Stop trying to please God?

[chuckd]

I'd like thoughts on the following quote.

The note of Romans 7 is seldom sounded nowadays; it is good to hear it again. The day I was delivered from the law was a day of heaven on earth. After being a Christian for years I was still trying my best to please God, but the more I tried the more I failed. I regarded God as the greatest Demander in the universe, but I found myself impotent to fulfill the least of his demands. Suddenly one day, as I read Romans 7, light dawned and I saw that I had not only been delivered from sin but from the Law as well. In my amazement I jumped up and said; 'Lord, are you really making no demands on me? Then I need do nothing more for You!'

God's requirements have not altered, but we are not the ones to meet them. Praise God, He is the Lawgiver on the Throne, and He is the Lawkeeper in my heart. He who gave the Law, Himself keeps it. He makes the demands, but he also meets them. My friend could well jump up and shout when he found he had nothing to do, and all who make a like discovery can do the same. As long as we are trying to do anything, he can do nothing. It is because of our trying that we fail and fail and fail. God wants to demonstrate to us that we can do nothing at all, and until that is fully recognized our despair and disillusion will never cease.

Am I wrong or is the spirit of this quote to stop trying to (a) please God and (b) follow his commandments? What does this look like - spiritual slothfulness? How does one reconcile It is because of our trying that we fail and fail and fail and any given commandment such as "love your neighbor"?

edit: I added emphasis to point out the part that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[No Name #5]

We should never stop trying to please God by the prompting of the Holy Spirit. If your motivation is just to gain "righteousness points" for the sake of a hot spot in Heaven, though - that's an altogether different story.

 

[chuckd]

We should never stop trying to please God by the prompting of the Holy Spirit. If your motivation is just to gain "righteousness points" for the sake of a hot spot in Heaven, though - that's an altogether different story.

I understand, but I'm trying to understand exactly what that looks like practically. Do I wait around for a voice?

To me, I try to please God because, put simply, he's God and I love him. He knows the true life, the way to righteousness, etc. and I don't see any reason to not follow his commands. Now, any internal desire to follow is wholly to the praise and glory of God - I give all due credit to him. But when someone tells me it is a sin to even try in the first place, it confuses and discourages me. Should I sit passively for the Holy Spirit to use me as a puppet and if he doesn't, watch TV?

 

[No Name #5]

To me, I try to please God because, put simply, he's God and I love him. He knows the true life, the way to righteousness, etc. and I don't see any reason to not follow his commands. Now, any internal desire to follow is wholly to the praise and glory of God - I give all due credit to him.

Amen; that sounds like the work of the Holy Spirit to me. =]

But when someone tells me it is a sin to even try in the first place, it confuses and discourages me. Should I sit passively for the Holy Spirit to use me as a puppet and if he doesn't, watch TV?

First of all, could you explain to me who is describing it as a "sin"? And secondly, from our ectypal perspective (shortsighted and human), sometimes the work of the Holy Spirit can come off as us "trying", but from God's complete archetypal viewpoint (omniscient and perfect), it's truly His doing, and so Soli Deo Gloria. I don't think being the Holy Spirit's "puppet" should unavoidably be viewed as a negative thing, as well; we're totally depraved sinners, after all, and can only rely on Him for doing anything right in the first place. As I see it, if we were God's "puppets", that would be a miraculous and unwarranted honor. Far better than following our own wills, which would inexorably lead to eternal destruction.

 

[Jack K]

The quote is fine because it's talking about a person who's trying to earn God's fatherly approval. That is not something God demands we earn. To obtain that gift, we are called only to rest in Christ who meets God's demands for us.

This does not mean a believer no longer cares about the law. On the contrary, our position in Christ makes obedience to God come alive in us so that God's demands become a force for good in our lives. This is Paul's argument from Romans 6, leading up to the Romans 7 passage the quote's author mentions. The fact that the author doesn't also mention the obedience-to-God aspect of salvation in this brief quote does not, in inself, make the quote wrong.

