I’ve been asked why do we, who like the Reformation and support a Law/Gospel paradigm in theology, always focus on ourselves as sinners? Aren’t we like Debbie Downer from Saturday Night Live who litters every fun conversation with sad and depressing news? When people want to talk about living out a life of love for the glory of God, we talk about our weakness, our need, and our inability. What about intimacy, healing, and fruit in a relationship with Jesus? Intimacy is wonderful; healing is great, and fruit is awesome! The question is not “what” is good (that’s God’s holy Law to love him and our neighbor as ourselves); but rather “how” we get there.
Furthermore, if we are constantly talking about ourselves as sinners, then aren’t we neglecting our identity as children of God, as saints, as new creations? Isn’t this going to cause our self-esteem to plummet and make us feel worthless as Christians? All excellent questions.
The short answer is, well no! Even though Christians are saints, they are still sinners this side of heaven. We prefer to talk about our need versus our victory because it keeps things in their proper place. Like any good recovery group, we go there to admit we are addicts. We talk about our incredible need for intervention from the outside (ever been in an argument where neither person can stop hurting each other?), our failure to choose the good (ever looked back on a decision and suddenly recognized the selfish motivations behind them?), and our weakness in sin (ever talked poorly about anyone?) because all these realities admit our human depravity is depraved! Our belief in human sin directly affects our belief in Jesus’ power to save. If our need is dire then his victory is mighty.
This is shown at the cross. At the cross, Jesus knew me in my secret (and not so secret) selfishness completely. He came specifically to take my place of condemnation and give me a right relationship with God instead. He took away my sin and reckoned to me (imputed) his righteousness. By admitting I’m a sinner, I’m weak, I simply admit the truth shown at the cross – I am weak… but He is strong.
In Who Shall Deliver Us? Paul Zahl writes: “Honesty means facing up to a tragic situation. In the New Testament, honesty is exemplified in Paul’s confession that his righteousness, his claim to moral superiority—let alone integrity—in the face of judgment, is equivalent to garbage (Phil. 3:8). In light of such honesty, God’s imputation to us of Christ’s moral perfection is a precious gift. It conveys authentic worth to personality” (74). I find it so freeing and relieving that Jesus knows me, and loves me, and he has forgiven even that. At the cross, God validated our worth and showed his great love for us. All the glory of being a saint will hit home when we are forgiven as a sinner.
What about the objection to focus on “the good parts” of us now that we are saints? Until Jesus returns I have a double life: I am fully justified and fully a sinner. I still live here on earth. My sin, though conquered, will continue to be condemned by the Law and thrust me on the Gospel until I go to heaven. I would prefer to focus on God’s “good parts” 😉 rather than mine. In Luther for Armchair Theologians Steven Paulson describes this as talking about the Law only, not the Gospel: “the simplest form of law alone in theology I suppose is that created nature itself is grace, or God’s favor, and the human problem is that we haven’t recognized it or responded to it (i.e. all Christians need to do is to remember that they are redeemed now and act like it!). If that were the case, then humans would be rid of their problems if they could just convince themselves that they are beautiful, good, and worthy in and of themselves. But as you may have learned, affirming yourself is a lonely and endless enterprise” (Paulson 30). It’s what God thinks of us that counts.
I will close with a word from Rod Rosenbladt at this year’s 2010 Mockingbird Conference: “Complete bondage of the human will in matters heavenly is ultimately good news because a doctor only comes for the sick.” The Apostle Paul boasted in his weakness, claiming to be the chief of sinners because that left him only one option: “so that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2 Corinthians 12:9b). In Jesus’ kingdom, only sinners are called saints.
COMMENTS
52 responses to “Debbie Downer”
Leave a Reply
Nice one.
Thanks Kate. Really lovely and clear. You're the best.
PS. "Debbie Downer" is new to me. She seems like a cousin to Thelma from Scooby Doo.
Pretty big fan of this line: "I find it so freeing and relieving that Jesus knows me, and loves me, and he has forgiven even that."
I think whenever I'm asked about being a theological "Debbie Downer" I'll just refer them to this post. It is great.
Kate, this is terrific. Really clarified some questions I've had. Thank you!
Kate,
Thank you for taking my eyes off of my own ability or lack thereof and focusing them firmly on Jesus and what he has done for us. I need to hear this all the time, everyday.
We should get married…;)
Kate, this is a wonderful post. I have received this "critique" many times.
It reminds me of the following quote from Forde's "On Being a Theologian of the Cross" (pp. 35-36), after he talks a bit about theses 3&4 of the Heidelberg Disputation, where theologian of the cross calls good bad and bad good:
"The most consistent complaint about being a theologian of the cross is that one sets forth a view of life that is much too negative, gloomy, and depressing. But that is simply to repeat in contemporary jargon what Luther has been saying: "The works of God are always unattractive and appear evil. . . ." Our complaint — as is generally true of arguments with Luther! — does not really refute the argument but rather just illustrates it. We actually do "hide our faces" and look for something more "positive, self-affirming, and attractive." And so we don't see. We can't look. We call evil good and good evil. As addicts, as theologians of glory, we have no choice.
"So it is quite apparent that being able to see is not something we can accomplish. The light shines in a very dark place indeed! The last sentence in the proof makes clear that the "works of God" Luther has in mind are those that God works in us through the one who was despised and rejected so that we might begin to see the way things are. It is what we see when we look at the world "through suffering and the cross" (thesis 20). The works of God in us, the humility and fear of God, are our "eternal merit." Our lives are hidden in God, Luther says, and he explains that by saying that we live only in "naked confidence in the mercy of God." So to live is not gloomy or depressing, but rather "As sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as dying, and behold we live" (2 Cor. 6:9-10)."
Thanks for the feedback guys!
And thank you John for such firm roots in the theology of the cross!
And for Sean… yes 🙂
Kate, this is so timely. Just last night we were with a new friend and I was most definitely Debbie Downer. I was probably more than that, actually, I was just really weird to him! (We might call him Positive Polly.)
This nice new friend kept trying to pump me up by encouraging me to "live in to the fruit," but much to his dismay, I just kept telling that I couldn't. That just doesn't work for me.
So, thanks for this precisely clear explanation of what I was trying to communicate last night. -Emily
Wonderful post, thank you! I think this is a sticking point with most contemporary Christians. A friend once told me that she found Psalm 139 uncomfortable, she didn't want God to know all those things about her…and I can't think of anything more comforting than him utterly knowing me. Less of me is awesome once I have seen the real me.
couldn't agree more, Mark!
Kate
I wonder if you can give me any NT texts where Paul or another writer refers to himself as a 'sinner'or suggests that we should think of ourselves as 'sinners'? The one verse you quote is Paul's assessment of himself before he was a Christian not as a Christian.
Can you think of any texts where Paul either takes believers to the law or suggests they should take themselves to the law to be condemned by it?
Incidentally, I am not aligninging myself with any view that says, 'humans would be rid of their problems if they could just convince themselves that they are beautiful, good, and worthy in and of themselves'.
Dear John,
your question for Kate seems to imply that a person can avoid the law. Perhaps we can avoid hearing about certain obscure biblical dictates — "don't eat shrimp" — on a daily basis, but we cannot avoid the experience of judgment, and the possibility of disobedience. Even the silliest mandate is only a mandate to the extent that its adherence can be gauged (i.e., in proportion to a lack of adherence).
