Gospel Sanctification Counseling: Part 2
“By ‘walking in the Spirit,’ Baldwin means walking in the gospel. The prior means to walk according to scriptural truth while the latter means to understand the gospel more deeply, resulting in Jesus obeying for us.”
See full article here: http://goo.gl/Hli7
What Does Gospel Sanctification “Look Like” in Counseling?
So, in regard to those who propagate Gospel Sanctification, how do they counsel? Well, I don’t think anything presents a better “word picture” (quotations hereafter not necessarily from Baldwin’s article) than Bill Baldwin’s piece written in 1996. By the way, I have begun this post with some illustrative Gospel Sanctification lingo which replaces as many verbs with nouns as possible for fear that counselees will get the idea that they should actually do something about their problem. “How,” or “do” is always replaced with what we see Jesus doing instead of us. Hence, “what does that look like?” And, we don’t instruct, we “make word pictures.” I have received feedback from one counselee who informed me that he was counseled by “visual diagrams” of his life drawn by the counselor. And the counselor wasn’t a New Age fruit ball, he is a certified biblical counselor and on the staff of a training center.
In the following article written by Baldwin, look for the following Gospel Sanctification tenets:
1. Sanctification is Justification (salvation / gospel) continually reapplied to life. Instruction is out, “preaching the gospel to ourselves everyday” is in.
2. The role of the Law is exactly the same in sanctification as it is in justification. Hence, GS counselors don’t use the Law (God’s word) for instruction, but rather use it as a school master to continually lead the counselee back to Christ because we are unable to keep the Law, Christ must obey for us. Therefore, the sole purpose of Scripture is to “show forth more Jesus,” not anything Jesus would instruct us to do.
3. Look for the dissing of enablement, or the idea that God enables us to obey. Gospel Sanctification rejects this idea.
4. Note the use of the Law to supposedly drive the counselee (Christian) to the conclusion that he/she can’t keep the Law. This is a favorite technique used by GS counselors, especially in church discipline situations (which Baldwin does not address, but is applicable to points I would like to make). GS church discipline (“redemptive church discipline”) combines church discipline with counseling and primarily seeks to teach the subject to be “gospel driven,” seeing the actual purpose for the church discipline as being beside the point. The counseling will move closer and closer to excommunication as the counselee continues to supposedly “cling to the Law.” What the counselor will do is demand that the counselee obey a long list of stringent imperatives, and as the counselee fails, he/she is moved to the next step of church discipline (and closer to excommunication). This is designed to drive the counselee to “despair,” especially as he/she sees excommunication looming on the horizon. The counselor will then show them the “new way” of living by the gospel. I have seen this mode of operation practiced by counselors firsthand.
5. Note that biblical imperatives are not for us to obey, but rather a “fruit catalog” to show us whether it is Jesus performing the works or us trying to do it in our “own efforts.”
6. Notice John Piper’s Christian Hedonism; when Jesus is obeying for us, we will always obey without hesitation and full of joy. When our obedience is joyless and grudging, we are obeying by “our own efforts.”
One last note before I present the article. GS proponents hate this article because Baldwin is completely forthright regarding how GS applies to counseling. Without further ado, here is the article:
Sanctification, Counseling, and the Gospel
by Bill Baldwin 8-2-96
Counselling must stimulate faith so that behavior flows from a redeemed heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. Often enough, people make this reply to that statement: “We’re presupposing faith, and a regenerate heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course it is impossible for the counselee to benefit from counselling without these things.” And we end up frustrated. They are frustrated because they think I’m accusing them of not doing everything at once. After all, there are good books already available on faith and the heart (the Puritans rambled on forever on that one) and the Holy Spirit. Now we need a book on counseling and if we repeat all the previous work we’ll be duplicating the efforts of others and getting nowhere. And I’m frustrated because I don’t believe my point has been understood.
Let me make that point briefly and then expound on it. It is possible to have a regenerate heart of faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and to produce actions that do not proceed therefrom. We do it every day. It is called sin. It is therefore essential that the counselor evoke the faith, stimulate the heart, and teach the counselee thereby to desire and receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Counselling cannot be about anything if it is not about faith and the heart and the Spirit of God.