 

[J. Dean]

If you mean not to please God in the sense of earning merit or righteousness, that is correct. We have the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ applied to us; what we do pales in comparison.

But if you mean not to please God in an Antinomian sense of works being completely unnecessary to Christian living, then that is certainly unscriptural.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We DO need to guard against a kind of "quietism" that seems to be a new impulse (or at least an attraction) in our circles.

There are two great threats to the narrow way, two "downgrades" on either side of the ridge on which we wend our Christian journey, which Paul denominates "the upward call," Php.3:14.

The first is activism, the second quietism. It may be that the ideas of "legalism" (in the 1st case) and "antinomianism" (in the 2nd case) are less than helpful is every instance. Because I suppose that one could find each of those tendencies in either activism or quietism.

I define activism as a kind of "mania" concerning one's Christian life, an obsession with maintenance of one's growth and/or sins-accounting, that actually robs one of the actual joy of living in Christ. Can we "grow" ourselves? If I spend time each day "willing" another inch to my stature, will I grow physically thereby? Nonsense, and neither will I "grow" spiritually by willpower. I should "exercise" myself unto godliness, and this is a kind of encouragement-to-growth that also has analogy to our physical life. But I'm not sure that spiritual "bodybuilders" are overall and necessarily more spiritually fit than the one who exercises himself every day in small services for God and his fellowman.

"Quietism" is another threat, one to which we are prone especially when the rigors of spiritual "competition" have broken us, and we realize that we've been obsessed with measuring our progress. Whether it is the "let go let God" view, or a more general abandonment of spiritual concern, it is still a failure to connect properly with the "spiritual combat" that characterizes life in the church-militant. And do not think for a minute that quietism is death to spiritual PRIDE; that by no means is a vice confined to the activist.

The Christian life is meant to be a life of maturing in the faith. As you grow (and hopefully exercise) the "outer man" to your development; so too you should experience the life-giving "might" of the Spirit developing your inner man, see Paul's prayer Eph.3:16.

 

[chuckd]

Thanks so much for all of your posts. Very helpful.

But when someone tells me it is a sin to even try in the first place, it confuses and discourages me. Should I sit passively for the Holy Spirit to use me as a puppet and if he doesn't, watch TV?

First of all, could you explain to me who is describing it as a "sin"? And secondly, from our ectypal perspective (shortsighted and human), sometimes the work of the Holy Spirit can come off as us "trying", but from God's complete archetypal viewpoint (omniscient and perfect), it's truly His doing, and so Soli Deo Gloria. I don't think being the Holy Spirit's "puppet" should unavoidably be viewed as a negative thing, as well; we're totally depraved sinners, after all, and can only rely on Him for doing anything right in the first place. As I see it, if we were God's "puppets", that would be a miraculous and unwarranted honor. Far better than following our own wills, which would inexorably lead to eternal destruction.

"As long as we are trying to do anything, he can do nothing. It is because of our trying that we fail and fail and fail." Maybe I'm reading into it, but it seems it is wrong to try. As far as being a puppet, it was a poor choice of wording. I'm thinking more along the lines of antinomianism as was pointed out by others. The following are quotes that, in my opinion, combat the "puppetism."

He doth not so work our mortification in us as not to keep it still an act of our obedience. The Holy Ghost works in us and upon us, as we are fit to be wrought in and upon; that is, so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience. He works upon our understandings, wills, consciences, and affections, agreeably to their own natures; he works in us and with us, not against us or without us; so that his assistance is an encouragement as to the facilitating of the work, and no occasion of neglect as to the work itself.

In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, we act all. For that is what produces, viz. [namely] our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active.

The quote is fine because it's talking about a person who's trying to earn God's fatherly approval. That is not something God demands we earn. To obtain that gift, we are called only to rest in Christ who meets God's demands for us.

