someone get me the papers to end my membership in this Christian thing? I mean, if we are going to take the Bible’s hundreds of statements of God’s demand for Holiness- “Be perfect, etc.” “Be Holy for I am holy…” “Obey every word of this law….”- and say “There it is: Jesus died for you. Now STRIVE for holiness,” I’m screwed. (Use Lewis Black voice. Say several times.)

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.

Correct. I have it on good authority (not morally good, mind you) that I look like a Jack.

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.

Both sides are talking past each other. 

Did I take a side? Huh. Which one was it?

I don’t get this conversation, I really don’t.  Even though I’ve taken part in it several times at the Tavern.

This isn’t about triumphalism versus wanton licentiousness.  Saying that I am a better person doesn’t mean that my numeric sin count is down. Is anyone saying that?  It is also not about whether I’m better or worse than someone else, Christian or not.  It’s about whether the fruits of the Spirit are manifest in my life in any recognizable way.  If someone is saying that we cannot expect the fruits to be manifest, then say it.  If someone is saying that obedience is not in any way realizable, even imperfectly, then say it.  I don’t think anyone is, but you have to know that that it what it sounds like.

Is anyone saying that attempting to obey is “works righteousness?”  If this is about Christ changing us, then what is He changing us into?

Is there nothing in your life that you do because you are a believer?  Something that you wouldn’t do, or perhaps even think of if you were not a believer?  Showing love to your neighbor?  Feeding the poor?  Clothing the naked?  Sharing your Faith?  Praying for people in need?  Raking a lawn.  Ministering to the elderly?  Supporting the local church?  Showing restraint in (fill in the blank).  Has no one here seen any kind of a transformation in the life of someone who has come to Christ?  What’s that all about?  Faking it?  Well, if your answer is that any “improvements” are a result of God’s grace then who said it wasn’t?

Paul said he was the chief of sinners, and I believe him.  But I’m pretty sure that folks who knew Paul would say that his not persecuting and killing Christians was “better.”

If the Spirit of Christ has no recognizable impact in our lives, so that our lives are absolutely indistinguishable from those without the Spirit, then what is there about Christianity that will commend itself to unbelievers?

Both sides are talking past each other.  But it seems the “I’m no better” group is preaching against a triumphalism that no one is advocating.

K. You know that thing Paul said? I do what I don’t want to do and I don’t do what I do want to do? Or was it I don’t get done what I need to get done?

Wonder if somebody could give me a big kick in the buttocks so that I will get up and get this house cleaned. There’s just no glamour in it. I’d rather sit here and watch My Name Is Earl.

Sigh

Sanctification

I saw the new 24” iMac at CompUSA today. It was a beautiful sight to behold. I also played around with a couple of the new iPod Nanos. They are sweet as well.

I sometimes take flak for staying out of conversations on here and I’m pretty tempted to stay out of this one as well except to say that I’m pretty disappointed that whatever it is we are calling JS’s point of view (sanctification?) has been cast as an exercise in human righteousness or, as my friend and prof. Bob Tuttle calls it, “grunt and groan theology.” For example, my wife and I have been going through a pretty rough patch that’s come around because we’re finally dealing with some issues we’ve hidden out of the way for some time. I’ve been praying specifically for the way I treat, honor, love, and encourage her. Over the last few weeks we both have seen flashes of answered prayer on my end. Does that mean I’m going to throw a righteousness party for myself? It deeply saddens me that some might see me doing just that when, on the contrary, I’m actively praising God for a pretty remarkable gift. It’s just that: a gift. Nothing I’ve earned or created on my own. That’s how I understand sanctification—God’s merciful and overabundant grace.

Michael, I hope your post isn’t intended as a rebuttal to me, because if so, I think my brain will explode. I feel like Josh when we talk about closed communion.

I haven’t said we should count our sins. I don’t want to sponsor “How I’m better than I was before I followed Jesus.” I’m not bragging. I just want to affirm, along with John (and everyone else in the Bible) that speaking/preaching/striving “so that you may not sin” (1 John 2:1) is not a Gospel-negating proposition.

I’m quitting this conversation, lest I blow all the sanctification I’ve worked up (semi-JN).

I’ve been treading close to the sublime lately, at least for me.  I’m reading this and this, and listening to a lot of this on my mp3 doo-hickey.  For a fiction and dysfunctional nonfiction-reading messy person like me, that’s a leap.  I’m enjoying it.

P.S.  I would have just posted the Amazon info on here instead of linking, but I apparently don’t know what the H I’m doing.

Much good is being said on this topic, and I am sure many benefit.

But I’m imagining what it would be like to sponsor a service around the theme “How I’m better than I was before I followed Jesus.” Not “How Jesus is changing me,” but how I am actually better.

Comparative external righteousness is an old covenant concern. It’s all over the Psalms. Call me an antinomian- JS can start- but I’m not quite aware of how the cross-centered, Gospel driven, new covenant, alien righteousness based, Holy Spiritually empowered righteousness of the newer covenant yields a man who says, “I’m sinning less than I used to sin.” It may be true on sins A, D, and Q. But is that how we’re looking at the Christian life now? A man may sin less….sometimes….but is that what he sees when he comes to Jesus daily? His decrease in sins?

Guys…I nearly destroyed my marriage five years ago because of comparative righteousness. Among the gifts God gave me in the process of saving my marriage was the knowledge of what I am in the sight of God: Please get this- My “righteousness” is filthy rags. It’s still righteousness, but there’s NOTHING to count or brag in it. My “decreased sin count” is still filthy rags, soaked in pride, depravity, lack of humility, coldness toward God, lack of devotion to Christ, lack of passion, insincerity, double-mindedness and so on.

If we are having a meeting on how we sin less, I’ll attend…but I’m going to eat your chips and drink my beverage and shake my head. “Chief of Sinners” Ale for me please. Then I’m going to put in my new Nano and listen to “Alas and did my saviour bleed….” You know the rest of the verse.

I thought that wretched man that I am, that prodigal on his knees, that forgiven Peter and that saved thief lived differently, but the accounting was over. The external righteousness watch was over. Called off. Cancelled.

Some strange evil must be floating around in the universe…

Today I was walking through the UK library parking lot listening to iMonk’s Free Thomas Merton! Podcast on my trusty iPod when whom did I see but…Joel Hunter, dressed rather nattily; and Mr. Hunter informed me that he had just repasted with…you guessed it, the Internet Monk himself.

Ladies and gentlemen, this has grown bigger than we could have imagined.  First Time Magazine, now this.  The last time two people in the same city were thinking of or talking about me at the same time was when I accidentally threw hot-sauce in a kid’s eye when I was teaching at OBI.

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