Given that every standard, every judgment, every imperative statement contains the possibility of disobedience (of right and wrong), I don't know how exposure to the law dynamic that Paul explains so eloquently in Romans can be avoided. He gives the "do not covet" example in Romans 7, where he is obviously making a general point about the Law using a particular example. In other words, what we learn from the Law in that particular case applies to the nature of all Law, and not just thieving.
My understanding is that, in general, "Law" is simply "what a person should do". We can avoid particular ideas about right or wrong, but not the categories themselves, and Paul's insights apply not just to the particulars (e.g., circumcision, hand-washing, dietary laws, covetousness etc.), but the categories themselves and the way they are experienced by human nature.
Obviously not all laws line up with biblical dictates. Here are a few Pauline passages that all associate a feeling of being condemned (i.e., conviction of sin, that the law "draws the puss to a head" to quote Tyndale) with the experience of being exposed to the law. In all of them, Paul speaks of the Law in a general, all-encompassing sense:
Romans 3: 19-20
Romans 4: 15
Romans 5: 13
Romans 5:20
Romans 7: 4
Romans 7: 7-9
Romans 7: 23
Romans 7: 25
1 Cor 15: 56
2 Cor 3: 6-7
2 Cor 7: 10-11
2 Cor 12: 9-10
Gal 2: 19
Gal 3: 10
Gal 3: 17-19
Gal 3: 24
Gal 5: 4
Col 2: 14
1 Tim 1: 8-9
I was taught in seminary, that this understanding of the law, that it convicts people of sin, is called "the Pauline insight", though I'm not sure who coined that term. The idea made it into the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer, and, in every Rite 1 Communion service, the minister reads Christ's summary of the law aloud to the congregation, and then the congregation, because of the teaching I've tried to summarize above, respond: "Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy." (i.e., not: "Yippee, we'll do it!")
I hope all of this helps to provide a bit of a biblical and theological framework for where my appreciation of this post is coming from. I find this teaching about the law to be a place where Christianity and the world butt heads. I think it's material that is hugely present in the Biblical text, but that most Christians overlook and/or neglect. The Lutheran paradigm for preaching (law then gospel) is a noteworthy exception.
Those are my immediate thoughts, and I hope they're helpful.
best, JAZ
Also, there's a book by Stephen Westerholm that deals with these questions in great detail. He suggests that the more traditional Protestant understanding of Law (that I tend to espouse) contrasts notably with the newer movement in scholarship known as the New Perspective on Paul. The latter places great emphasis upon the particularities of second-temple Judaic thought. Both views are deserving of study. They don't reconcile themselves at all well though.
Here is the last paragraph of Westerholm's book:
"As I see things, the critics (the NPP) have rightly defined the occasion that elicited the formulation of Paul's doctrine and have reminded us of its first-century social and strategic significance; the 'Lutherans', for their part, rightly captured Paul's rationale and basic point. For those (like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley) bent on applying Paul's words to contemporary situations, it is the point rather than the historical occasion of the formulation that is crucial." (p. 445)
Hi John/Jaz
Thanks for responding. My main point in commenting was to provoke thought on whether the NT invites a believer to think of himself as a 'sinner' or answerable to 'the law'.
I would say it doesn't. I should stress it is believers or Christians I am speaking about, not non-Christians.
Christians in the NT epistles, especially those of Paul, though not exclusively, are encouraged to think of themselves as saints not sinners. And the constant implication stressed is 'be what you are'. Be what the gospel has made you. Live out the reality. The danger is, when we say something like 'I'm just a sinner' we may begin to give ourselves an excuse for un-Christlike living. Paul will sometimes contrast what he was (a sinner) with what he has now by grace become. he will say to the Corinthians once you were thieves etc but now you are washed, sanctified… (1 Cor 6). John says you were once darkness but now you are light in the Lord… Once in the flesh now in the Spirit… and so on. You will find he never talks them down by referring to them as sinners. Of course he says they are not sinless, and are troubled by indwelling sin but that is something different. It does not define who they are. Luther's dictum 'simultaneously saint and sinner' is not how the Bible frames it, even if we understand what he means.
More, the NT, especially Paul, does not send Christians to the law to be accused or condemned when they sin. The answer to indwelling sin is not to look at the law, but the cross. It is a theology of the cross (here surely Luther is right) that shames, convicts, converts and leads in paths of obedience. The law is harsh and accusatory whereas the cross softens with love. It puts our sin in the context of grace and provokes a penitent spirit. I think you will find as you read the NT this is the proper way to judge the flesh.
Luther (and some reformed writers today) speak of the law/gospel divide. They are right to do this but wrong in how they do it. They write as if every promise is gospel and every command is law. This is not really the NT way of dividing law and gospel. The NT distinction is one of salvation-history. The Law belongs to one epoch and the gospel to another. True they are based on different principles and true in one sense the Law is all command (the Old Mosaic Covenant saying 'this do and live'). It demanded unaided obedience as the basis of life. And yes, the gospel is promise. However there are gospel commands. We can call them gospel commands because in this instance what God commands he gives, by his Spirit, the ability to accomplish. Thus it is over simplistic to say the law ios command and the gospel promise.
I have read Westerholm and most of what I have written he would agree with. Perhaps you should read Douglas Moo's article on the law if you haven't read it. It is excellent. It is available from his website.
My purpose is not to suggest we treat sin lightly. We must be ruthless with all sin and put it to death. But we do so by the Spirit. Furthermore there can be a tendency in more reformed thinking to almost glory in conviction of sin and our sense of failure. Some think it is the height of spirituality to be crying out 'O wretched man that I am'. It is not. It is the cry of a heart that focuses on the law and not the gospel and is a sub-Christian position. Moreover, sometimes humbug gets involved and we relish our agonizing and prostrations of wretchedness and sinfulness.
Just some thoughts for your consideration. Test them against Scripture to see if they are right.
John/Jaz, I did check out your texts and I think you will find that none contradict what I have written.
I have been blogging about the christian and the law over at my blog (see flesh and Spirit). Feel free to check it out and question it.
PS
My comments are not from someone who embraces the 'new perspective'. That is something different. It is much nearer to what is called 'new covenant theology' though I would differ from it here and there.
I wonder if Psalm 51 is an example of a Christian (David) cryng out 'Oh wretched man that I am' in recognition of his sinfulness (being confronted by the law)…but also trusting in God's 'steadfast love' to have mercy upon him (living in the gospel)?
Mark
I would like to underline again that I am not suggesting we should take a light view of sin. Sin should be confessed, repented of, and forsaken. We should experience 'godly grief' over sin, and especially so with serious wilful sin such as David's.
And you are of course right, David's response is largely what ours should be. Your analysis of Psalm 51 is right. I would note however, that David was an OT believer living under an Old Covenant. His relationship was to the Law, ours is not, ours is to Christ by faith (Roms 7:1-6). The dynamics change accordingly.
Again, I simply ask, as we read the NT a) how does it ask us to think of ourselves if we are believers b) is the OT Law used by Paul to convict believers of sin or does conviction come through gospel realities?
Hi John,
Thank you for your very thoughtful comments. I think you ask amazing questions about the how the NT talks about believers. One thought that popped into my mind while read what you said about being taken to the cross as opposed to the Law is that it seems that is a false distinction. The cross is where God's justice and His mercy kiss. it is the place where we are first confronted with the cost of our disobedience. We are confronted with the Law in no small way when we see our LORD, Jesus Christ hanging on a tree, cursed by the Law!, for our sin. In that moment (which does not only happen once on an existential/psychological level) we are brought to death in our sin united to Him in His death. We see our Substitute making a way for our salvation. Paying our price. We hear the words, "Forgive them for they know not what they do." and "It is finished."
