Question regarding power over sin

[Semper Fidelis]

I'm not one to get into long disputes about words as long as, conceptually, the ideas are preserved so we're good to go. I fully agree that there are erroneous views of even how synergism works in our sanctification as if it's a "We do our part and then God will do His." In fact, this is the Purpose Driven Life model of sanctification. It implies that a blessing yet awaits a Christian if he will merely perform the deeds that please God. It seems to start out OK emphasizing that we're saved by Grace but, in fact, it ends up undermining the Gospel because it undermines the fact that our works flow from our vital union with Christ. Union with Christ is not achieved by the works but rather the other way around and is an electing grace. Surely, we work with fear and trembling but the reason we even fear and tremble is a work of grace itself. Thus, I agree with your general idea but still maintaining that it's appropriate to call it synergism because, categorically, we normally reserve the idea of monergism to initial birth as our capacity prior to that new birth makes our cooperation with God impossible.

As for your second interaction with Stephen, I think Paul's admonition to us is that those who are in Christ are, in point of fact, freed from bondage to sin. We do not have to sin. He qualifies to point out in Romans 7 that we still do sin because of this war in our members but that a Christian who has been made a slave of Christ is being consistent with his new nature when he obeys and inconsistent with his status as a Christian when he sins. Thus, the call to the Christian when he sins from Paul is not "You've fallen away and now pick yourself back up so that you can become a Christian again..." like some Arminian notions that agree with the RCC that our sins somehow kill infused grace. No. Paul is saying that You're still a Christian when you sin but, remember, you're God's son, you are united to Christ, you are being inconsistent with your nature. You do not have to sin.

This is an important category to remember because it's sort of like Paul is reminding us the same way we'd be reminded in a normal family. It's not as if I tell my son when he disobeys: "You've fallen away now from being my son. Perform acts of contrition and then when you've earned your way back into my favor I'll call you a son again."

Heaven forbid!

Instead, I remind my boy that L.'s don't act that way. You are my son. You are being inconsistent with what it means to be a L.. Time for some discipline but, after we're through, the hands that loved you enough to discipline you for your disobedience are the same arms that embrace you by the man that will always be your father. How much more profound is it, then, that our heavenly Father loves us with an everlasting love?!

To summarize the error of the modern evangelical view, I'll quote a portion of my teaching on 1 Peter where I actually referred to the Romans 7 passage to make a point. You can find the full text here: A Ready Hope (1 Peter 3:13-17) | SoliDeoGloria.com

Beloved, our hope is not that we have hope. Our hope is not that we have faith. Our hope is not that we once we were sad but now we’re glad. Our hope is much more meaningful. The hope that we’re commanded to share points to something beyond ourselves. Our hope makes a claim on men’s lives that they have to pay attention to. If Christianity is just something that made my life nice then that’s good for Rich but what difference does that make to Steve Jones? Works for Rich, he might say. But, what if our hope was not in ourselves but was fixed upon something else?

But wait, Rich, this is what we’ve grown up with. You can’t be serious. I mean, come on, who doesn’t love stories of men who were heroin addicts and they prayed to God for deliverance and, Presto!, they never craved the drug again? What about the alcoholic that prayed to God and, Glory!, they instantly hated alcohol and never craved a drink again in their lives? We love those stories. We want to parade them out as our Gospel “superstars”. Look how powerful the Gospel is because they’re happy now and delivered from sin and misery!

What about those stories, though? What about the thousands of others that have prayed to God for instant delivery from addiction after becoming a Christian and the delivery isn’t instant? What about the man that struggles with the same sin regularly and cannot conquer it and cries out to God that he doesn’t want to sin that way anymore? I thought the Gospel was supposed to be about how happy I am so why isn’t this working for me?! Why do I still struggle with my sin? But the majority of Christians have left such men in their misery and passed them by and run to these “superstars” and say: “This is the Gospel. Happiness. Health. Victory.”

But, oh, what about the poor sinner? Nobody goes to the Scriptures any more and hears Paul crying out in agony:

Romans 7:18-24

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Paul had a Gospel answer to that question. Paul had a hope that didn’t point to himself. Paul didn’t answer that question by thinking of Peter or Elijah or some other hero who lived a good life and got good things that came. Paul, one of the greatest evangelists that ever lived, knew that his hope was fixed on something more firm. Remember, beloved, that Paul prayed three times to be delivered from an affliction of the flesh and the answer from the Lord was “my grace is sufficient for you.” Do we have a hope that can trust in that answer?

