A friend gave me a book, Extravagant Grace, written by a Reformed author, I forget the name. It takes a radical view of the sovereignty of God in sanctification. Rather than the goal of sanctification being obedience, it proposes that the goal is our taking our creaturely place and walking humbly with God. Sometimes God, at conversion or thereafter, radically changes one's desires. Sometimes He does not; it is in His interest to let some saints struggle seemingly endlessly and hopelessly, with certain sins. She does not use this analogy, but it seems to express the message. It's like the Outward Bound program, where forest rangers take troubled teens on extended hiking/climbing trips, orienteering through wilderness to get to some peak or other destination. The goal is not arriving at the destination; that could be done in a helicopter. The goal is the teens learning the lessons they need to learn in the process of achieving arrival: cooperation, courage, patience with discomfort, orienteering skills, living off the land, and the like. Her thesis resonates with me; now initially, I'm buying into it. But I'd like to hear scriptural arguments, if there are any, to the contrary before totally embracing the idea.
Sovereignty in sanctification
- Thread starter Leslie
- Start date
- Status
God'sElectSaint
Puritan Board Freshman
That sounds pretty solid overall. Very interesting as do a link to purchase this book?
The book may well be useful in helping people whose imbalanced background requires a counterweight. Mark Jones argues that it has certain weaknesses and goes beyond its healthier source material in certain important respects in this lengthy review of two books (the review of Duguid's book starts at the 8th paragraph):
Housewife Theologian and Extravagant Grace - Reformation21
Housewife Theologian and Extravagant Grace - Reformation21
God'sElectSaint
Puritan Board Freshman
Thanks for the review I see there's more to it. He seemed to like the first one but I am not woman nor am I so I won't be buying it.
I'm not sure he understood what she was trying to write; either that or I don't understand. Most of his negative arguments are theological/confessional rather than scriptural. The scriptures that he quotes do not negate her thesis, or at least what I understand to be her thesis. For me, it was helpful, when acutely aware of my sinful nature, to realize that this is par for the course; small beginnings of obedience are acceptable. Denial of guilt and a rebellious spirit are not.
Let me put forth this question to clarify matters.
Friend # 1 was an alcoholic and drug addict. She was converted. From that moment she had no desire for either. This was 17 years ago.
Friend #2 is an alcoholic and a heavy smoker. He was converted many years ago. He still struggles with both, falls, picks himself up, goes on for a while and falls again.
Now is #1 more virtuous, more saved, or more-something-else-good than #2? Or does God in His sovereignty choose to bless one with a spectacular deliverance and leave the other to struggle for His divine, inscrutable reasons? It's not all that different from conversions from I--lam. In a language group of over 100,000, as far as we know, there were 4 and only 4 men who came to faith in Christ and then "by chance" happened to connect to each other for fellowship. It is an astounding example of God's sovereignty in election to salvation. Does election stop with salvation, or does it extend to sanctification also?
Friend # 1 was an alcoholic and drug addict. She was converted. From that moment she had no desire for either. This was 17 years ago.
Friend #2 is an alcoholic and a heavy smoker. He was converted many years ago. He still struggles with both, falls, picks himself up, goes on for a while and falls again.
Now is #1 more virtuous, more saved, or more-something-else-good than #2? Or does God in His sovereignty choose to bless one with a spectacular deliverance and leave the other to struggle for His divine, inscrutable reasons? It's not all that different from conversions from I--lam. In a language group of over 100,000, as far as we know, there were 4 and only 4 men who came to faith in Christ and then "by chance" happened to connect to each other for fellowship. It is an astounding example of God's sovereignty in election to salvation. Does election stop with salvation, or does it extend to sanctification also?