Only by being confronted by the Law here at the cross can we understand the forgiveness He won for us in that same moment.
There is far more to say, but I have to get to class!
Cheers:)
St. Paul called himself the chief of sinners, and described himself as a wretched man in need of deliverance. This understanding of himself brought with it incredible joy and freedom. What is good enough for Paul, in terms of his self-identification as a sinful, wretched Christian, joyful at being loved by God, is good enough for me. Thanks Kate, for this great reminder that a christian debbie downer is the best upper there is.
Sean
That's just the point the cross reveals sin (far more graphically than the law) but it does so in a context of hope; a context of pardon, forgiveness and justification. The law does not. It reveals sin but can do no more. That is Paul's fundamental word about the law; it supplies the knowledge of sin. It can neither justify nor sanctify. It offers life (this do and live) but supplies no power. Paul's point in Roms 7 is that we are in the death of Christ removed as believers entirely from the realm where the law (the Mosaic covenant)has any authority. We have died to the law that we may be married to Christ. See my blog for some recent comments.
Hey, at least I'm inciting you guys to think about this.
Michael
Paul's reference to himself as the chief of sinners is in reference to his life before conversion persecuting the church.
Who the 'wretched man' in Roms 7 is, is hotly desputed and has been for centuries. Paul is adopting a persona in an argument. The person describes himself as 'of the flesh' and 'sold under sin'. He says, 'the evil I would not I do and the good I would like to do I don't' (in other words he is a constant failure). He says he has 'the desire to do good but the inability to carry it out'. Now read Roms 6 where we are told a believer is 'no longer a slave of sin' and indeed has been 'set free from sin'and has become 'a slave of righteousness'. Do you spot the problem? Is Paul really saying a believer is a 'sold under sin'? Does that gel with what the NT otherwise teaches about the Christian life?
John,
You've got such a winsome way of disagreeing with people—what a gift!
You said: [the law] offers life (this do and live) but supplies no power. Paul's point in Roms 7 is that we are in the death of Christ removed as believers entirely from the realm where the law (the Mosaic covenant)has any authority.
I would agree with you to the extent that we are a "new creation"; however, as Paul writes, "the power of sin is the law," so where sin persists, so will the law continue to have power. I'm not sure you'd disagree with me on this point.
However, I think that when you wrote ". . . and the constant implication stressed is 'be what you are'. Be what the gospel has made you. Live out the reality. really gets to the heart of the disagreement here.
Is the Christian life one of growing into the reality that you've already been given, or is it becoming more aware of the cost of the grace you've been shown? Of course, these are two sides of the same coin, in many respects, but which one you emphasize will dramatically affect your teaching/preaching.
And, regarding Romans 7, well, I'll stick with Augustine, Luther and (even) Calvin on that one 😉
Just some thoughts. . .
what is your blog site, btw—did I miss it somewhere?
Many blessings,
JDK, What's this "even" Calvin stuff with Romans 7 ??? 😉 Calvin gives a fantastic argument in the Institutes for Paul seeing himself as a believer who is both "wretched" and "blessed" in Romans 7 which absolutely destroys any effort to cast this passage as an "assumed personna" of an unbeliever. The misinterpretation of this passage has been the cause of much misery, and much self-righteousness in the church.
TDK
Oops. I've just discovered that my name doesn't connect to my blog. I'll try to figure out how to sort this. In the meantime see
http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/
If you meant the opening comment seriously I have to confess I am not always sweetness and light.
I don't think i would disagree with the points you have made though I may wish to nuance them. It is true that 'the power of sin is the law'. The point I would make is that through the gospel we have been delivered from both. Sin can no longer enslave and the law can no longer accuse. Of course that doen't mean that sin does not try to enslave nor the law try to accuse. We however, have to resist the temptation to let each do either.
When we are tempted to sin we need to tell ourselves 'I am a ne cretion in Christ and sin is incongruous for me. More, I do not need to give into this habit etc for I am not a slave of sin. I have died to this world where sin had rights and power over me'.
When the law comes to accuse (or more often Satan employing the law) and I feel wretched and worthless I need to say ' I refuse to listen to this accusing voice. I refuse to live with a sense of condemnation and on going guilt. I am a new creation and in Christ have died to the world where the law had the right to accuse me). Of course if I have sinned then I must confess and forsake sin and live in the joy and blessing of gospel forgiveness.
Now this to my mind is what Paul is teaching in Roms 5-8. Something very similar if not identical would be taught by the likes of D Moo, JRW Stott and others in their commentaries.
I may well be wrong but I would have thought Luther and Calvin may understand Roms 7 differently. My memory fails me (it often does).
I want to see Christians taking sin seriously and forsaking it. I do not wish to undermine this. However, there is a danger in more reformed circles that Christians get cowed and despondent over failure and lose sight of the gospel. I think an (in my opinion mistaken)fofussing on our relationship with God in terms of law contributes to this.
So I just ask that when reading Scripture we note that Paul's constant approach is 'here is who you are, live in the light of it'. And ask yourself how often he or other writers send believers back to the law for their example in holiness and how often he uses the law to accuse them. You may be surprised.
As you say TDK 'be what you are' and 'being aware of the cost of grace' are not in conflict but in tandem.
My principle point is Paul bases EVERYTHING to do with life and godliness on the gospel. It is the means AND measure AND motive of our sanctification (not to mention the basis of our justification).
I suspect i am older than most on this blog and so I would say test all that i have said by Scripture and hold to what is true.
Warm regards
Dear John (Thompson),
My apologies for not replying to your post earlier (I confess I haven't check the blog in a few days, sorry!)! I am thankful that your questions received such thorough and thoughtful responses nonetheless.
I find it is healthy and Biblical to admit I am a sinner and a saint. In fact it is because I am safe in the arms of my Savior that I can be honest with him, myself, and with those I have offended. He knows it anyway. I find that knowing his grace personally keeps our hearts fixed "where true joys are to be found."
Bishop John Rodgers writes in his up and coming book on the 39 Articles: "to the extent that we grow in grace we become more aware of how much more sin there is in our hearts than we ever thought possible and we can boast only in the cross of Christ." Practically speaking, this Gospel-born honesty is often what helps saints face the realities of their sin and find help in their time of need.
Thanks so much again for your thoughts.
And thank you John, Jady, Sean, Mark and Michael! Such a rich discussion for which I'm very grateful.
Kate
Dear John,
Thanks for your comments.
The view that it is not Paul speaking of himself in Romans 7 is a fundamental error that has more to do with wishful thinking (and despite historic empirical evidence to the contrary) than it does with any sort of exegesis. If we stick to exegesis alone, the "traditional" reading has the least exegetical difficulties, and, unless we have previous commitments to how Christian Paul MUST be behaving/thinking/existing, we are forced to say that it is Paul speaking in the 1st person—just as we see how when he speaks in 1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. that we also see him speaking in the 1st person p/a/i–anyway, I'm no greek expert and, certainly, people will continue to disagree, but the evidence, exegetically at least, is much more in favor of Augustine.
For the record, and following later Augustine (who was an old man when he changed his position to the one that we are supporting;-) Luther, Calvin and the whole Protestant tradition followed this reading and Cranfield, Seifrid and (even) James Dunn are among the more current proponents of this view (and those are just off the top of my head).
What the inability to come to a consensus on this topic indicates, far from a lack of "testing the word" on one side or the other, is a deep and abiding disagreement over fundamental theological categories.
and more:)
You say: The point I would make is that through the gospel we have been delivered from both. Sin can no longer enslave and the law can no longer accuse.