This does not mean a believer no longer cares about the law. On the contrary, our position in Christ makes obedience to God come alive in us so that God's demands become a force for good in our lives. This is Paul's argument from Romans 6, leading up to the Romans 7 passage the quote's author mentions. The fact that the author doesn't also mention the obedience-to-God aspect of salvation in this brief quote does not, in inself, make the quote wrong.

Maybe you're right, this was all that was given to me. I don't have the source.

We DO need to guard against a kind of "quietism" that seems to be a new impulse (or at least an attraction) in our circles.

There are two great threats to the narrow way, two "downgrades" on either side of the ridge on which we wend our Christian journey, which Paul denominates "the upward call," Php.3:14.

The first is activism, the second quietism. It may be that the ideas of "legalism" (in the 1st case) and "antinomianism" (in the 2nd case) are less than helpful is every instance. Because I suppose that one could find each of those tendencies in either activism or quietism.

I define activism as a kind of "mania" concerning one's Christian life, an obsession with maintenance of one's growth and/or sins-accounting, that actually robs one of the actual joy of living in Christ. Can we "grow" ourselves? If I spend time each day "willing" another inch to my stature, will I grow physically thereby? Nonsense, and neither will I "grow" spiritually by willpower. I should "exercise" myself unto godliness, and this is a kind of encouragement-to-growth that also has analogy to our physical life. But I'm not sure that spiritual "bodybuilders" are overall and necessarily more spiritually fit than the one who exercises himself every day in small services for God and his fellowman.

Let me give you a scenario. I sit down and read "love your neighbor." I then have a desire to love my neighbor because I believe these are God's words and that he knows best. I go out to try to love my neighbor. Then I read the quote above that says "As long as we are trying to do anything, he can do nothing. It is because of our trying that we fail and fail and fail." So I stop trying to love my neighbor. wash, rinse, repeat with the entire Bible.

Now, was I willing or exercising as you put it? To me, God tells me to do something in his word and I try to do it. No hidden meanings, just like a child would his father. Why do I try? Because he told me to do it, no more, no less. It just becomes a big discouragement that after I try and fail that a brother comes along and says "you shouldn't have tried in the first place." Huh? Why not? Why would he say do it if he doesn't want our obedience?

"Quietism" is another threat, one to which we are prone especially when the rigors of spiritual "competition" have broken us, and we realize that we've been obsessed with measuring our progress. Whether it is the "let go let God" view, or a more general abandonment of spiritual concern, it is still a failure to connect properly with the "spiritual combat" that characterizes life in the church-militant. And do not think for a minute that quietism is death to spiritual PRIDE; that by no means is a vice confined to the activist.

The Christian life is meant to be a life of maturing in the faith. As you grow (and hopefully exercise) the "outer man" to your development; so too you should experience the life-giving "might" of the Spirit developing your inner man, see Paul's prayer Eph.3:16.

I would really appreciate if you expand on the "let go let God" view. What is it and who pushes this view? Books?

Also, please give me examples of how quietism is not death to spiritual pride. Thanks again for your posts.

 

[No Name #5]

As far as being a puppet, it was a poor choice of wording. I'm thinking more along the lines of antinomianism as was pointed out by others. The following are quotes that, in my opinion, combat the "puppetism."

He doth not so work our mortification in us as not to keep it still an act of our obedience. The Holy Ghost works in us and upon us, as we are fit to be wrought in and upon; that is, so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience. He works upon our understandings, wills, consciences, and affections, agreeably to their own natures; he works in us and with us, not against us or without us; so that his assistance is an encouragement as to the facilitating of the work, and no occasion of neglect as to the work itself.

In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, we act all. For that is what produces, viz. [namely] our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active.

I agree with the Jonathan Edwards quote wholeheartedly, since it's quite overtly monergistic. The John Owen quote, though, is synergism at its worst. I heard good things about Owen, but have never personally studied him; if he advocates this kind of view, though, then I have no choice but to regard him as heterodox. Synergism deifies man to the level of God and transforms His free gift of salvation into a triumph of human power. I can only hope that since the time he said that, he grew theologically by leaps and bounds in the vein of someone like Augustine - otherwise I'm pretty thoroughly disappointed. To quote from the Council of Orange:

"If anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, 'What have you that you did not receive?' (1 Cor. 4:7), and, 'But by the grace of God I am what I am' (1 Cor. 15:10)."