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Dr. Jones' reveiw of Barb Duguid's book has been linked to from this board before. The first time I read that review, I thought to myself that those two were talking past each other a bit. They seem concerned about such different things: Dr. Jones about theological precision and about refuting anything that might hint at antinomianism, and Barb Dugud about providing encouragement to struggling, guilt-feeling believers by pointing them to the sovereignty of God in absolutely all things. (Both are also cordial and slow to attack despite their different purposes, which helps me appreciate each of them.)
Mary, I think you can probably benefit from that book. When I read it, I did raise my eyebrows here at there at the strength of some of the wording regarding sanctification, but I also found it encouraging. My wife found it even more helpful (it speaks more directly to issues women tend to have top-of-mind). It certainly affirms that we (1) ought to strive for holiness and yet (2) ought to draw comfort and hope from the fact that God is sovereign over the process and does not ordain the same timeframe for everyone. That's a solid message, and one that Barb delivers with compassion and a good deal of wit.
It sounds to me like both friends are repentant, which is good. Friend #2 may actually be striving MORE for godliness in these areas, given that it's harder for him, but my instinct is to give God the credit for repentance in both. We don't say God is doing great work in one and so-so work in another. God's work (evidenced by repentance) is always good.
Mary, I think you can probably benefit from that book. When I read it, I did raise my eyebrows here at there at the strength of some of the wording regarding sanctification, but I also found it encouraging. My wife found it even more helpful (it speaks more directly to issues women tend to have top-of-mind). It certainly affirms that we (1) ought to strive for holiness and yet (2) ought to draw comfort and hope from the fact that God is sovereign over the process and does not ordain the same timeframe for everyone. That's a solid message, and one that Barb delivers with compassion and a good deal of wit.
It sounds to me like both friends are repentant, which is good. Friend #2 may actually be striving MORE for godliness in these areas, given that it's harder for him, but my instinct is to give God the credit for repentance in both. We don't say God is doing great work in one and so-so work in another. God's work (evidenced by repentance) is always good.
Critical reviews of highly-praised books will inevitably tend to focus on the negative a little: once again, providing a counterweight. As it stands right now, Jack, your statement could seem to imply that Dr. Jones is not concerned with encouraging struggling believers. Within the context of Dr. Jones' overall work, that is certainly not the case.
Thanks for posting this and for the helpful comments. I ordered this book the other day and am looking forward to receiving it- I know several women who I hope will benefit from it, myself included.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
I did not mean to imply that. Surely he is concerned about struggling believers, just as Mrs. Duguid surely is concerned about getting her theology right. But I do suspect that their primary, chief interests—their reasons why they most often feel an urge to write in the first place—might not quite align. This is not meant to be a criticism of either of them. If we all had the same chief interests, we would not be able to be nearly as helpful to each other as we are when we have differing concerns.
I agree that they are talking past each other. God's working in us to will and to do according to His good pleasure seems to imply sovereignty in sanctification. It was His will to make friend #1's addiction a non-issue; He has called her to a very high-stress position with refugee children. No way she could do this with a residual habit. Friend #2 is an artist in the States. It's God's will, for some reason, to let him struggle rather than setting him free.
I suspected as much, Jack; thank you for clarifying.
I not only find this to be a false statement about how Mark Jones wrote the review but incoherent. You state, in your second reply, that you do not mean to imply that Duguid is imprecise but which is it? Is she correct or incorrect about the Holy Spirit's work? Is she correct or incorrect about humility being more important than our battle with sin or is this like saying that faith is more important than repentance?
I ask because we have this strange myth that "pastoral" or "encouraging" means imprecise. As long as someone is encouraged to not be weighed down with their sin then it's OK to be a little "iffy" about sanctification. Theology is not intended to be either precise or pastoral/practical. It's intended to be both at the same time. It doesn't mean that we always can plumb the depths of each concept but what we conceive about Christ and the Holy Spirit cannot both be wrong and encouraging. I don't need to say something confusing and wrong about sanctification being 100% God and 100% man to encourage someone struggling with sanctification.