Well, this would be, as you probably know, completely rejected by the Reformers as not taking the power of the Law with respect to abiding sin (concupiscence) seriously enough.
You wrote: However, there is a danger in more reformed circles that Christians get cowed and despondent over failure and lose sight of the gospel. I think an (in my opinion mistaken) focusing on our relationship with God in terms of law contributes to this.
I couldn't agree more.
Now, I'm not Reformed, but I can see how an insistence on the Law as being the determining factor of our relationship with God could lead to some pretty dark days.
When our relationship with God is based, ultimately, on merit–even merit that Jesus has overcome/fulfilled/satisfied–then it is virtually impossible not to continue to compare yourself to that standard even when you know it has been paid.
This is, incidentally, not too far from the medieval quest for attrition that preceded Luther's "discovery" of a gracious God. For them, before the Gospel, the Cross and the Law were that which continually showed you how little you warranted God's love, and the role of "spiritual disciplines" was to try and get in touch with just how rotten you were.
Sounds a little like some (just some–please Hammer, don't hurt me:) types of Reformed piety I've encountered: the worse you feel about yourself and your sin, the more you'll see how great the cross is.
Now, there is some truth in this, of course, but this is not what we are talking about here.
The law as a theological category can only be truly understood in light of the Cross, which is why pre-Christian Paul (most notably) in Philippians 3 describes his relationship to it as "blameless." This is not to say that the Law was and is not an active force in the world before the cross, but the extent and depth of the problem was not clearly seen.
This is why the lamentations of Paul in Romans 7:14-25 esp. are so clearly Christian—these are the cries of one who has already heard, seen, tasted and believed–and yet turned away—the most bitter pill! Only Christians can understand this. That it does not fit into someone's hopeful progression of the Christian life makes it that much more powerful, because it forces constant and complete trust in the comforting words, "if anyone sins (including Christians) they have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."
JDK
I'm diappointed you regard a persona in Roms 7 as 'fundamental error'. It may well be wrong but is it really 'fundamental eerror'? It seems clear to me that Paul is, at the very least, doing more than merely describing his own experience. He is surely, at the least, speaking representively.
Allow me to sketch briefly my own position.
vv1-6 must govern our exegesis. They lay out Paul's basic position. The rest of ch 7 and the first 16 verses of ch 8 are but an exposition of this.
In 7:1-6 Paul insists that through our death with Christ we are free from our relationship to the law (absolutely free from it) and in a new relationship; we are married to Christ. When in the flesh, and in a relationship to the law we could only fail and stand condemned (we bore fruit unto death).
The rest of Roms 7 is simply spelling this out in detail.
Union with a risen Christ, by the Spirit, free from the law, creates a holy life (fruit to God). This is developed in Ch 8:1-16.
Christians (orthodox in belief) have of course debated these texts over the centuries. Is Paul speaking of his regenerate self or of his unregenerate self or of a regenerate man, without the indwelling Spirit, seeking to live by the law and finding himself powerless to obey (an OT believer under law???). I strongly favour the latter position, or some nuanced variant of it.
That it describes regenerate and proper Christian experience is the position of many past and present.
Some like Chrysostom, Godet, Gundry, Moo, Kasemann and others see it as an unregenerate Paul.
Others, take a mediating position. Some take it to be a picture of someone under conviction but not yet regenerate (Davies, M Lloyd-Jones); or a position not dissimilar to my own (Longenecker; Mitton; D Wenham; Bruce; Stott and others). I would say Moo, although more firm that the 'I' is unregenerate is a position very similar.
In my view Roms 7 ought not be the position of any believer for reasons already given. It is a matter of relationship, of salvation eons. Roms 7 does not describe the battle between flesh and Spirit of Gals 5. The Spirit is conspicuously absent from the whole experience. It describes a conflict between a man (regenerate or unregenerate) and the law and the law always wins. There is no conquering of sin. Sin always wins.
Yet often as Christians we live on sub-Christian ground. As I say, I think many Reformed believers often live like this. If we live with a sense that we are accountable to law and with a belief that our relationship to Christ means 'the law brings us to Christ for our justification and Christ leads us to the law for sanctification' then we are likely to experience the despondency and defeat of Roms 7.
Finally, let me make clear I am not advocating old Keswick ideas of sanctification – far from it. I am simply urging that our life and experience be lived in the gospel and not the law. True Christian experience is Roms 8 NOT Roms 7.
PS
TDK
What do you think Paul means when he writes TO BELIEVERS:
Rom 8:1 (ESV)
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
and again
Rom 8:33-34 (ESV)
Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died-more than that, who was raised-who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
I submit that Christians cowed and crushed by accusation have lost sight of the gospel.
We must recognise and repent of sin. We must confess it and forsake it. We must hate it and be repelled by it. However, we must not despair under it. Roms 7 is despair.
Moreover,I am not convinced that your analysis of the anthropology is correct. You write: 'these are the cries of one who has already heard, seen, tasted and believed–and yet turned away—the most bitter pill!'. But is it? This is not a picture of someone who has turned away, who wilfully sins. This person WANTS to obey. He delights in the law of God (OT language) in the inward man, he just can't keep it. He is 'sold under sin'. He goes as far as to say, 'Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.'
TDK, I understand what you are guarding against, a superficial triumphalism that denies the reality of sin. I hope I am not encouraging that. As long as we are in this body we will war with sin. However, that is Gals 5 not, in my judgement, Roms 7. Incidentally, I totally agree with your emphasis on the cross. I believe it is the cross that most truly exposes sin, shames sin, condemns sin and yet joy of all joys justifies the sinner. Kate makes this point well.
Kate
Sorry for hogging your blog. I hope the discussions are fruitful. You say much about the gospel I amen. You like to think of yourself as 'a sinner and a saint'. I would prefer to say 'I am a saint still battling with indwelling sin'. I think it keeps the perspective more in line with the Bible and more optimistic about the battle. Flesh and Spirit (sinner and saint) are not two equally powerful forces battling within. That is why Paul keeps insisting we are 'saints' and 'not in the flesh but in the Spirit'. Christians have a heart throne on which Jesus sits, not sin. Sin is a fith columnist. It is a agent provocateur, a guerilli group fighting to claim a lost throne. We are more than conquerors of all spiritual enemies through him that loves us. I am sure you agree with this last sentiment. I feel the adage 'I am a sinner and saint' undermines it. Paul does not write 'to the saints and sinners at…'. He addresses them only and always as saints – even when he sees some appalling sins in them.
Anyway, I've said more than enough.
John,
Forgive me for my overstatement–I was thinking "fundamental" in a categorical/theological sense, not in a "how could anyone believe this nonsense" sort of way:) Certainly, the list of esteemed theologians who hold differing opinions on this issue would testify to the ways faithful minds can disagree. In retrospect, I should have corrected that first sentence—but lead with a bang, I always say:)
You wrote: Yet often as Christians we live on sub-Christian ground. As I say, I think many Reformed believers often live like this. If we live with a sense that we are accountable to law and with a belief that our relationship to Christ means 'the law brings us to Christ for our justification and Christ leads us to the law for sanctification' then we are likely to experience the despondency and defeat of Roms 7.
I couldn't agree more, but the power of the law remains active in the life of a believer just as much (if not more-so) than that of a non-believer. Otherwise, why would we continue to confess? Why would we continue to hear/receive absolution?
I'm not advocating a Christian life that is focused on manufacturing a sense of sinfulness and regret but one that does take the reality of abiding sinfulness seriously.