Years ago there was a prominent man that was brought to all the typical large Evangelical meetings. His testimony was all about how perfect his life was now. He had once been a practicing homosexual. He was miserable in that life but, one day, he “found Christ” and prayed that he would be delivered from his sin. Now he was a happy man with a beautiful wife and children. As usual, he was brought around like a display of what Christianity offers.

The only problem is that men make for bad objects of faith. Because they’re not God, they end up disappointing those that place their trust in their lives. The man ended up falling greatly, left his wife, and went back into his homosexual lifestyle. The Evangelical community didn’t have much use for him then. Their object of hope had failed so they had to find another superstar to place on a pedestal.

Why is it we need to hear from sports figures or from the Power Team how happy Christ makes them? Maybe, just maybe, some of that will rub off on us and we can be super-successful too. Maybe our hope is that we’ll get everything good in life.

But, beloved, this is not the hope that Peter is talking about. Life is not going to give you everything you want and when you go placing your hope in how you or others have been changed then you will always be disappointed and you will never have any real testimony to share.

 

[Herald]

Rich, I have given your response to my earlier post some thought, study and prayer. Perhaps there is some remnant of my Arminian-Dispensational days that needs purging. I consider sanctification to fall under the umbrella of soteriology. We are saved and we are also being saved. I think we are agreed on justification. I would also be in agreement with you that sanctification requires a work on our part. That work is obedience. But even obedience falls under the larger umbrella of soteriology. God preserves the saints; we persevere. The one who endures to the end will be saved. Of course, the saint WILL endure to the end. Why? Because the work of salvation is wrought by God alone. This is where the quietist view would deviate from an orthodox view of soteriology and sanctification.

Maybe I'm not acquitting myself well by the manner in which I am articulating my view. If we look at our salvation (from regeneration to glory) from a heavenly perspective we will see God's sovereign hand at work every step of the way. At ground level we will also see our obedience (or lack thereof) to his commands. Again, I may be out of the mainstream with my understanding, and if I am, I am certainly open to correction.

 

[moral necessity]

Blessings, Rich!

I assume your use of the term synergism in sanctification mainly implies activity on our part, and doesn't imply all of the other things that an Arminian would attach to the word, namely, (1)action independent from God's acting which God is dependent upon to complete the desired sanctification and has no absolute control over, and (2)having an ability within us to resist his acting within us towards sanctification.

With regard to your take on Romans 6 in being freed from sin, I have to ask for clarity on what you mean by "we do not have to sin". I assume you are qualifying your definition of sin in some way to limit it to some controllable external behavior or action of some sort that you have in mind. For surely, it cannot be true in the true sense of the words. For, if it is sin to not love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to not love our neighbors as ourself, then surely we must commit sin for the rest of our lives this side of the grave. If it is sin to look on a woman with strong desire, and to not covet, and to speak only wholesome words that give grace to those who hear, and to only think on what is pure, lovely, honorable and worthy of praise, then surely we must commit sin every day this side of the grave. Surely we do have to sin; as Paul said, "I am carnal, sold as a slave unto sin." And so, his cry is appropriate, "who will rescue me from this body of death?" And, the rescue does not come this side of the grave, which is why he goes on to say in Romans 8, "our salvation (or deliverance) lies in hope."

I agree that sin is inconsistent with the new nature that God has imparted to us. But, the new nature has not totally eradicated and killed the old. It has dethroned it from its absolute domination over us, and it has weakened and impaired it from its former strength in some degree. But, it certainly has not killed it so that we can say that we are dead to it. Our sinful actions are not consistent with our new principle of grace, but they are consistent with law that still abides within our members, that still make us a prisoner to the law of sin. I think we have to lessen the definition of sin and sinful behavior to think otherwise.

Fellowship and blessings in Christ!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich, I have given your response to my earlier post some thought, study and prayer. Perhaps there is some remnant of my Arminian-Dispensational days that needs purging. I consider sanctification to fall under the umbrella of soteriology. We are saved and we are also being saved. I think we are agreed on justification. I would also be in agreement with you that sanctification requires a work on our part. That work is obedience. But even obedience falls under the larger umbrella of soteriology. God preserves the saints; we persevere. The one who endures to the end will be saved. Of course, the saint WILL endure to the end. Why? Because the work of salvation is wrought by God alone. This is where the quietist view would deviate from an orthodox view of soteriology and sanctification.

Maybe I'm not acquitting myself well by the manner in which I am articulating my view. If we look at our salvation (from regeneration to glory) from a heavenly perspective we will see God's sovereign hand at work every step of the way. At ground level we will also see our obedience (or lack thereof) to his commands. Again, I may be out of the mainstream with my understanding, and if I am, I am certainly open to correction.