Insofar as most books that are written for women are chock full of legalism, I'm grateful for a work by Duguid that points them to the Gospel as a solution to our struggles. Insofar as she might articulate some things incorrectly she is at least pointing people to the Gospel of Grace. That said, when errors are pointed out, they need to be discussed for their relevance. It is not immaterial when someone teaches an incorrect conception of sanctification or the role of the Holy Spirit. Teaching and admonishment are mutually dependent. We are taught things about ourselves and about Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit and it is upon the basis of what we *know* about Christ that motivates us when we are admonished in the Scriptures. If we get the "teaching" part wrong then our motivations/actions will be skewed.
"In view of God's mercy, present yourselves as a living sacrifice..."
It matters *what* God's mercy is because it is with that "in view" that we are commanded to present our ourselves as a living sacrifice.
It matters not in the least that somebody's version of "God's mercy" seems encouraging to me. If it is wrong in several parts then I need to understand those several parts because they affect my understanding how how I step out in obedience.
What saddens me, I suppose, is that I've been teaching through the WSC with kids and the "doctrine" contained there is full and rich. It takes some effort to catch all of what those ministers were trying to communicate but it is remarkably practical in getting young minds to think through the implications of Christ's work as Mediator and the benefits that flow from union with Him. What happens, however, is that this very information is viewed as "precise" and it is therefore cold or impractical or doctrine. It's then treated more like a dictionary or encyclopedia - something I should know because I want to become more educated about theology but I'm not really going to refer to it if I'm trying to figure out something *practical* or *encouraging*.
You may object but, in my view, your reaction to the way that Mark Jones wrote his review as boiling down to concern for doctrinal precision or being against antinomianism underlines my point. Where I see a tremendous amount of practical import as to how one views sanctification or the work of the Holy Spirit your judgment of it is "...concern with precision."
Jack K
Puritan Board Doctor
Rich, I have no complaints about theological precision. I don't think it's cold (necessarily) or non-pastoral. I like theological precision. And, as an aside, Mark Jones has written several things I've found helpful and pastoral because of his theological precision.
As a writer, though, I don't always employ the same level of theological precision in everything I write. Much depends on my purpose.
I write articles for children's Sunday school teachers. If I'm writing an article on how to teach kids about the Trinity, I will take great care to use language that comes from the historic creeds. I will pause to explain terms. I will take detours to explain theological pitfalls. I will be alert for potential misunderstandings and stop the article in its tracks to address them. This is what I mean by theological precision, and I employ it because I know the Trinity is a theological topic often botched by teachers of children and my goal is to fix that.
But if I'm writing an article about how to keep discipline in the classroom, I'll probably be less theologically precise. I will still be theological. I'll still base my article on biblical truth and will strive to state that truth correctly, but I won't let my writing get sidetracked by explaining all my terms or addressing a lot of possible misunderstandings. I'll state my theological basis more bluntly and colorfully, but with less precision, because of my purpose. I'm not terribly concerned that a lot of teachers have a wrong theological understanding of classroom discipline (maybe some do, but I'm not frying that fish).
That's what I mean by theological precision—not truth vs. error, but more detail vs. less, or technical expressions vs. colorful ones. In making such desicions, a writer's purpose and audience matter.
As I was finishing up Show Them Jesus, I became acutely aware that the book could come to be seen as a statement in the sanctification debates that were heating up at the time. It had never been my intent to enter those debates, yet I felt it necessary to add explanatory sections to certain chapters in order to head off people who might protest, "But is sounds like you could be saying that..." My editors reminded me (correctly) that 99% of my readers would not even know about the sanctification debates and that I would lose the force of my main points by taking all those rabbit trails. In the end I chose a halfway position, leaving some of the "precision" in place because I feel sanctification is a topic that deserves it, yet removing other explanations because the book was not intended to be a theological treatise (nor am I the guy to write one).