IMNSHO: Telling Christians that they need to "be who they are," is not helpful, reminding them that God no longer sees them as the people they experience themselves to be is something different all together.
You wrote: Union with a risen Christ, by the Spirit, free from the law, creates a holy life (fruit to God). This is developed in Ch 8:1-16.
Again, I couldn't agree more; however, you seem to be leaving no room for any sort of division between this age and the next.
At the end of the day, how one interprets this passage will necessarily have less to do with exegesis as it will systematic and pastoral theology, and standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were, I'll go ahead and hold onto the hope that my experience of a divided Christian life is part of the "groaning for redemption"–one that (too often) echoes the cries of Romans 7 and take solace in the promise of Romans 8:1.
PPS
Sorry TDK should be JDK (I think I was getting confused with the tapes).
JDK
Well, we are not so far apart.
'Telling Christians that they need to "be who they are," is not helpful, reminding them that God no longer sees them as the people they experience themselves to be is something different all together. '
I don't feel so pessimistic about the first (after all Paul does it all the time) but I am very happy with the latter (providing you do not see how God sees them as bearing no relationship to their present anthropology).
The giants frequently got it wrong. I prefer Paul and the indwelling Spirit (facetious I know) 🙂
Wow. Thank you Kate for this great post. And, thank you all for the great discussion- especially John Thomson- for your thoughtful and kind dialogue.
I have one nagging question For John Thomson. I was hoping someone else would bring it up directly but before this thread gets too cold I will ask…
John, You wrote:
"It is true that 'the power of sin is the law'. The point I would make is that through the gospel we have been delivered from both. Sin can no longer enslave and the law can no longer accuse. Of course that doen't mean that sin does not try to enslave nor the law try to accuse. We however, have to resist the temptation to let each do either.
When we are tempted to sin we need to tell ourselves 'I am a ne cretion in Christ and sin is incongruous for me. More, I do not need to give into this habit etc for I am not a slave of sin. I have died to this world where sin had rights and power over me'."
My question comes from a pastoral perspective.
What are we to say to the struggling alcoholic who would do anything to stop his sinful/destructive behavior but (in a Romans 7 kind of way) continues to struggle?
More broadly, I find that sin/idolatry for most all of us takes on an "addictive" nature. Meaning, my question isn't really directed towards the alcoholic case alone, but to that of us all.
Are we to understand that as Christians, we have a new ability to exercise restraint over sin in the moment of temptation by (a la Stuart Smalley) reminding ourselves that sin no longer has power over us?
I would agree that the knowledge of God's radical love for us- revealed by Christ's work on the cross- has the power to transform. But, are you saying that the christian has an affective ability to overcome sin by "resisting this temptation to let [the law accuse]"?
I am just trying to be clear.
To me, it sounds incredibly cruel to tell someone struggling with habitual sin (i.e. everyone) that, as you say:
"We however, have to resist the temptation to let [sin/law] [enslave/accuse]."
This seems to rest the deliverance of the individual on their own shoulders like a 10,000 pound weight- A rather heavy yoke. What's more, this line of thinking, in my experience, seems to produce the exact opposite of that which it intends.
Now, I would agree with your previous statement:
"Sin can no longer enslave and the law can no longer accuse. Of course that doen't mean that sin does not try to enslave nor the law try to accuse…"
However, I dont think the proper response is that we better not "let it"
Why? The (I think) obvious reason I am concerned is that I see, in the reality of my and other christian's brokenness, nothing but condemnation these words. I have met many dozens of ex-christians who have been burnt by their inability to prevent sin from enslaving or the law from accusing.
I dont mean to take away from Paul's words. I just dont think, in light of the rest of scripture, we should interpret them in the light that (I fear) you have- in this case.
I think that Paul is proclaiming that, by Christ's work, we are no longer under the accusation of the law.This is a diagnostic declaration of our new status. It is Christ and his work that is to be proclaimed to the sinner (by a sinner) rather than a "reminder" not to slip back into bad behavior.
Again, forgive me if I am totally off base here. I hope I am making some sense. It is quite possible that I have mistaken your meaning. I still wrestle with Paul's meaning here.
It's just that I have to believe that the Gospel is not only for pagans but for Christians too.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments and responses.
Joshua
Thanks for your comments to me. I think you probably have understood me correctly.
The gospel is good news. That good news is that our sins (past present and future) are forgiven in Christ. But it is also that sin to which we were once enslaved no longer enslaves us. We no longer are under its power and it need not, indeed, should not, have dominion over us.
Pastorally, to a believer, who has sinned, this would be among the core things I would say. I would point out that for all sin there is forgiveness, lavish and free. And that we are called to confesss our sin and forsake our sin. However, as soon as I mention 'forsaking sin' I create in the person who sins despair unless I can hold out hope that forsaking sin is a reality. Paul says in Roms 6 it is.
Actually then, Roms 6 is not a cause for despair but hope. It tells an individual crushed and cowed by sin to which he feels enslaved that there is a way out. That the sense of enslavement (addiction)is not real and that through the power of the indwelling Spirit of Christ and daily, hourly, moment by moment, trust in him he can overcome the enslaving sin.
Of course, I am not saying he cannot be helped. Good friends can support and encourage (that is what the body of Christ is about) but at the end of the day with any sin we must face up to it, take personal responsibility for it, and personally overcome it. No friend can do this for us we must do it ourselves.
Of course we may fail many times in the fight, and the blood of Jesus Christ God's son cleanses us each time. But what do we do when we fail? Do we give in and say its impossible I may as well give up? No, we pick ourselves up, say 'Lord I've failed again but I know this need not be the pattern of my life, I am a new creation, no longer obliged to give in to sin, help me as I take up the fight again in faith'. In a sense this will be the pattern of our lives until we are home in glory.
Pastorally, I would want to give other biblical advice too depending on the situation. If for example someone was an alcoholic I would tell him/her to stay as far away as possible from situations where he may be tempted. Don't sit in a drinking environment. Don't think you can have just one drink etc. If your eye offends, pluck it out. Be ruthless with yourself and avoid contexts where you know a particular weakness is likely to come under pressure.
cont next comment
Young folks for example struggle with sexual temptation. Everything in society encourages such temptation. So if for example pornography tempts someone they must a) pray and ask that the Lord will keep them from temptation b) act on the prayer personally and put locks on their computer, stay away from the cinema, ask parents to lock down the porn channels and so on.
Couples will avoid long term relationships, being in houses or cars as a couple at night, make sure they have plenty of friends around them, avoid films and books that feed promiscuity and so on.
We will remind ourselves too that this struggle is a matterof life and death, eternal life and death. If we persistently give in to serious sin we are in danger of losing our soul. Paul says:
1Cor 6:9-11 (ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Jesus says
Matt 5:27-30 (ESV)
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
We must allow sin no quarter. Thus, I would regretfully say that an alcoholic who persists in alcoholism has little grounds for thinking he is a believer. Christians overcome gross sins they do not persist in them.
The Christian road is hard and demanding. It does not exuse sin or condone it though when repented of and forsaken it is forgiven (genuine repentance involves the intent to forsake). Yet the gospel is full of hope. The alcoholic can overcome his alcoholism. The materialist can overcome his materialism (and part of the process is staying away from the shops and saying no to retail therapy).
Is all this a yoke/a heavy weight? No because all the resources of grace are there to enable. I say to myself when faced with the insurmountable that I must surmount – 'I can do this because God in all his mighty power is at work within me enabling me. I find my strength, my energy, my resources in him.' This is gospel faith at work.