 

[Jack K]

Let me try to explain. Owen's point is that God does not turn us into robots. Although it is God who works in a believer to create obedience, this happens in such a way that we still obey freely, out of a God-given desire to do so.

When we speak about "synergism" vs. "monergism," that's a discussion about how we come to be believers. Reformed teaching asserts that this is all of God, and Owen strongly agreed. But here Owen is speaking about the Christian life after we believe. In that, our new life from God enables us to obey him so that, although we still constantly depend on the Spirit to work in us, we also cooperate in our own sanctification and ongoing obedience. That isn't "synergism" in the bad sense. That's just good, biblical (and Reformed) teaching.

You could learn much from both Owen and Edwards.

 

[Unoriginalname]

I think that the twenty forth chapter of the Belgic Confession compliments Jack K.'s point nicely

We believe that this true faith,being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost,doth regenerate and make him a new man,causing him to live a new life,and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true,that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life,that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God,but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man;for we do not speak of a vain faith,but of such a faith as is called in Scripture a faith that worketh by love,which excites man to the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word. Which works,as they proceed from the good root of faith,are good and acceptable in the sight of God,forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace;howbeit they are of no account towards our justification. For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified,even before we do good works;otherwise they could not be good works,any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good.

Therefore we do good works,but not to merit by them (for what can we merit?) nay,we are beholden to God for the good works we do,and not He to us,since it is He that worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written:When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,say we are unprofitable servants:we have done that which was our duty to do.

In the meantime we do not deny that God rewards our good works,but it is through His grace that He crowns His gifts. Moreover,though we do good works,we do not found our salvation upon them;for we can do no work but what is polluted by our flesh,and also punishable;and although we could perform such works,still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus,then,we would always be in doubt,tossed to and fro without any certainty,and our poor consciences would be continually vexed if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Savior.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Let me give you a scenario. I sit down and read "love your neighbor." I then have a desire to love my neighbor because I believe these are God's words and that he knows best. I go out to try to love my neighbor. Then I read the quote above that says "As long as we are trying to do anything, he can do nothing. It is because of our trying that we fail and fail and fail." So I stop trying to love my neighbor. wash, rinse, repeat with the entire Bible.

Now, was I willing or exercising as you put it? To me, God tells me to do something in his word and I try to do it. No hidden meanings, just like a child would his father. Why do I try? Because he told me to do it, no more, no less. It just becomes a big discouragement that after I try and fail that a brother comes along and says "you shouldn't have tried in the first place." Huh? Why not? Why would he say do it if he doesn't want our obedience?

That's where the quotation fails to do justice to all that God calls us to. Watchman Nee sounds too quietist at that point. Of course we should be trying to love God, by following his will, by "trying." I want my little children to "try" to obey their mother and me. "Failing" is a part of growing, it is the result of "trying." If Watchmen Nee really thinks that he will run his race perseveringly without any efforts at all, he's foolish.

But maybe he isn't so foolish, maybe he's just a little foolish. Maybe he realizes that he still has to get out of bed each day and move, even if he can't run a marathon. If he just lies in bed (because he can't run far enough to compete) then he's going to shrivel up. Maybe quitting "training" for his marathon is what he needs to do, so that one day, he surprises himself when he runs a long distance to give word to the magistrate of some emergency. By stopping obsessing about getting to some "mark" of attainment (like a mark of obedience, or a mark of spirituality) he got to where he needed to be, in time to be of use when he was called on.