When I read Barb Duguid's book it reminded me of my own struggle with my book. I'm not surprised that some who've paid much attention to the sanctification debates might have concerns about her book. But without wanting to indulge in too much speculation about a couple of writers whom I find are both worthy of appreciation, I do suspect that their intents in writing may come into play.
As a writer, though, I don't always employ the same level of theological precision in everything I write. Much depends on my purpose.
I write articles for children's Sunday school teachers. If I'm writing an article on how to teach kids about the Trinity, I will take great care to use language that comes from the historic creeds. I will pause to explain terms. I will take detours to explain theological pitfalls. I will be alert for potential misunderstandings and stop the article in its tracks to address them. This is what I mean by theological precision, and I employ it because I know the Trinity is a theological topic often botched by teachers of children and my goal is to fix that.
But if I'm writing an article about how to keep discipline in the classroom, I'll probably be less theologically precise. I will still be theological. I'll still base my article on biblical truth and will strive to state that truth correctly, but I won't let my writing get sidetracked by explaining all my terms or addressing a lot of possible misunderstandings. I'll state my theological basis more bluntly and colorfully, but with less precision, because of my purpose. I'm not terribly concerned that a lot of teachers have a wrong theological understanding of classroom discipline (maybe some do, but I'm not frying that fish).
That's what I mean by theological precision—not truth vs. error, but more detail vs. less, or technical expressions vs. colorful ones. In making such desicions, a writer's purpose and audience matter.
As I was finishing up Show Them Jesus, I became acutely aware that the book could come to be seen as a statement in the sanctification debates that were heating up at the time. It had never been my intent to enter those debates, yet I felt it necessary to add explanatory sections to certain chapters in order to head off people who might protest, "But is sounds like you could be saying that..." My editors reminded me (correctly) that 99% of my readers would not even know about the sanctification debates and that I would lose the force of my main points by taking all those rabbit trails. In the end I chose a halfway position, leaving some of the "precision" in place because I feel sanctification is a topic that deserves it, yet removing other explanations because the book was not intended to be a theological treatise (nor am I the guy to write one).
When I read Barb Duguid's book it reminded me of my own struggle with my book. I'm not surprised that some who've paid much attention to the sanctification debates might have concerns about her book. But without wanting to indulge in too much speculation about a couple of writers whom I find are both worthy of appreciation, I do suspect that their intents in writing may come into play.
Last edited:
Jack,
I certainly understand and appreciate the difficulty in explaining things, in brief, to to "uninitiated." Teaching across the spectrum of age ranges and backgrounds is difficult. I taught the entire Church yesterday from ages 3-60 and had to figure out a way to engage them all (the kids were more willing to take a crack at answering questions I posed).
That said, there are "simplifications" that I make that some my point out are not useful. If someone points out that the simplification itself is erroneous then I would try to frame that point differently. If it becomes a repeated pattern in my teaching then it may point to some truth that I either do not grasp well or I'm teaching something differently than what I confess I believe.
Consequently, with a critical review like this, it is important to take note. To chalk it all up to "simplifying for the popular level" just doesn't do. The irony is that Mark had just reviewed another popular level work and had no critical comments to make. Was it simply that Aimee Byrd had nothing to say about sanctification that Mark did not have an opportunity to bird dog or did she simplify in a manner that was accurate? It's not as if the two books deal with completely different topics.
I certainly understand and appreciate the difficulty in explaining things, in brief, to to "uninitiated." Teaching across the spectrum of age ranges and backgrounds is difficult. I taught the entire Church yesterday from ages 3-60 and had to figure out a way to engage them all (the kids were more willing to take a crack at answering questions I posed).
That said, there are "simplifications" that I make that some my point out are not useful. If someone points out that the simplification itself is erroneous then I would try to frame that point differently. If it becomes a repeated pattern in my teaching then it may point to some truth that I either do not grasp well or I'm teaching something differently than what I confess I believe.