The yoke of sin is heavy but the yoke of Christ is light.
I hope all this is clear and that it helps.
Thanks again, John, for your articulate explanation. I am glad I wasnt twisting your words (I am often guilty of this.)
I may be alone in this but I find myself confused by something you wrote:
"We will remind ourselves too that this struggle is a matter of life and death, eternal life and death. If we persistently give in to serious sin we are in danger of losing our soul"
and
"The Christian road is hard and demanding…
Is all this a yoke/a heavy weight? No because all the resources of grace are there to enable…"
To this, I have to ask. Which is it? Is it hard and demanding or not a heavy yoke?
Now, I know that the Christian life is not easy. I also, do not mean for my questions to lighten the burden of the law or the necessity of righteousness. It is just that I believe that Jesus' life and work on the cross is sufficient to cover all my sins- as you say- "past, present and future."
Anything else is simply not "gospel" (good news). I cant help but come away from your comments feeling complete and utter condemnation.
When you quote Matthew 5 do you think Jesus is setting up a standard that we have the ability to follow? What about(a few verses away) Matt 5:48 "Be ye therefore perfect…"?
are we to accomplish perfection lest we lose our souls?
Or, does Jesus, somewhere divide resonable demands from non-reasonable ones? Does he divide "gross" sins from (dare I say) "venial" ones?
Jesus, in my view, HAS to be the full propitiation for ALL Sin or I am hoplessly lost (along with all mankind).
Am I to walk around in constant fear of my salvation because of my subjective perception of my level of sanctification? I simply cant read the Bible and come away with this.
What is easy about this yoke? What is light about this burden?
When you write:
"We must allow sin no quarter. Thus, I would regretfully say that an alcoholic who persists in alcoholism has little grounds for thinking he is a believer. Christians overcome gross sins they do not persist in them."
I have to ask how many "strikes" do we get? Seven? Or "sevety times seven"?
Do Christians overcome sin or did Jesus do that?
And what of imputed righteousness?
Please forgive the tone of my questions. AS I write I find that I have strong feeling about the subject!
And, again, I thank you for your charitable responses. I dont know that I have ever read/ heard a more articulate expression of views like yours.
The truth is, there are others on this thread that are much more articulate about these matters than I. I welcome correction or clarification.
Matt 12:20 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench until HE brings justice to victory"
Joshua
Thanks for feedback. Firstly, can I say that although my two initial questions earlier in the comments section may be more controversial (though not actually very controversial) I think what I said in response to your own questions was a fairly standard evangelical answer. I doubt if many would take issue with it. I say this just in case any think that my response was in some way 'off the wall'.
Of course that doesn't mean that what I said I said clearly enough nor does it mean that there are no questions that my answer would throw up. Some of the questions are those you raise. Let me try to say a little about some of them.
The Bible presents two truths that on the face of things seem to be in tension.
1) It teaches us that we are saved completely and utterly by the grace of God in Christ. In his death and resurrection we have justification, the certainty of present and final acceptance.
2) The bible also teaches that those who are truly saved and justified will have changed lives. Their lives will be changed by the gospel. For the gospel that justified also regenerated – they have been born again. They have a new nature from God that longs after all that God longs after and by relying on the power of the Spirit this new nature will grow and flourish in all sorts of ways. They will have a love for God, Jesus, his church, and even their enemies that they never had before. They will slowly but surely in life through prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit (or Jesus or God's strength for all mean approx the same)grow in grace. They will become more and more like Jesus. This will not be without many ups and downs and many failures; failures that frustrate, cause us to mourn over our sin, and to thank God for his forgiving grace. If there are no desires for such changes in their lives and no signs that change is slowly perhaps but surely happening then they have little ground to think that they are believers. If they claim to be believers but freely and carelessly indulge all sorts of sinful activities then the reality of their faith and of their salvation is doubtful.
I wish to be careful here, for I do not know the age or maturity of those who may be reading this comment. I do not wish to unnecessarily shake the confidence of true believers. That would be wrong. If we are seeking by God's grace to die to self and sin and follow Christ on a daily basis taking up our cross with him then we can be assured of salvation despite the many failures we may have (more of this later). If on the other hand we think well my salvation all depends on Christ's death and really I can now live as I like and be careless about sin then we are acting presumptuously and
our salvation is by no means sure.
The apparent tension is to some extent resolved when we remember we are saved by faith, but faith is not simply a momentary thing at conversion, it is life long. Each day we live by faith. Furthermore that faith is in a Christ that saves us not simply in the future but in the present. As we trust Christ we are trusting him to save and deliver us from sin in the present.
Let me quote just a couple of texts that stresses true faith is ongoing and life changing.
Col 1:21-23 (ESV)
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister.' (note the need for continuing in faith)
2Pet 1:3-10 (ESV)
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. (note we can be confident of our election through a life changed by the gospel).
Jas 2:14-26 (ESV)
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”-and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James is emphasising that faith will bring about a change in lifestyle).
These and many many other texts emphasize the same. Saving faith transforms; justifying faith is also sanctifying faith.
I must go at the moment but will continue answer later.
So, let me get this straight, alcoholics who do not "overcome" their alcoholism (with God's help, of course) are not "true" believers? Then are fat so-called Christians who die fat condemned as unbelievers? After all, their fake "faith" did not "transform" them in such a way as to give them "victory" over their gluttony or sloth. If so, there are plenty of Southerners and Scots in hell right now who spent their lives in the pew or the pulpit. Under this pathetic "gospel", the "good news" is you are not under law but under grace, but the bad news is that if you don't keep the law then you are not really under grace. This bait and switch "gospel" teaching is a perversion of the book of James, a perversion of the NT, and robs the helpless and needy believer of the assurance of the love and grace of God that is the only thing that actually does transform the heart in any meaningful way. This perversion of the gospel brings only misery to the weak and self-righteousness to those who think they are walking the walk. Give we the company of a thousand unrecovering alcoholic "so-called" Christians any day, and spare me the company of those who think they are "real" Christians because they have cleaned up their act. I would rather die in the gutter with a bottle of rock-gut in my shriveled up hand along with the former, than die in church singing praise songs with the latter.
And if we are to be quoting Scripture, let us not forget Matthew 23:15–
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."
Michael
You have anticipated my next comment. However, you are right. We have no good reason to hope that alcoholics, drug addicts, coveteous people, adulterers, practising homosexuals or such are truly saved. Where is the evidence they are 'converted'?
The Bible is unambiguously clear. I'll requote a text already quoted.
1Cor 6:9-11 (ESV)
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
People who persist in blatant sin will not enter God's Kingdom. However, I want to point out this includes 'greedy people'. It also includes those who are as you say hypocrites. There are times this makes me tremble. I am unlikely now to fall into some of these sins (though I may but for the grace of God) however, religious hypocrisy is for me a real and present danger. Being a Christian is much more than a cleaned up act but it is not less.
Don't you think that the 'bait and switch' description is a bit of a caricature?
I have no doubt at all that my reading of James etc is correct. However, you must decide for yourself. You must read the NT with an open mind and allow it to form your beliefs. I am absolutely sure that if you do this you will come to a similar understanding as me on this (and may I say the vast, vast, vast majority of evangelical Christians now and through history).