I think, this is the sort of "surprise advantage" some people find, when they sort-of "give up" on their aspirations. By becoming less-deliberate, less-scientific, sometimes less is more. A kid with a "body-image" problem might need to stop the diets, or the flexing for the mirror, and just get out and live. Focus on the neighbor, and loving him in any way that comes to mind, and not on how many steps it should move you forward on the upward path, the narrow way. But I don't think Watchman does most people good by advising them to "quit trying," unless such a word is accompanied by all pastoral wisdom and person-specific advice (hard to give in a book) that deals with an obsessive problem.

You just need to attempt what God puts in your heart to do, and not worry about someone coming by and judging your inadequacy. Our failures aren't in our lack of success in hitting some good-deed target. Were you trying to help the little old lady, and you tripped and broke your nose? That's not failure. Our failures are in wanting to do good, but doing evil instead; throwing the little old lady under the bus instead of helping her across the street.

1Tim.4:7 "Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train (exercise) yourself for godliness;"




Do an internet search on the "let go and let God" meme. That should give you access to original ideas and criticisms. In short, it is a frustrating kind of Christianity that expects God to "act" with or for you, after you've become sufficiently detached from your earthly loves or sins. It is hopeful access to a "higher" Christianity, a "second-blessing" sort of state. It really is the "spirituality without trying" idea in other words. The goal seems to be a known datum, but the path to it can only be found by accident. It has a whiff of Gnosticism.


Quietism isn't death to pride, because he who seeks spiritual progress thereby is just as capable of being proud of that achievement by his chosen means, as the worker-bee is by his means. In fact, it can be a worse form of pride, since the person who has put his confidence and his assurance in his technique may think he's gotten his advancement by managing to cut himself loose from pride. "I've found the way to the spiritual highlands, because I've beaten the sin of pride." Uh huh, sure you have. Don't ever buy someone's words about himself, whether he is "honest" about his high achievements, or self-deprecatingly tries to prove his lowly-mind to you. The truly humble man doesn't have to prove anything.

 

[No Name #5]

In that, our new life from God enables us to obey him so that, although we still constantly depend on the Spirit to work in us, we also cooperate in our own sanctification and ongoing obedience. That isn't "synergism" in the bad sense. That's just good, biblical (and Reformed) teaching.

You could learn much from both Owen and Edwards.

(emphasis mine)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to reverentially disagree with you here. I believe - along with the Council of Orange (*see Canons 9, 20, and 23 therein, specifically) - that any type of synergism should be taken with a negative connotation, whether prior or subsequent to regeneration. God explicitly says, "I will not give My glory to another" (Isa 48:11), and this would naturally include the process of sanctification and the continuing obedience of His elect. God and God alone holds the power to sanctify; man is powerless to do so by his own ability in any way, shape, or form. I think Martin Luther put it impeccably in his Bondage of the Will:

"I say that man, before he is renewed into the new creation of the Spirit's kingdom, does and endeavors nothing to prepare himself for that new creation and kingdom, and when he is re-created has does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves..."

But, of course, Scripture illuminates on it best. =] Philippians 2:13:

"For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."

John 15:5:

"Apart from Me you can do nothing."

2 Corinthians 3:5:

"Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God."

(emphasis mine)

*The entirety of the Council of Orange's Canons can be found and conveniently read here: Canons of the Council of Orange. I'll quote Canons 9, 20, and 23 directly:

"CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so."

"CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it."

"CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed."

I think that the twenty forth chapter of the Belgic Confession compliments Jack K.'s point nicely

We believe that this true faith,being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God and the operation of the Holy Ghost,doth regenerate and make him a new man,causing him to live a new life,and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true,that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life,that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God,but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man;for we do not speak of a vain faith,but of such a faith as is called in Scripture a faith that worketh by love,which excites man to the practice of those works which God has commanded in His Word. Which works,as they proceed from the good root of faith,are good and acceptable in the sight of God,forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace;howbeit they are of no account towards our justification. For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified,even before we do good works;otherwise they could not be good works,any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good.

Therefore we do good works,but not to merit by them (for what can we merit?) nay,we are beholden to God for the good works we do,and not He to us,since it is He that worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written:When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,say we are unprofitable servants:we have done that which was our duty to do.

