Question Concerning Last Sunday’s Potter’s House Message is Key
“The answer to this question identifies a definitive difference between the two primary gospels of our day. The major difference is how we participate in sanctification, and what that states in regard to what we believe about justification.”
I received the following question concerning Sunday’s message at the Potter’s House: “Regarding your statement, ‘It [the gospel] solves the paramount problem of mankind being unreconciled to God, and then continues to solve the myriad of problems associated with the fall, or the fallout thereof. The gospel is the truth that resolves the fall, and the fallout in our lives. The gospel not only solves the fall, but the fallout as well.’ My question is, how does that differ from saying the same gospel that justifies us [dealing with the fall] also sanctifies us [the fallout as well]? I believe you are right; the gospel deals with both.”
The answer to this question identifies a definitive difference between the two primary gospels of our day. The major difference is how we participate in sanctification, and what that states in regard to what we believe about justification. In the Potter’s House series on the book of Romans we identify the gospel as a call unto all mankind to commit one’s life to the full body of God’s truth for life and godliness. This includes believing that Christ made a way for us to be reconciled to God through His death for our sins, and His resurrection on the third day. It also includes a commitment to “obey the gospel” and “accept the word.” Obeying the gospel, accepting the word, and obeying/loving the truth are terms used synonymously with “the gospel” throughout the book of Acts and the New Testament in general. Saving faithis not a mereacclamation and mental ascent to the death, burial, and resurrection even if it is accompanied by a “treasure chest of joy” as John Piper teaches.
To only believe in the death, burial, and resurrection, and make no commitment to “obey all that I have commanded” is to join the world in suppressing the truth, putting our light under a basket, being salt that has no saltiness, and building our house upon the sand. The commitment to the full gospel saves us, not the doing of it. Jesus is “Lord and Savior”—not just savior. The commitment justifies us and seals us till the day of redemption. Therefore, to think that any of our doing in kingdom living maintains our justification is foolish because we are trying to contribute to a work that is already finished. This is Paul’s point in the letter to the Galatians which many New Calvinists twist to their own destruction. However, our learning and practice of the whole gospel (God’s revealed [and many-faceted] truth for life and godliness) does result in assurance of salvation (see 2Peter chapter 1, especially verses 5-11).
So, this gospel teaches a dependent colaboring with God in the sanctification process. OUR efforts may be aggressive in this because our part in the work does not, and cannot effect the work that is already finished by Chrsit: justification. Our work in this process is imperfect because we still dwell in mortal bodies, but there is a redeemed part of us that is US, or it wouldn’t war against our mortality that possesses a remnant of sin (Romans 7:21-23). As we will see as we progress in our study of Romans, Paul explains in painstaking detail why the redeemed still sin. However, he also explains why sin no longer characterizes the life of a believer.
So, to now answer the question, what is the difference between being sanctified by this gospel and the other gospel? The answer is simple: one gospel is a full body of truth that includes the death, burial, and resurrection WITH instruction for us to learn and apply while the other gospel is confined to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and is strictly information in regard to the works of Christ alone. This becomes a prism in which all reality and manifestations flow. Hence, the focus is meditation on the “gospel narrative,” and then reality flows from that. Not only is our Christian life powered by contemplating the works of Christ only, but reality itself flows from it. The premise of its hermeneutic is that all human history is redemptive (gospel) and is a predetermined gospel narrative. By searching the Scriptures for everything Jesus, and seeing our own responses to life in the lives of the biblical characters, we place ourselves into the gospel narrative and live in redemptive reality. History, from the big picture to the little picture of our lives, is a grand gospel narrative, and we enter the plot by seeing our own sinfulness in the Scriptures as set against Christ’s redemptive works (see page 94 of Paul David Tripp’s “How People Change”).
Therefore, instead of a full orbed knowledge of truth that includes the works of Christ that we learn and apply to our lives with intentionality, we rather meditate on the gospel narrative and await “new and surprising fruit” (How People Change pp. 207-221). To not do this is to “jump from the imperative to obedience.” Biblical commands are to show us what Christ did for us and what we are unable to do—that’s the purpose of the Scriptures—not the former purpose. Anything that does not flow naturally from the proper Reformed procedure for gospel contemplationism is works salvation because their way is “offering the works of Christ to God the Father by faith alone and not our own works.” This is critical because the Reformed gospel sees salvation as a “golden chain” in which sanctification connects justification to glorification. Therefore, we must be sanctified the same way we were justified in the links that connect justification to glory: by faith alone. Justification is not a finished work, it is a “golden chain” leading to glorification. However, Romans 8:30 speaks of glorification as being finished as well—no “golden chain” is needed. I believe Scripture speaks of glorification as a finished work as a way of stating that it is guaranteed because justification is finished. Therefore, Romans 8:30 speaks specifically to the separation of sanctification and justification.