Consequently, with a critical review like this, it is important to take note. To chalk it all up to "simplifying for the popular level" just doesn't do. The irony is that Mark had just reviewed another popular level work and had no critical comments to make. Was it simply that Aimee Byrd had nothing to say about sanctification that Mark did not have an opportunity to bird dog or did she simplify in a manner that was accurate? It's not as if the two books deal with completely different topics.
The OP has been derailed to discussing books and reviews. What do you theologian sorts say about sovereignty in sanctification? My intent was to discuss the concept, not dissect the accuracy of expression in these or any particular books. It was unwise to even mention the book.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
Our faith is he fruit of God's regeneration of us—replacing our hearts of stone with ones of flesh (Eze. 26:26). From this faith sanctification proceeds because of what God did and continues to do. He gets all the glory. Our sanctification is relying upon Christ, not our own pitiful acts, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure (Philippians 2:13).
Perhaps this will help, Leslie:
http://www.gracecovenantpca.org/pas...ance/Settling some dust on Sanctification.pdf
Perhaps this will help, Leslie:
http://www.gracecovenantpca.org/pas...ance/Settling some dust on Sanctification.pdf
Cymro
Puritan Board Junior
I offer my perspective Mary. There are a number of factors to be taken into consideration,
both natural an spiritual. These are two constitutionally different persons having their
own strengths and weaknesses, and different degrees of addiction. One perhaps a stronger
character than the other, and one exercising faith in a greater manner than the other. These
human characteristics are not to be left out of the equation.
But also there must be the balancing of Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. On one
hand as you rightly state ,it is God that work in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
He works upon us not for us. His the working ours the doing. Obedience is better than sacrifice,
Obedience is our responsibility ," why sayest thou Lord,Lord and do not the things that I tell you."
God works in and through our obedience. So one friend may be more obedient than the other.
If these practices are really considered sins, then conviction should lead to eviction of them. And there's
the nub of it, conviction of sin whatever it's form should aggravate conscience ,disturbed one's peace and
provoke to cease whatever is dishonouring to God. I write that mindful of my daily warfare with a heart that is
as a cage of unclean birds.ther
There is also this, the purpose of God with the second friend might be akin to Israel in Judges 3:1-4. The four
ungodly nations were left in the land,"to prove Israel," "to teach them HOW TO WAR," "to prove Israel by them
whether they would Hearken to the commandments of the Lord."
If friend two is involved in the artistic world then that is an environment that is fatal to sanctification. I have
personally seen Christians make shipwreck of their faith through not forsaking the ungodly influences that
permeate what I would consider an artificial life style and culture.
both natural an spiritual. These are two constitutionally different persons having their
own strengths and weaknesses, and different degrees of addiction. One perhaps a stronger
character than the other, and one exercising faith in a greater manner than the other. These
human characteristics are not to be left out of the equation.
But also there must be the balancing of Divine sovereignty and human responsibility. On one
hand as you rightly state ,it is God that work in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
He works upon us not for us. His the working ours the doing. Obedience is better than sacrifice,
Obedience is our responsibility ," why sayest thou Lord,Lord and do not the things that I tell you."
God works in and through our obedience. So one friend may be more obedient than the other.
If these practices are really considered sins, then conviction should lead to eviction of them. And there's
the nub of it, conviction of sin whatever it's form should aggravate conscience ,disturbed one's peace and
provoke to cease whatever is dishonouring to God. I write that mindful of my daily warfare with a heart that is
as a cage of unclean birds.ther
There is also this, the purpose of God with the second friend might be akin to Israel in Judges 3:1-4. The four
ungodly nations were left in the land,"to prove Israel," "to teach them HOW TO WAR," "to prove Israel by them
whether they would Hearken to the commandments of the Lord."
If friend two is involved in the artistic world then that is an environment that is fatal to sanctification. I have
personally seen Christians make shipwreck of their faith through not forsaking the ungodly influences that
permeate what I would consider an artificial life style and culture.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