Here is that same response in a longer form:
When I tell a man to change his behavior — and he realizes he must — it is the most natural thing in the world that he should do so by relying on his natural strength and the force of his will. It is therefore essential that the counselor solemnly warn him against such a course. He has heard the law and glibly said “I will do what it says.” He must know of the holiness of that law and the condemnation declared against all who try to commend themselves to God by lawkeeping. The law must drive him to the gospel of Christ.
And that gospel must long be dwelt upon that it may evoke faith — whether for the first time or as a stirring up and a repeated application of a faith already present. Only works that spring out of such a faith constitute the gospel obedience held out in Scripture.
The human mind, observed Calvin, is an idol factory. And our favorite idol stares back at us from the mirror each morning. When we are told to change our behavior, that idol is our first, most natural, and often unconscious recourse. The way of the gospel is strange, uncertain, and involved. Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.
If an act does not spring from a conscious exercise of faith stirred up by gospel truth, we can be almost certain the act does not spring unconsciously therefrom. And whatever is not of faith is sin. The majority of my life is spent in self-idolatry. Again and again I find myself feeling and acting as though I am my own, as though I have the power to do what I choose to, as though I live and move and have my being within myself rather than in God through Christ. I say, “Tomorrow, I will do such and such” without a hint of “Lord willing” in my mind. Unconsciously I have stopped relying on another for everything I do. I have left the way of faith and any other way is sin.
Am I so sinful then? Indeed, in my flesh — utterly sinful. But I have been called to walk not in the flesh but in the Spirit. Not by works but by faith. Have I then made so little progress in walking in the Spirit that, every time I relax my vigilance I begin to walk in the flesh? Every time my renewed mind falls asleep it wakes to find me in sin? Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death? I praise God and cling to Christ for in Christ even now I have no condemnation, and in that sweet assurance I look forward to the resurrection of this body, gloriously transformed at last to Christlike perfection.
Meanwhile I wrestle with temptation; I fall into sin but am not overcome. He who died for me now restores me and sets me on the path of life — Christ, the Way — again.
What do I learn about counselling from these truths? Simply this: When a counselee comes to me with a problem of sin, he has been catering to his flesh and — if he has tried to combat the sin at all — has been combatting the sin in the strength of his flesh. Hence his failure and his need. If I counsel such a man by giving him “practical” steps to change his behavior, he will certainly attempt those steps in the strength of his own flesh. He has already demonstrated that this is the usual way he deals with this area of his life — at least lately. Will he change now?
We cannot, we must not, “presuppose” the presence of faith and a regenerate heart and the Holy Spirit. What if you were a farmer contemplating a tree that bears little fruit, and much of it bad? Would you say, “I assume the roots are fine and I assume the soil’s good and I assume it’s getting enough water” and look for the problem elsewhere? The condition of the fruit tells you you must examine the roots and the soil. So here. A counselee bearing bad fruit in a certain area must be brought back to the root of Christ and the soil of the gospel and the rain of grace. We do not assume the presence of Christ, we drive the counselee to Christ by the law. We do not assume the presence of faith (for faith is either absent of weak); we stimulate faith by the gospel. We do not assume the presence of love for God and neighbor, we evoke that love by telling him of God’s love for him — not to guilt trip him into obedience but that his heart may burst with joy and a desire to be conformed to the image of Christ and to love with the love of Christ.
But what if the gospel doesn’t work? We expound the gospel but it fails to motivate and empower the counselee to love and good deeds? The question seems despairing if not outright blasphemous. For when we speak of the gospel, we speak of the redeeming work of Christ in his incarnation, perfect life, atoning death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of power whence he sends forth the Holy Spirit to equip us for every good work. If that “doesn’t work” we have no hope.
But the question is legitimate. What if the gospel does not reignite a spark of faith in the counselee so that he forsakes his sin, clings to Christ, stands in awe of his salvation, and goes forth to love and serve the Lord? What if the gospel doesn’t work? Then take him to the law.