This is why aggressive obedience is not a reason for concern in the prior gospel; there is no “link” between justification and sanctification. OUR works in sanctification are therefore the mode, and is intentionally mixed with our faith for the purpose of pleasing God. Though the will to do so is a gift from God, that doesn’t exclude our responsibility to make use of the gift!
So, one gospel is a full body of truth that we learn and practice in the sanctification process without fear of it being works salvation while the other gospel sanctifies us through faith alone—utilizing meditation to manifest the works of Christ and not our own.
That’s the difference.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but I’m struggling with some of your assertions. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the Calvinists (though wrong) have a more consistent interpretation than you do (no offense). For if the gospel is: believe and obey, then from that it follows that one MUST obey in order to be saved…that is, the nature of your salvation is seen by the nature of your obedience (James). The Calvinists say that since we cannot choose Christ (we cannot believe by ourselves), then it must follow that we cannot obey. This is terrible, destructive doctrine, but at least it is consistent. You are asserting, it seems, that the obedience means nothing in terms of work, thus, in order for there to be an US in sanctification, and yet not have work at all involved in salvation, you add “commitment” as the operative function of obedience. However, I don’t get that at all from scripture. Nowhere is it implied that “promising” to obey is the same as actually obeying. The problem is that we are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. The arrow of salvation cannot be severed into utterly separate categories of obedience and belief. Salvation MUST be both, in some way. And both must fully involve man…for if there is any part of salvation that does not include man, then man becomes irrelevant to all of it. Choosing must be real and obedience must be real. If any part of it is purely theoretical, then none of it makes sense. Faith becomes merely a suspension of disbelief. Which is fine, if people go that way, but that makes Christianity unable to be argued rationally…we cannot mount an effective defense for our beliefs based in any logic of the SENSES. It’s all: we’ll, you just gotta have “faith”. Faith in what? Faith in metaphysical contradiction. That’s a tough sell. But, if that’s what we believe then…it’s a religion, like all the others. They make no sense, why should ours?
Salvation is a free gift, and so is the help of the Holy Spirit in sanctification. But the choice and the work must come from man. If it does not, then there is no sanctification; and if there is no sanctification, it is hard to argue that one is still saved; because the Bible does not make such a distinction.
You say that the WILL is from the Holy Spirit. But if the will is from the Holy Spirit, then man cannot be obligated any way to it…for it is NOT man’s will. Man is not obligated to anything except himself…if he wants to claim ANY part in the process. Again, if there is a part of the process man is not fully involved with via his own will and work, then he is irrelevant to the entire equation.
This is not a works gospel. This is merely pointing out that for there to be a gospel at all man must have full control of his own volition, mind, and action at ALL times and in ALL places in some fashion. Unless we approach the gospel this way, then all of the arguments we formulate to confront the heretics of Calvinism are of questionable importance. We could just as easily proclaim that we don’t agree, and we just have faith that we think better.
My questions, after all that are: what happens if we believe, but do NOT obey? Are we still saved? If yes, then sanctification is irrelevant. If no, then it means that our active obedience must be a part of salvation. Commitment means nothing. Only the doing. If one commits to (I promise to obey) obey but then doesn’t obey, then it is exactly the same as saying salvation apart from obedience. If you say commitment means “trying”, even though we might fail, that’s fine, but you must realize that this implies active work (the “trying” manifest in some kind of action, physical or mental…an active, human, pressing forward…a doing of SOMETHING) that is OURS. Not God’s, not from God’s will…from us, alone. Thus, there is certainly the need for US to DO in order to “make our election sure”.
I still don’t understand why people are so terrified to admit that we have something to do with the process, and that if we don’t do it, we are in for some trouble. Am I saying we lose our salvation? I do not know the answer to that question…metaphysically, anyway (and as far as I’m concerned, that’s what matters most). I will concede that Paul has some very unpleasant things to say about those who continue in sin NOT inheriting the Kingdom of God. If you believe in Christ, but still go around sleeping with other men’s wives, you are NOT going to heaven. So YOU must stop that. You can fail and ask forgiveness, but if your commitment is merely perfunctory, and involves NO real DOING, then you are NOT saved, even though you believed.