In the meantime we do not deny that God rewards our good works,but it is through His grace that He crowns His gifts. Moreover,though we do good works,we do not found our salvation upon them;for we can do no work but what is polluted by our flesh,and also punishable;and although we could perform such works,still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. Thus,then,we would always be in doubt,tossed to and fro without any certainty,and our poor consciences would be continually vexed if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Savior.

I enthusiastically agree with everything here. =]

 

[Jack K]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to reverentially disagree with you here. I believe - along with the Council of Orange (*see Canons 9, 20, and 23 therein, specifically) - that any type of synergism should be taken with a negative connotation, whether prior or subsequent to regeneration. God explicitly says, "I will not give My glory to another" (Isa 48:11), and this would naturally include the process of sanctification and the continuing obedience of His elect. God and God alone holds the power to sanctify; man is powerless to do so by his own ability in any way, shape, or form. I think Martin Luther put it impeccably in his Bondage of the Will:

"I say that man, before he is renewed into the new creation of the Spirit's kingdom, does and endeavors nothing to prepare himself for that new creation and kingdom, and when he is re-created has does and endeavors nothing towards his perseverance in that kingdom; but the Spirit alone works both blessings in us, regenerating us, and preserving us when regenerate, without ourselves..."

But, of course, Scripture illuminates on it best. =] Philippians 2:13:

"For it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose."

Be sure when you quote Philippians 2:13 that you do it in context. The line immediately preceding the one you gave reads: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Paul's point is that our purposes and God's purposes are joined now that we are in Christ. We work for the same purposes, together. This does not mean we steal any glory due God, as you suggest it might. We would get nowhere apart from God. But it does mean we cooperate in our sanctification.

As for Luther, read the quote you cited carefully. When Luther says our endeavors do not matter he is talking about our perseverance—eternal salvation. But Luther wrote much about how in Christ our will is freed to serve God in obedience. Not to earn anything by it, but still to serve him with vigor and in gratitude. It's one of the main points of the work you cited.

I sense your heart is right here. You want to affirm that we are helpless apart from God. You want to insist that God gets all the glory. And I suspect you are reacting against the sort of ungodly introspection that gets some believers constantly worrying whether or not they've done enough to live for God. You want to say that our hope isn't in what we do. Christ has done enough on our behalf!

In all of these things you are correct. I'm right with you.

What I want you to see is that, as wonderful as those messages are, the salvation God gives us has even more to it than that. It begins now. God doesn't just give us eternal security, he also transforms us. He turns us into people who are empowered, relying on the Spirit, to obey him. Not perfectly yet. But it's real obedience all the same. And while it's not an obedience that earns or secures any part of salvation, still it's one that, in Christ, pleases God.

I wouldn't ordinarily call this cooperation in sanctification a "synergism" because that term is used to describe a wrongheaded view of the work of regeneration. I shouldn't have made it sound like I might use that word. We must always remember that only God's initiative has made all our obedience possible and only his faithfulness assures our ultimate salvation. Again, nothing we do at any point earns our salvation. But still, due to God's amazing kindness to us we have the dutiful privilege of working at our sanctification with efforts that matter, consciously and determinedly. That's the point Owen was making.

 

[VictorBravo]

The John Owen quote, though, is synergism at its worst. I heard good things about Owen, but have never personally studied him; if he advocates this kind of view, though, then I have no choice but to regard him as heterodox.

Liz, may I suggest that your conclusion is a bit rash? When dealing with synergism in sanctification, one ought to be careful to understand what has been said. "Synergism" in and of itself is not a trigger-word of heterodoxy.

Here is another thread dealing with the subject. I direct your attention to Matthew Winzer's posts in that thread. It may give you a better idea of the context of what Owen was discussing.

Also, an answer on Monergism's website gives a good summary of the issue:

Is Sanctification also monergistic?