Let me be completely clear. I do not say “take him to the law” so that the law may motivate him to do what is right. The law cannot. It was not created for that purpose and cannot be used for that purpose without producing pharisees and Judaizers. We must not cause the counselee to say, “The gospel wholly failed to motivate me to good works; but now that I see that God commands good works, I know that I must do them. And if I have no desire for good works, I will do them out of sheer, teeth-gritting obedience because God requires it of me.” Such obedience is wholly unacceptable to God. We must actively discourage the counselee from such thinking.
The counselor errs grossly if he uses the commands of God to motivate his counselee to an obedience born of the sheer force of his will.
A second error is like it but more subtle. The counselor may reason that the proper purpose of the law is to drive a man to Christ, but he turns Christ into a gimmick, a means by which the counselee may be enabled better to keep the law. The counselor has not fully understood the law and its demands and so the counselee misunderstands as well. The counselee hears the law and says “Yes, I want to do those things and I am sorry I haven’t been. Who will enable me to do them properly?” Such a man does not yet understand his own depravity. He desires merely to be enabled to keep the law rather than begging that the law might be kept and forgiveness obtained on his behalf. He asks “Where will I find the strength to keep the law?” rather than “Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death!” This man must be pried from the false Christ to which he clings and held closer to the fires of the law until he cries out, “I cannot keep it! Someone else must do it for me!”
This is as true in sanctification as in justification. We are justified by grace through faith in Christ. So are we sanctified. The law that first drove us to Christ again and again drives us back to him for repeated applications of his forgiveness and his righteousness.
The law must never drive us to desire to keep the law but that we should be freed from its shackles of condemnation. When we have been driven to Christ, when we have drunk deep of his salvation, our freedom from the law’s loud thunder, the glories that are laid up for us in heaven and in which we even now participate by faith. . . then we shall walk forth in newness of life. If we abide in Christ we will bear much fruit. We labor with counselees long and hard that they should walk by the Spirit. For we know that when they walk by the Spirit they will not carry out the desires of the flesh.
The law, stripped of its condemnation, will then describe the content of our behavior. And when we have questions in that regard as we walk by the Spirit, we may consult God’s standards to make sure that the new obedience we are gratefully bringing forth is not of our own devising.
But this is not the hardest or the most necessary part of counseling. Driving them to Christ by the law and teaching them to cling to Christ by faith must occupy most of our time. The nitty gritty “practical” concerns will largely take care of themselves if only we stick to this method.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying the law isn’t useful as a pattern of the good works that flow from sanctification. It is. But that is not the use that Paul or the rest of Scripture harps on over and over. Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that. And where they haven’t, take them back to Christ again that they may contemplate him in all his glorious perfection so that they may better understand what sort of God and man he was and is.
What if a man preaches the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and reduces Christ as a means to producing that pattern? What will result? Nothing or worse than nothing.
Hold fast the head and the body will move. Abide in Christ and the fruit will come.
Matthew 5:48; Be Ye Perfect?
It goes without saying that the fashionable take on Matthew 5:48 in our day is that Jesus told his disciples to be perfect so that after trying to do what He said, they would discover that they were unable to be perfect, and it would drive them closer to Him in total dependence.
This is interesting since the working hermeneutic for this passage is 5:2 which says: “And He opened His mouth and taught them, saying…” The reference to Him opening His mouth, which would normally be assumed, probably hearkens back to Matthew 4:4 because Jesus was also God. But my main point is that when we are being “taught,” readily available information is assumed. In other words, Jesus didn’t say it was an experiment designed to discover other truth, He said perfection was imperative. Also, Jesus is a perfect communicator. If He wanted to say: “Go try to be perfect and see how far you get because I want to make another point,” don’t you think He could have just simply said that? Our God is not a god of confusion.
More than likely, a light bulb moment I had this morning offers a better suggestion. I was thinking about a sin in my life that is all but eradicated. I like that, but then I thought about how this sin gets the best of me once in awhile, say, once every several months. Is that ok, (as I was being tempted to think)? No! Why? Because: what did Jesus say in Matthew 5:48? Perfection is the standard. It begs the question: do sins creep back into our lives because we are satisfied when they are laying on the ground near death? Yes, and it’s the same reason we stay away from the magazine rack at the grocery store if pornography is a dead sin in our life; because it’s dead, perfection is the standard, and we aim to keep that sin dead.