Fully agreed. Our salvation is, begining to end, assured by a work of God. We can only ever obey even in sanctification due to our vital union with Christ.

I think this is why I was saying that we need to maintain the idea of Soli Deo Gloria - to God alone be the glory.

I was actually reflecting a bit on a previous conversation we had on the board about the difference between the elect and reprobate with regard to the saving activity of God. There is complete asymmetry in activity on God's part.

The elect are made alive, made to stand, given new desires for their Savior, adopted as children, etc. He arms us, stregthens us, equips us, and sustains us. Anything that we do is in response to a capacity He has given us in contrast to sin which He does not author.

Blessings!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Blessings, Rich!

I assume your use of the term synergism in sanctification mainly implies activity on our part, and doesn't imply all of the other things that an Arminian would attach to the word, namely, (1)action independent from God's acting which God is dependent upon to complete the desired sanctification and has no absolute control over, and (2)having an ability within us to resist his acting within us towards sanctification.

I do not have an Arminian notion of sanctification.

With regard to your take on Romans 6 in being freed from sin, I have to ask for clarity on what you mean by "we do not have to sin". I assume you are qualifying your definition of sin in some way to limit it to some controllable external behavior or action of some sort that you have in mind. For surely, it cannot be true in the true sense of the words. For, if it is sin to not love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to not love our neighbors as ourself, then surely we must commit sin for the rest of our lives this side of the grave. If it is sin to look on a woman with strong desire, and to not covet, and to speak only wholesome words that give grace to those who hear, and to only think on what is pure, lovely, honorable and worthy of praise, then surely we must commit sin every day this side of the grave. Surely we do have to sin; as Paul said, "I am carnal, sold as a slave unto sin." And so, his cry is appropriate, "who will rescue me from this body of death?" And, the rescue does not come this side of the grave, which is why he goes on to say in Romans 8, "our salvation (or deliverance) lies in hope."

What I mean is that the classic formulation is this:

Before the Fall, mankind was
1) Able to sin
2) Able to not sin

After the Fall, mankind was
1) Not able to not sin

In other words, fallen man can only sin.

After our regeneration, those in Christ are
1) Able to sin
2) Able to not sin

This does not imply that our ability to not sin is perfect and our righteousness is always in Christ but we are told to resist the devil and we are not told that we must sin. It is not a self-generated strength to resist but the fact still remains that we are empowered to resist sin in a way that was impossible prior to our spiritual life.

One thing we need to be careful about, in addition to noting that our righteousness is extrinsic, is that we need not be overly morbid about our Christian walk either. God doesn't lie to us when He tells us He has suited us up in armour and strengthened our hands. He doesn't lie in telling us to resist but that we are doomed to fail in every battle against sin. It is an ever reliance upon Him but it is not pious to talk about our walk with Christ as if every step that He enables will surely fail because we're involved in that step.

I agree that sin is inconsistent with the new nature that God has imparted to us. But, the new nature has not totally eradicated and killed the old. It has dethroned it from its absolute domination over us, and it has weakened and impaired it from its former strength in some degree. But, it certainly has not killed it so that we can say that we are dead to it. Our sinful actions are not consistent with our new principle of grace, but they are consistent with law that still abides within our members, that still make us a prisoner to the law of sin. I think we have to lessen the definition of sin and sinful behavior to think otherwise.

Agreed to a point but read above. I'm not talking about "victory" from the flesh here. I was very careful with my words. I merely stated that the tenor of Romans 6 is that we are NOT slaves to sin anymore. Period. We do NOT have to obey its sinful lusts. This is verbatim. Paul is reminding us who we are a slave to because we need to remind ourselves the same when temptation arises. The battle must be given and one of those things that strengthens feeble hands are the words: "I am not a slave to sin, I am a slave to Christ. I do not have to obey the flesh's sinful passions."

Nobody is arguing for sinless perfectionism here but merely pointing out that union with Christ does produce a disposition and strength for the task. The bottom line is that we have not been redeemed for unrighteousness and we ought never forget it nor paint the fight in morbid terms as if we've been sent on a fool's errand.

Blessings!

 

[moral necessity]

Rich!

Didn't mean to sound like I thought you had an Arminian view. Hope you didn't take it like that.

I'm not trying to be morbid, just realistic. Paul says he is still a slave to sin in Rom.7. And yet, he has a view to further sanctification and deliverance, as the principle of grace increases in strength within him, and the principle of sin decreases. The reality is, tomorrow I will exhibit sin because my sanctification is incomplete. Yet, I will also exhibit some degree of holiness, because my sanctification has begun.