LikeLike
Argo,
No, I didn’t say believe and obey to be saved. I said believe and commit. Salvation is more than a mental ascent to the gospel. It is a commitment to the whole truth of God and a change of life direction based on that truth. The commitment saves you, the sincere desire to follow Christ. It is a commitment to no longer suppress the truth of God. The obedience that follows has nothing to do with your salvation, but is the result of it. But it is you doing it, and not Christ. Again, Calvinists believe that if it is you obeying in sanctification as a new creature, that you are trying to help God finish your salvation. One is progressive justification (though they lie and call it progressive sanctification), and the other is progressive regeneration. One denies the new birth and calls it the manifestation of a realm, and the other believes the new birth results is an actual changed person. Obviously, the totally depraved don’t change. There is no inconsistency here. You confuse commitment with the actual act of obedience.
“Obey the gospel” is a call for commitment, not obedience to earn salvation.
LikeLike
Paul,
I beg you to, at a minimum, state accurately what Calvinists believe.
LikeLike
Randy,
I like it when you beg, but nevertheless, I am not obligated to give Calvin’s doublespeak the benefit of the doubt. He should have explained himself better. And remember, most of my ideas come from the Australian Forum’s core four on what Calvin taught, so I am not alone in my assessment.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Where does the obedience come in, then? I mean, why is it important? Is it possible you are making an artificial distinction between commitment and obedience? At least, in terms of relevance? Isn’t the value of the commitment evidenced by the obedience to the commitment you’ve made? What is commitment without some personal act of obedience to that commitment, even if the act itself falls short? I think the act itself of attempting to fulfill your commitment would be considered a work. If that is the case, then obedience is work, and so then that must be what “commitment” is implying. Active obedience in some form or fashion.
In summary, if we must commit, we must act. So believe and commit is the same as saying believe and obey. Obedience is implied in commitment. They cannot be separated (keep in mind I consider the determination to obey as an “act” of obedience in and of itself…for that volition, that determination, is from the person, not the Spirit). Also, if we must commit to obey, and we must obey, then there must be some reasonable expectation of success in the obedience…and that of ourselves.
What am I missing? Sorry if I’m being a PIA here LOL!
LikeLike
Argo,
A distinction between commitment and the actual practice is very relevant. The ability to carry out our desire to obey Christ is going to vary from saint to saint and involves a many-faceted process that involves us and the Holy Spirit. And though commitment is an act of obedience, it is more in the category of “repentance” which is a “change of mind” and agreeing with God that a new direction is needed. I point to the thief on the cross to make my point on this. A most beautiful account by the way.
LikeLike
Paul,
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position to me. I’m still a bit confused, but that could be me:-)
I still think that perhaps you may be confusing repentance with commitment; and while I think that in some way they can be viewed as similar, they are not quite the same.
I appreciate you reminding me about the thief on the cross. That is a helpful illustration. But I’m not sure that repentance implies commitment; merely a recognition that one has done wrong. The active attempt at daily putting to death of the things which one has recognized need to change is the sanctification. I think perhaps commitment does play a part, and so I agree with you there…I think though that commitment is basically an overarching theme of the entire process, which includes both sanctification and justification. Commitment is needed for both in some fashion. Maybe that is your point and I’m just confused…again, could be my fault. I FREELY concede that. LOL! But I would say that commitment is not really important to salvation or sanctification; just a incidental concept to the whole idea of deciding to become a Christian.
We may just disagree in the end. Which is cool. I’m not sure this is something that ultimately separates us theologically. So, I don’t want to harp on you anymore. You’ve got better things to do! LOL
On a side note, I think (and I could be wrong) that we tend to over-spiritualize sanctification. I think sanctification is just the obvious and perfunctory working to change the evil we used to do because we recognize that our Savior is not about that anymore, and so we shouldn’t be either. Paul presents a great philosophical argument as to why we should not sin in order that grace abound, but James really gets to the practical heart and just says: look, if you are really saved, you ain’t gonna do that stuff that you REPENTED of when you accepted Christ. He points to the non-logic of not working to stop sinning in light of who you choose to save you. I really like that approach.
LikeLike
On a side note, I think (and I could be wrong) that we tend to over-spiritualize sanctification. I think sanctification is just the obvious and perfunctory working to change the evil we used to do because we recognize that our Savior is not about that anymore, and so we shouldn’t be either. Paul presents a great philosophical argument as to why we should not sin in order that grace abound, but James really gets to the practical heart and just says: look, if you are really saved, you ain’t gonna do that stuff that you REPENTED of when you accepted Christ. He points to the non-logic of not working to stop sinning in light of who you choose to save you. I really like that approach.”
Kind of makes sense that Martin Luther wanted to take James out of the canon, doesn’t it?
LikeLike
Lydia,
I had no idea. Do you have a source for that information? He really wanted James removed? The more I hear about Luther, the less I think I like him.
LikeLike