When that sin is laying on the ground near death because we have deprived it of provisions, and we hear it faintly cry-out in weakness, we mercilessly put our foot on its neck and press hard, because perfection is the standard.
paul
The Church’s Primary Foe Has Always Been Antinomianism, and Always Will be: Not Legalism
“Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness.”
In Phil Johnson’s “The History of Heresy: Five Errors that Refuse to Die” he says the following in the introduction: “In this seminar, we will look at five major heresies that have plagued the church again and again throughout history. Here are the five heretical groups we’ll talk about: the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Pelagians, and the Socinians.” Johnson’s thesis is that most heresies throughout church history fit into one of these five, or a combination thereof.
First on his list is by far the most recognized, legalism (Judaizers): “The apostles’ war with legalism permeates the book of Acts and most of the epistles.” Though this is somewhat true, the following is more accurate: heresies that promote disobedience; namely, antinomian type heresies, dwarf legalism throughout the Scriptures. The Bible begins with a deception that led to disobedience (Eve in the garden, Genesis 3:1-19), and ends accordingly ( Revelation 20:7-10). The Scriptures are also saturated with accounts of the same heretical endeavor between Genesis and Revelation.
In fact, legalistic heresies are barely mentioned in the Old Testament, if at all, and really don’t occupy that much of the New Testament, especially when compared to Antinomianism. By the way, in contrast to the popular myth of our day, the Lord’s contention with the Pharisees was not legalism, but rather replacing God’s Law with their own traditions which led to a disregard for the Law: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5: 19 ESV). Rather than “break” (KJV), to modify, relax (ESV), dissolve, or melt is a better rendering, and this is exactly what the Pharisees did by mixing God’s Law with their traditions (Matthew 15:3-9).
The following excerpt does a good job of explaining what Antinomianism is, and how much this subject is spoken of in Scripture:
SO WHAT’S IT MEAN?
‘Antinomian’ is pronounced [an-ta-nome´-ee-ann]. The word itself can be traced back to the Greek of the New Testament. It comes from putting two Greek words together: `anti (anti) and nomos (nomos). The first word “anti” taken by itself means, “over against or instead of”, and corresponds to our English word “anti”, which means “opposed to”.
The second half of the word ‘Antinomian’, which is the word “nomos”, means: (1) a law, rule, standard; (2) a rule of life or moral conduct. This is the same word that is translated “law” in “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”-KJV. Rom. 3:31. Consequently, when these two Greek words are combined, it gives the meaning: lawlessness; without, opposed to or against laws, standards, or rules of moral conduct.
IS ‘ANTINOMIAN’ A BIBLE WORD?
Yes, it most certainly is (in the Greek Language, that is). It can be found in the following form 25 times throughout the New Testament. This time it again comes from taking the Greek word “nomos”, but prefixing it with the negative particle “a” to give the Greek word “anomos”. The Greek word “nomos” was previously defined as: a law, rule, standard; a rule of life or moral conduct. When the negative article “a” is prefixed to it, the exact same meaning as our English word ‘Antinomian’ is derived. The Greek translation for this New Testament word is: lawlessness; the condition of being without law; having contempt for law.
It is usually translated (Strongs # 458, 459) using vague words like ‘iniquity’, ‘wicked’, ‘unrighteousness’ or ‘transgressor’ (in the Authorized Version-KJV). It’s even more vague in all the newer translations. Only 6 times was it clearly translated (KJV) as ‘without law’, ‘lawless’, etc., in 3 verses only. However, understanding this word’s true meaning, brings new meaning and clarity to all verses that contain it. Even though it is found translated ‘iniquity in Matt. 7:23, the words ‘Antinomian’ or ‘lawlessness’ could rightfully be put there instead. It would then read, starting at verse 21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work “lawlessness” (Antinomianism).