Joshua
When Jesus says, 'Be perfect as…is Perfect' he is expressing the goal to which we should direct our lives. He is not saying we will be perfect. We are called to love as he loved, serve as he served etc. This is the goal. We will never attain it in this life but we will strive to do depending on God's grace day by day for power to become like Christ and forgiveness when we fail (as we surely will). But God never lowers the standards. He never says its okay to love a little, or serve a little. Christlikeness (perfection is always the goal). Believers are called out of love for Christ to live like Christ. They do so not to earn salvation yet it remains equally true that without a measure of real change in heart, in both beliefs and behaviour there is no certainty that faith is real and every likelihood it is not.
Cont below
Let me make a couple of points.
There is a tendency in us all to be reductionistic. By that I mean we tend to latch on to one aspect of truth, champion that, and ignore other areas that may give a more complete picture. We must work at getting as holistic a view of the faith as possible, a complete view. In the words of the Bible we need to get to grips with 'the whole counsel of God'. There is no short cuts in understanding the Bible. We must read it for ourselves. We should probably begin by reading the NT epistles and getting to grips with what they say. This will help us understand better the gospels and the OT.
In reading remember that like any other book we have to read it in context and try to see the issue the writer is addressing. Thus in books like Romans and Galatians where Paul is combatting attempts to earn salvation by good works the emphasis lies heavily on the need for faith in God's grace in all that Christ has done. On the other hand in a book like James where some are cockily confident they are Christians but their lives show little change and little sign of the fruit of the gospel James reminds them that claims to faith are spurious unless there are signs of its effects (unless there are works that demonstrate its vitality).
Joshua, the same kind of reasoning should be applied to apparently contradictory verses like 'the road is hard and narrow that leads to life' and 'take my yoke …learn of me…yoke easy burden light'.
Jesus is addressing two different issues. In the first he sees people around who are following him for superficial reasons. Many when he spells out the cost of following him turn away. And so to these he says in effect 'following me won't be easy'. Elsewhere he tells them it may mean they will lose their friends and even family. In fact, they may well lose their lives. Jesus faced opposition and his disciples will too. jesus was hated and his followers will be too. The road will be hard and those who are inclined to have romantic views of what it will mean need to see this.
On the other hand on another occasion he sees people around him deeply struggling. People he says who are 'labour and heavy laden'. People who may be weighed down by trying to keep God's law to gain eternal life. People who may have a lot of troubles in life and can't cope. People who have gotten into sin and now sin controls them and is destroying them (like an alcoholic). To people like these he says come to me and yoke yourself to me (oxen shared a yoke and one helped the other). In yoking yourself to me you may face many struggles but actually they will be far less weighty and destructive than these other yokes you have taken (trying to earn God's favour through the law, pulled down by sin). Moreover, whatever difficulties you may face you will face them in tandem with me. I will be with you and I will carry you through.
The key is the pastoral context.
This response will not I suspect remove all your objections, however i hope it provides food for thought. Test it by Scripture. See if it stands the test of a holistic reading of the NT.
I rest my case.
Michael
You write:
'Under this pathetic "gospel", the "good news" is you are not under law but under grace, but the bad news is that if you don't keep the law then you are not really under grace'
I think you misunderstand a little the difference between law and grace/gospel.
Now there are a number of differences but at the risk of being reductionistic let me mention one or two pertinent to this discussion.
1. Both refer in the first instance to two different epochs in salvation-history.
2. Both refer to two different ways of God dealing with people. In the Law life (salvation) was offered for those who kept it (those who lived perfect lives). It was a covenant of works. God's intention was not that any should be saved by self-effort but that Israel would see how impossible it was to keep the law and see more clearly their need for a Deliverer. Moreover, under law they related to God in a different way. God was their Judge or King giving out his legal demands.
3. In the gospel God freely gives by grace what we could not earn. Salvation is a free gift of God. Good works do not earn salvation, they are the fruit of salvation as God's grace works in our heart. God is not so much firstly a Judge or King, as a Father. Fathers do not give 'laws' they give commands, instructions etc .
The key point I want to underline is that both the law and the gospel are about a changed life. The primary difference is that the law demands a changed life but it cannot give the power to supply it (Roms 7). The gospel too demands a changed life, but the life change it demands it supplies. God through his Spirit begins to work in us the righteous life the law demanded. However, I stress again, both are about a changed life; one demands it but can't supply it, the other supplies it (in the new covenant the law is written on our hearts).
Now, I know I have said nothing here about justification and a righteous standing in Christ. That is because we both agree about this. Where we are disagreeing is about the importance of sanctification.
You want justification that does not demand sanctification but the Bible knows nothing of this. Justification and sanctification are siamese twins; distinct but never separate.
If you are interested in a more detailed article simply really enumerating the many verses that stress a changed life as vital proof of gospel reality in our lives see the following link. I wrote this article some time ago.
http://greenviewevangelicalchurch.co.uk/resources/johnthomson/he-that-endures-to-the-end/
regards
John
Michael
Last comment. Calvin would agree 100% with what I have said in the last few blogs. As would Luther and any other major Reformer of whom I am aware.
John, Thank you for your thorough comments. It is clear that we will substantially disagree on the issue of sanctification.
It is not that Michael or I "want justification that does not demand sanctification." In fact, I (we) too see sanctification as tied to justification. Its just that I dont think we can judge the levels/degrees of God's work in our lives as an indicator of our justification. How much is enough? Too little? What if I've missed something? I really feel bad for anyone who struggles with this uncertainty.
I am not a scholar but I really think Luther and Calvin WOULD take issue with some of the things you have written.
I dont mean to take you out of context but your statement…
"The key point I want to underline is that both the law and the gospel are about a changed life"
…is indicative of the central issue I have with what you have written. The Law and the Gospel are not about changed lives. They are about Jesus. His life. His work. His death. His resurrection. I think this is why Paul always points back to the cross.
Regarding Christ's commands in Matthew 5.
How can you say that Jesus' command regarding lust and adultery is binding upon us lest we lose our souls (should we fail to overcome it over time)
yet
his command to be perfect "is expressing the goal to which we should direct our lives. He is not saying we will be perfect"?
I know he isn't saying we WILL BE perfect. But he is telling us TO BE perfect.
I dont see where Jesus declares which commands are eternally binding and which are non-binding advice. I dont know a hermeneutic that gives us this kind of latitude. I do believe I am reading this passage in context.
The only way to get out of Jesus' command is to soften the law (and consequently, the cross). Unless, "Gal 4:4…when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons."
If I take Jesus at his word, I dont need to be yoked to Jesus in order to perform. I need Jesus to do it all for me. And he did.
When in doubt, I trust the cross, not my sanctification.
I feel bad having hijacked Kate's wonderful post with my (often) unrelated questions. I think I should end my blather here. 😉
Joshua and others – thanks for your interaction. I am sure as we study God's word he will give us understanding on all things.