Blessings!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich!

Didn't mean to sound like I thought you had an Arminian view. Hope you didn't take it like that.

I'm not trying to be morbid, just realistic. Paul says he is still a slave to sin in Rom.7. And yet, he has a view to further sanctification and deliverance, as the principle of grace increases in strength within him, and the principle of sin decreases. The reality is, tomorrow I will sin because my sanctification is incomplete. Yet, I will also exhibit some degree of holiness, because my sanctification has begun.

Blessings!

No, Paul does not say he is a slave to sin in Romans 7. He says he sees another law in his members warring against his desire for good but he does not contradict his explicit statement to the contrary in Romans 6.

I agree our sanctification is incomplete. I don't know how to put it much differently but we cannot enter the battle convinced, ahead of time that we must fail. I know you're not necessarily stating it but with the attitude, ahead of time, that we will fail it practically gives us warrant to offer no resistance to sin whatsoever. We are no longer slaves to sin that resistance is futile.

 

[moral necessity]

No, Paul does not say he is a slave to sin in Romans 7. He says he sees another law in his members warring against his desire for good but he does not contradict his explicit statement to the contrary in Romans 6.

I agree our sanctification is incomplete. I don't know how to put it much differently but we cannot enter the battle convinced, ahead of time that we must fail. I know you're not necessarily stating it but with the attitude, ahead of time, that we will fail it practically gives us warrant to offer no resistance to sin whatsoever. We are no longer slaves to sin that resistance is futile.

Granted that he does not use the word "slave", but he certainly seems to make some sort of case for it. He is still "sold under sin." He "does not do what he wants"; he "does what he hates"; he "does not have the desire to carry out what is right"; he does "the evil that he does not want to do"; the law of his mind makes him "captive to the law of sin that dwells in his members"; he prays for "deliverance"; and with his flesh he "serves the law of sin."

Yet now, with his mind, he "serves the law of God." So, he has two princiles vying for his service. Sin is dethroned from its former dominance. Grace reigns and will conquer in totality over time. It's like the illustration of Israel taking over the land of Canaan. When God entered the land via Israel, the nations no longer reigned, but they still occupied and controlled much of the territory. Little by little, Israel took over.

Perhaps our use of the word sin is different. When you say that I do not have to sin, my mind runs to the thought that I can now love God with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love my neighbor as myself; instead of only loving God with 50% of my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and not loving him with the other 50%. I see sin as not only giving into the temptation to perhaps view indiscreet material on the internet (for example), but also as even possessing the bent and inclination of desire that leads it to even be a temptation to view such things improperly. So, when I apply what you say, it doesn't work for me, for the inclinations are sin in itself, before it even becomes visible fruit or action or behavior. What you seem to say is that I don't have to act on my sinful impulses, so as to make it become sinful behavior. But, to me, this is only the tip of the iceberg. To me, this is not the main battle we are called to with sin. I think the freedom that God intends in sanctification goes beyond external stifling of sinful cravings, and goes to where the bent and inclinations towards sin are mortified at their root, not at their fruit. When we can say that sin is dead at the inclination level, then we can say that we are no longer in bondage to sin.

I agree with you that we now have a new option that was never open to us before; and in that sense we are no longer slaves of sin. For before, we only had one option, and that was sin.

Blessings!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well, I'm trying to remain within the vein of the original post. I've noted that our obedience to the Law is never perfect. That Law demands, in its principle prescribed and restricted activities. We fail at both. The Law is summed up in the command to love God and love neighbor. We fall short.

I assume that when I type something earlier about our status in Christ that the idea will be carried forward. If I believed a righteousness could exist apart from Christ then we could not even proceed to the basis of a Christian's reasonable service in response to it (Romans 12-16).

If it ever seemed that I implied that our prevailing in limited battles means that we win the whole war then I did not mean to imply it.

Here is WCF Chapter 23 on Sanctification:

I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,1 by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:2 the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,3 and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;4 and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,5 to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.6

II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man;7 yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part;8 whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.9

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail;10 yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome;11 and so, the saints grow in grace,12 perfecting holiness in the fear of God.13

 

[moral necessity]

Rich,

Didn't mean to delay in responding. Thanks again for your wisdom and insight, and especially your time in giving thorough responses. I've been thinking through some of your posts, and I see the point more clearly that you were making. We can't see our struggles as hopeless, or else we won't strive against sin. Thanks for emphasizing that.

Blessings!