 

[VictorBravo]

Thinking more about this, and sort of springing from what Bruce said above, Scripture provides a lot of evidence of the sort of activity or exercise we should engage in. Some additional references come to mind:

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

The healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 demonstrates the synergism being discussed:

Mar 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
Mar 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

The paralytic could not do anything on his own. He couldn't move, he had to be carried by four men.

Jesus healed him and told him to pick up his bed and go home.

The paralytic did what he was told. He heard the Master's voice and obeyed it. His own renewed muscles flexed, and he picked up his bed and walked out of there -- under his own power, so to speak.

And nobody there glorified the healed man. Instead, they glorified God because he had enabled the man to do something that previously was impossible for him to do.

This is the proper antidote to quietism. God enables his people to obey him, and his people therefore ought to do what they are told. They are to hear his voice and act according to their new nature. And that obedience is to God's glory alone.

 

[chuckd]

This really means a lot to me. I was getting really discouraged because I do fail in my walk with God and, after confiding in a brother about my failures, he told me that it was because of me trying that I was failing. This discouraged me even more to the point that I went for a walk for hours, with tears, asking "ok God, what do you want? Try?? Don't try??" I really didn't understand, but I'm glad others view sanctification and commandments the way I see it.

For E-Liz, here is a really nice understanding of John Owen's views on the Holy Spirit and sanctification. I think you will really enjoy them. Skip down to the paragraph that begins "Concerning all these acts and duties..."

Pneumatologia - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

*God bless CCEL

 

[py3ak]

I'm joining in late, but there are two quotes that I think add some value to the discussion.

Responding to Watchman Nee's assertion that we shouldn't try (which is conceivably directed against self-effort, but without more context is unhelpfully expressed) I cite Walter Marshall:

Despair of purging the flesh, or natural man of its sinful lusts and inclinations, and of practicing holiness by your willing and resolving to do the best that lies in your own power, and trusting on the grace of God and Christ to help you in such resolutions and endeavours: rather resolve to trust on Christ, 'to work in you to will and do, by His own power, according to His own good pleasure'. They that are convinced of their own sin and misery do commonly first think to tame the flesh, and to subdue and root out its lusts, and to make their corrupt nature to be better natured and inclined to holiness by their struggling and wrestling with it. And if they can but bring their hearts to a full purpose and resolution to do the best that lies in them, they hope that, by such a resolution, they shall be able to achieve great enterprises in the conquest of their lusts and the performance of the most difficult duties. It is the great work of some zealous divines, in their preaching and writings, to stir up people to this resolution, wherein they place the chiefest turning-point from sin to godliness. And they think that this is not contrary to the life of faith, because they trust on the grace of God, through Christ, to help them in all such resolutions and endeavours. Thus they endeavour to reform their old state and to be made perfect in the flesh, instead of putting it off and walking according to the new state in Christ. They trust on low carnal things for holiness, and upon the acts of their own will, their purposes, resolutions and endeavours, instead of Christ; and they trust on Christ to help them in this carnal way; whereas true faith would teach them that they are nothing, and that they do but labour in vain. They may as well wash the blackamoor white as purge the flesh, or natural man, from its evil lusts and make it pure and holy. It is desperately wicked, past all cure. It will unavoidably lust against the Spirit of God, even in the best saints on earth (Gal. 5:17). Its mind is enmity to the law of God and neither is, nor can be subject to it (Rom. 8:7). They that would cure it and make it holy by their own resolutions and endeavours do act quite contrary to the design of Christ's death, for He died, not that the flesh, or old natural man, might be made holy, but that it might be crucified, and destroyed out of us (Rom. 6:6), and that we might live to God, not to ourselves, or by any natural power of our own resolutions and endeavours, but by Christ living in us, and by His Spirit bringing forth the fruits of righteousness in us (Gal. 2:20; 5:24, 25). Therefore, we must be content to leave the natural man vile and wicked as we found it, until it be utterly abolished by death; though we must not allow its wickedness, but rather groan to be delivered from the body of this death, thanking God that there is a deliverance through Jesus Christ our Lord.