Other verses that condemn Antinomians to hell are: “The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do ‘Antinomian(ism)‘.” “And because ‘Antinomians‘ shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with ‘Antinomians‘? and what communion hath light with darkness?” “For the mystery of ‘Antinomian(ism)’ doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all ‘Antinomian(ism)’, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good work (Matt.13:41; Matt. 24:12; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 2:7; Titus 2:14) [ see full article: goo.gl/hkoP ].
Therefore, though legalism is a big problem, the constant representation of legalism as the primary foe of the church is unmerited and misleading, and is often a ploy by the Antinomians themselves. Church history would agree with this as well. The apostle Paul said the mystery of Antinomianism was already at work during his time, and would be culminated by the appearing of the sultan of Antinomianism, the antichrist, or who he called the “lawless one” ( 2Thess. 2:7-12). Likewise, the apostle John said that in his time “many antichrists have come” and “antichrist is coming” (1John 2:18). John also said this is how we know that we are in the last age; it will be dominated by a spirit of lawlessness (1John 2:26- 3:10). In addition, Christ said the last days will be earmarked by cold hearts resulting from “lawlessness” (Matthew 24:12). Interesting, cold hearts don’t cause lawlessness; cold hearts are “because” of lawlessness. Something to think about. Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness. And the present handy-work of his minions does not result in a climate of legalism, but rather lawlessness. This is undoubtedly what Samuel Rutherford had in mind when he entitled his treatise against Antinomianism, “A Survey of Spiritual Antichrist.”
Never the less, the thinking of the contemporary church is that Antinomianism is not the primary threat to the church’s purity. A few contemporary, and well noted teachers such as AW Tozar would disagree: “Fundamental Christianity in our times is deeply influenced by that ancient enemy of righteousness, Antinomianism” ( AW Tozar: “Paths to Power” WingSpread, 1964 ). Indeed, it seems that the mentality of our day is that Antinomainism disappeared after the great Antinomian controversies of the 17th century. Church historians such as Tim Cooper have downplayed that controversy (and the Antinomian threat in general) by asserting that Richard Baxter, Samuel Rutherford, and others less notable, greatly exaggerated the threat (Tim Cooper: “Richard Baxter and Antinomianism” University of Cantebury, 1997). Of course, this is very unlikely when we consider what the apostles taught regarding lawlessness. It seems clear that the threat began in a significant way (the mystery of lawlessness) when Christ appeared, marking the beginning of the “last age” (Heb. 1:2), and will presumably increase with intensity until the “lawless one” appears. Therefore, we should expect that Antinomianism is very much alive and well in our present time as well as in times past.
In the great Antinomian controversy of the 17th century, Richard Baxter and Samuel Rutherford took no prisoners and named names. The names were Robert Towne, William Dell, John Eaton, Tobias Crisp, John Traske, and John Saltmarsh. Like the Antinomians of our day, these men fiercely objected to the charge, but Baxter and Rutherford were not swayed, and Saltmarsh became a favorite target of Baxter till the end of his (Baxter’s) ministry. JC Ryle mentions this controversy in his “20 Letters on Holiness” which was Ryle’s own response to the Antinomian influences of his day in the 19th century.
Without a doubt, the most distinguishing mark of Antinomians in the past and present is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. James Durham said the following in regard to this point: “In some respects an opposite error to Popery, …the Antinomians … make all sanctification to be justification …” Tim Cooper, in the above cited dissertation, said this: “The Antinomians accepted that the Law should be preached to sinners, and both sides agreed that it played no part in the justification of those sinners, but the Antinomians refused to grant it a role in their sanctification” (p. 63). Another way of stating it would be “sanctification by faith alone,” just like justification is by faith alone. AW Tozar said the following in describing the Antinomian position: “What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly. The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God. Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian.” JC Ryle said this in contending against the Antinomians of his day:
“It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say “faith alone justifies.” But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say “faith alone sanctifies.” The saying requires very large qualification. Let one fact suffice. We are frequently told that a man is “justified by faith without the works of the law,” by St. Paul. But not once are we told that we are “sanctified by faith without the deeds of the law.” On the contrary, we are expressly told by St. James that the faith whereby we are visibly and demonstratively justified before man, is a faith which “if it has not works is dead, being alone” ( James 2:17).