'Those whom the Lord has destined by his mercy for the inheritance of eternal life he leads into possession of it, according to his ordinary dispensation, by means of good works. What goes before in the order of dispensation he calls the cause of what comes after. In this way he sometimes derives eternal life from works, not intending it to be ascribed to them; but because he justifies those whom he has chosen in order at last to glorify them [Romans 8:30], he makes the prior grace, which is a step to that which follows, as it were the cause…In short, by these expressions sequence more than cause is denoted.' Calvin's Institutes Book 3: 14:21
'It is true that we ought to practise love towards all men without exception, for we cannot be the children of God, who makes his sun shine on both good and bad, unless we love our enemies and strive to relieve and help them.' 6th Sermon on Eph 1 Calvin
'
9. Know ye not, etc. By unrighteousness here you may understand what is opposed to strict integrity. The unrighteous, then, that is, those who inflict injury on their brethren, who defraud or circumvent others, who, in short, are intent upon their own advantage at the expense of injuring others, will not inherit the kingdom of God That by the unrighteous here, as for example adulterers, and thieves and covetous, and revilers, he means those who do not repent of their sins, but obstinately persist in them, is too manifest to require that it should be stated. The Apostle himself, too, afterwards expresses this in the words employed by him, when he says that the Corinthians formerly were such The wicked, then, do inherit the kingdom of God, but it is only in the event of their having been first converted to the Lord in true repentance, and having in this way ceased to be wicked. For although conversion is not the ground of pardon, yet we know that none are reconciled to God but those who repent. The interrogation, however, is emphatic, for it intimates that he states nothing but what they themselves know, and is matter of common remark among all pious persons…Farther, that his threatening may have more weight, he says, be not deceived; by which expression he admonishes them not to flatter themselves with a vain hope, as persons are accustomed, by extenuating their offenses, to inure themselves to contempt of God.' Calvin 1 Cor 6:9
'for the design of James was to expose the foolish boasting of those who imagined that they had faith when by their life they shewed that they were unbelievers…The meaning then is, “Unless thy faith brings forth fruits, I deny that thou hast any faith.” …This only he means, that faith, without the evidence of good works, is vainly pretended, because fruit ever comes from the living root of a good tree…When Paul says that we are justified by faith, he means no other thing than that by faith we are counted righteous before God. But James has quite another thing in view, even to shew that he who professes that he has faith, must prove the reality of his faith by his works' Calvin James 2
Dear John,
you are helping to clarify the real gulf that exists between (some interpretations of) Luther and Calvin—and those only illustrate two completely different ways of understanding the whole of the Christian life, namely, are we and our "changed lives" the measure of the sufficiency/efficacy of God's Grace, or is faith in his Gospel—however that manifests–enough?
You'll forgive me, I trust, if your age, numerous references and corresponding implication that your position is somehow more faithful to the Bible are not convincing—-would that it were only that clear!
We are certainly not against life change, redemption, healing or "works" (broadly understood), but differ dramatically in how those are to be birthed. Maybe ours will
be a "rope of sand"—we'll see—but it won't be for lack of trying:)
Fondly,
Jady
Fitz Allison's latest book has a great section in it which points out those who took Calvin out of context to support the notion that our assurance of God's grace rests on our self-satisfaction with our own works. As a corrective to the above passages, which are easily misunderstood out of context, I would add the following from Calvin's Institutes, 3.13.5:
"Therefore, those who prate that we are justified by faith because, being reborn, we are righteous by living spiritually, have never tasted the sweetness of grace, so as to consider that God will be favorable to them. Hence, it also follows that they no more know the right way to pray than do the Turks and other profane nations. For, as Paul attests, faith is not true unless it asserts and brings to mind that sweetest name of Father–nay, unless it opens our mouth freely to cry, 'Abba, Father'. He expresses this more clearly elesewhere: 'In Christ we have boldness and access with confidence through…faith in him.' This surely does not take place through the gift of regeneration, which, as it is always imperfect in this flesh, so contains in itself manifold grounds for doubt. Therefore, we must come to this remedy: that believers should be convinced that their only ground of hope for the inheritance of a Heavenly Kingdom lies in the fact that, being engrafted in the body of Christ, they are freely accounted righteous."
The following is from Bishop FitzSimmons Allison's _Trust in an Age of Arrogance-:
"Thedore Beza (1519-1605), successor to Calvin at Geneva, establisched for the seventeenth century much of what became known as Calvinsism. Beza's emphasis on the "elect" explained how God manages things rather than simply expressing how we are saved. When anxiety arose as to whether one was of the elect, Beza's reassurance was to urge one to look at one's life to see if the fruits of good works are sufficient to demonstrate that one's election is true. Thus, we are justified by the righteousness of Christ, that is we are received by faith, but we are assured of our salvation by our works in sanctification. Calvin had clearly shown that in this life 'believers are in perpetual conflict with their unbelief,'(Calvin, Institues 3.2.4.) and that assurance is not to be based on anything in ourselves. Calvinism, as taught by Beza and the English Puritan William Perkins (1558-1602), tended to resolve the anxiety and doubt regarding one's election by having the doubter look at the works in his life for assurance. The result was that if the doubter succeeded in assuring himself of his election because of his goodness he was hardly different from the Pharisee in our Lord's parable."
pp. 112,113
So, please blame Beza and the English, not poor Calvin 😉
Guys
I see I am rilling you a little. I shall leave off after this comment.
I believe you are misunderstanding Calvin. Calvin is writing against a background of Catholicism where people believed that their 'good works' contributed to their justification. They believed their works were meritorious. For them grace was 'earned'. It is those he refers to when he says,
'Therefore, those who prate that we are justified by faith because, being reborn, we are righteous by living spiritually, have never tasted the sweetness of grace'
Legalism like this was the atmosphere of the world in which he lived. He (and even more Luther)had to take great care they said nothing that could be construed to support this legalism. Thus (rightly) the great emphasis on justification by faith through grace.
Had the emphasis of the age been on grace means you can be saved and be an alcoholic, be promiscuous, greedy and self indulgent and yet claim the assurance of being a Christian they would have been outraged. This is the opposite end of the spectrum – licence not legalism.
Calvin was a properly balanced theologian. He understood that when the problem was legalism (thinking our godly lives gained merit with God and contributed to our justification)the Scripture stresses grace through faith. When however, the problem is licence (people living blatantly sinful lives that shame the gospel they need to be warned that 'faith without works is dead'. Such need to know that while upright living does not save, the absence of an upright life is a sign that faith was never authentic. There is all the difference in the world between assurance and presumption; assurance is properly based on the finished work of Christ while presumption is taking grace for granted while living as an unbeliever.
My few quotes from Calvin are crystal clear on this and many more could be added. Any attempt to claim poor translation is very weak indeed.
Cont below
Calvin's commentary on James makes clear that he sees James' reference to "faith without works is dead" as referring to a mere abstract assertion of "faith", rather than actual trust in Christ for our righteousness before God: "This is the same as though he had said, that we do not attain salvation by a frigid and bare knowledge of God, which all confess to be most true; for salvation comes to us by faith for this reason, because it joins us to God. And this comes not in any other way than by being united to the body of Christ, so that, living through his Spirit, we are also governed by him. There is no such thing as this in the dead image of faith. There is then no wonder that James denies that
salvation is connected with it."
Although Calvin states true faith is proven by "works" produced by the Holy Spirit, as a good tree produces good fruit, he also notes that unbelievers often lead very moral lives that are completely devoid of faith. In fact, Calvin notes that Abraham had genuine faith long before this faith was made manifest in his offering of Issac. So, although true faith must necessarily produce "good works", Calvin never presumes to say that someone who calls himself a believer but who still struggles with some besetting sin cannot really have true faith. Calvin always acknowledges that the "fruit" of faith is present along beside the weakness of the flesh. This is why Calvin rightly sees St. Paul as speaking of himself, not assuming some personna, in Romans 7. Paul has true faith, but is at the same time "wretched" because of the conflict within himself caused by the Holy Spirit in tension with his "flesh" which remains.
In light of some of this discussion, I want to add that Paul Zahl's forums on James have been tremendously helpful to me in reconciling (not eradicating) the tension of James statements in regards to the apostle Paul. I think some of the remarks converning salvation and continued sin (ie alcoholics, which I am one)in this thread, for me, crosses the line between Jesus being my Savior or Jesus being merely my example. I need a Savior.