How Antinomians have attempted to make this all fit together is varied, but necessarily accompanied by doublespeak and nuanced language because many of them throughout history have been, and are presently joined at the hip with orthodox Christianity. Such was the case with Dell, Towne, Saltmarsh et al. Tim Cooper, while downplaying the threat of Antinomianism during the 17th century controversy, had this to say in regard to the Antinomians of that day:
“Yet it is not at all clear that this is what the Antinomians actually taught, and the confusion is not helped by their own ambiguity. For example, Robert Towne denied the law any place in sanctification, [by our efforts] while at the same time affirming “the use of the Morall Law to true beleevers. For it keeps them close in spirit and conscience through faith unto Christs righteousnesse” [In other words, it shows them what Christ did, or “Christs rightousnesse” in fulfilling the Law for us, since we are unable]. It was not the only place where he agreed that the law should be preached to believers, but his point was finely nuanced. “I wish that 1 be not mistaken, for 1 never deny the Law to be an etemall and inviolable Rule of Righteousness [ours? Or merely the “rule” itself?]: but yet affirme that its the Grace of the Gospel which effectually and truely confirmeth us thereunto” [Yes, because Christ also came (supposedly) to obey for us as well, and impute His obedience to us so that we don’t have to obey; this is considered to be part of the gospel by Antinomians]. Towne asserted that the law should be preached to believers because it set out the standard of righteousness, not forgetting that only the gospel of grace could ever bring the Christian to attain it. It was, perhaps, a subtlety that was lost on his opponents “(p.64) [not really, they knew what he was really saying].
Likewise, JC Ryle had this to say about the double-speaking Antinomians of his day:
“I may be told, in reply, that no one of course means to disparage ‘works’ as an essential part of a holy life. It would be well, however, to make this more plain then many seem to make it in these days.”
I do not believe that there has ever been a time in church history where the Dells and Townes have been missing, but in our day, the Baxters and the Ryles are nowhere to be found.
paul
4 Hyper-Grace Myths: God Loves Everybody, Backslidden Christians, Sinners Saved by Grace, and it’s wrong to Fear God
As some know, I am dating a fellow Southern Baptist named Susan. We did not meet in the same church, so we are presently going to both by alternating back and forth. This post is sparked by the fact that I have been able to offend parishioners in both churches via Sunday school discussions. I did this at Susan’s church first while we were discussing “backslidden” Christians during Sunday school. I suggested to the class that it is wrong to give “backslidden” Christians assurance of their supposed salvation while in a state of perpetual rebellion; it was not well received.
Then in Sunday school last week while we were at my church I repeated my offensive behavior by suggesting that God does not Love everybody following a comment by someone in the class to the contrary. And while I am at it, I would like to throw in two more Christian clichés that I have suffered by throughout my Christian life: we are “sinners” saved by grace, and as Christians, we shouldn’t have any fear of God.
But before I begin, why does it matter? My answer to this question is my belief that how we think about these issues has a profound effect on evangelism and discipleship.
First, does God love everybody? Do we really want to tell unbelievers that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life? I understand the angle: “if you would just give your life to the Lord, you would find true happiness!” “Don’t you understand? God loves you!” (assuming that knowledge will motivate people to be saved).
And what about John 3:16? “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” If you think about it, this verse probably means that God’s love could potentially love everyone without distinction, but is conditional upon their belief in His Son. The second part of the verse seems to add that condition. Why do I say that? Because of what Psalms 11:5 says: “The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence.” In regard to the righteous and unrighteous, Romans 9:13 says: “As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’”
Even those who want to believe that God loves everyone must concede that God does not love unbelievers the same way that He loves us as believers. Matthew 7:23 records the words Christ will say to some: “Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” Of course, this doesn’t mean that Christ never knew who they were, but rather refers to intimacy (Genesis 4:1, Gen. 19:5, 8). Christ never knew them or loved them intimately. So, to simply tell unbelievers that God loves them is to allow them to assume God loves them in the same way he loves believers which at the very least is false. Furthermore, it is a half-truth because it is also true that God hates them as well, so to only mention the love part is only half of the truth. It should go without saying that it is very important for unbelievers to have a truthful and accurate picture of their standing before God while being evangelized.
Secondly, should we say anything to professing Christians to give them assurance of salvation when they are living a disobedient lifestyle? Should we just label them “backslidden” and patiently wait for God to deal with them when he pleases, if at all? Should our reasoning sound like the following?: “Well, at least they are saved. It will all be good in the end. Besides, we shouldn’t judge.” But isn’t giving them assurance of their standing with God making a judgment as well? So, do we want our judgments to be truthful, or merely positive? Actually, I wouldn’t make any judgment; I would follow Scripture which would certainly forbid giving comfort, or encouragement to people living in a lifestyle of disobedience to God.
The Scriptures are clear; a disobedient lifestyle is indicative of unbelievers regardless of their claims otherwise: “Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous” (1John 3:7). “By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother” (1John 3:10). The first chapter of 2Peter also makes it clear that we make our calling and election “sure” by “adding” spiritual virtues to our life. Therefore, disobedient persons who have assurance of salvation are a biblical anomaly. Do I believe that many well meaning Christians are unwittingly making some unbelievers as comfortable as possible until they one day wake-up forever separated from God? I say with great concern, yes.
Thirdly, are we “sinners saved by grace”? No, we are not. We are born again (John 3:7), new creatures (2Corintians 5:17), who sin at times (1John 1:8). There is a significant difference. “Sinners” are those who have a life characterized by sin; that’s not us. The English dictionary defines “sinner” via the synonym “evildoer.” We are not evildoers, that’s a biblical description of the unregenerate. Clichés such as this are not healthy nomenclatures among Christians and send the wrong message. Any phrase that downplays the vast difference in spiritual abilities between the saints and unbelievers tends to neutralize Christians. This vast difference between the two is a major theme in the book of Ephesians. If the distinction is blurred, Christians will behave accordingly. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”
Lastly, is it wrong for Christians to fear God? Francis Chan, in his book, “Crazy Love” describes his own fear of God as a time in his life when he was spiritually immature. Now that he is supposedly mature, he describes his present fear of God as “reverent intimacy.” Likewise, throughout out my own Christian life I have been continually taught that “fear” means “reverence.” This eliminates a very important sanctification element in the lives of believers: a healthy fear of God.
Throughout the New Testament, Christ and the Holy Spirit use fear of God as a positive motivator for proper behavior and spiritual growth. In fact, Christ commands Christians to fear God in Matthew 10:28; “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” It is also interesting to note that no fear of God is usually associated with unbelievers: “Transgression speaks to the wicked deep in his heart; there is no fear of God before his eyes” (Psalm 36:1). Furthermore, Philippians 2:12 should make it clear what kind of fear is being talked about: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling….” The word “trembling” should adequately qualify the word “fear” in this passage of Scripture. Here again, we have an imperative to fear God.
In the Apostolic Age, Christians might have been getting overly caught-up in “saved by grace alone.” Whatever the reason was exactly, God sent the church a wake-up call via Ananias and Sephira (Acts 5:1-11). The results are then stated in verses 11, “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events,” and 13, “No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people.” And also 14, “Nevertheless, more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number” [obviously, those who really meant business]. In addition to this point, Proverbs 1:7 says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” Throughout proverbs and Psalms, fear of God is associated with wisdom that unbelievers do not have. Throughout the New Testament, fear of God is used as a motivator to do what’s right: “and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you” (1 Thess. 4:6); “Do not grumble against one another, brothers, so that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the door” (James 5:9); “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep” (1 Corinthians 11:29).
Therefore, does Francis Chan and many others like him do the church harm by teaching that Christians shouldn’t fear God? Yes they do, obviously. To the contrary, they should have the heart of the Psalmist: “Come, O children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD” (34:11).
In a time such as ours when an overemphasis on the gospel among the already redeemed replaces discipleship, Christians are living on a steady diet of sound bites that taste good. I hope this post provokes many to rather “…. demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2Corintians 10:6).
paul
leave a comment