There is a "stop trying" contained in there - leave off from efforts to overcome sin by yourself, by your own natural power; but there is no undermining of effort made from faith in Christ, in dependence on the Spirit's enabling. This point is spelled out rather clearly by James Durham:

These two, faith and holiness, are the pillars that bear up the house of assurance — working and not resting on it, believing and yet not growing vain and light because of it; but so much the rather studying holiness....

Whenever we divide these two, we hinder our own progress and involve ourselves in confusion.

 

[No Name #5]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply to me. I hope you understand that it's not the least of my intention to be contentious in any way. I earnestly hope that I wasn't giving that impression, if I was. I just happen to feel very passionate about this subject matter.

Be sure when you quote Philippians 2:13 that you do it in context. The line immediately preceding the one you gave reads: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Paul's point is that our purposes and God's purposes are joined now that we are in Christ. We work for the same purposes, together. This does not mean we steal any glory due God, as you suggest it might. We would get nowhere apart from God. But it does mean we cooperate in our sanctification.

I'm well-aware, and I'm honestly sitting here amazed that you think this verse supports the view that we, as meager human beings, possess any sort of power to sanctify ourselves - albeit if it's "just" succeeding the Lord's regeneration. I'm only reminded, once again, of the powerful words Martin Luther wrote in The Bondage of the Will on pgs. 152-153 (all of which I actually wrote down by hand in one of my notebooks, just because I found it so astonishingly penetrating):

"Here the Diatribe will retort: 'Ecclesiasticus, by saying 'if thou art willing to keep', indicates that there is a will in man to keep or not to keep; otherwise, what is the sense of saying to him who has no will, 'if thou wilt?' Is it not ridiculous to say to a blind man: 'if thou art willing to see, thou wilt find a treasure'? Or to a deaf man: if thou art willing to hear, I will tell thee a good story?' That would be mocking their misery.' I reply: These are arguments of human reason, which is wont to pour out wisdom of this sort. Wherefore, I now have to dispute, not with Ecclesiasticus, but with human reason concerning an inference; for reason, by her inferences & syllogisms, explains & pulls the Scriptures of God whichever way she likes. I shall enter this dispute readily & with confidence, for I know that all her gabblings are stupid & absurd, and especially so when she begins to make a show of her wisdom in holy things.

First then: if I ask how it is proved that the existence of 'free will' in man is indicated and implied wherever the phrases 'if thou art willing', 'if thou shalt do', 'if thou shalt hear' are used, she will say 'Because the nature of words and use of language among men seem to require it.' Therefore she bases her judgment of things and words *that are of God* upon the *customs & concerns of men*; and what is more perverse than that, when the former are heavenly and the latter Earthly? Thus in her stupidity she betrays herself as thinking of God only as of man.

But what if I prove that the nature of words & use of language, even among men, is not always such as to make it an act of mockery to say to the impotent, 'if thou art willing', 'if thou shalt do', 'if thou shalt hear'? How often do parents that play with their children, bidding them to come to them, or do this or that, only in order that it may appear how impotent they are, and that they may be compelled to call for the help of the parents' hand? How often does a faithful physician tell an obstinate patient to do or stop doing things that are impossible or injurious to him, so as to bring him by experience of himself to a knowledge of his disease or weakness, to which he cannot lead him by any other course? And what is more common and widespread than to use insulting & provoking language when we would show our enemies or friends what they can and cannot do? I merely mention these things to show reason how stupid she is to tack her inferences onto the Scriptures, and how blind she is not to see that they do not always hold good even in respect of the words & dealings of men. Let her see a thing occur once, and she jumps precipitately to the conclusion that it occurs as a general rule in all the statements of both God and men, and generalizing from a particular case, which is the way of her wisdom.

If now, God, as a Father, deals with us as with His sons, with a view to show us the impotence of which we are ignorant; or as a faithful physician, with a view to making known to us our disease, or if, to taunt His enemies, who proudly resist His counsel and the laws He has set forth (by which He achieves this end most effectively) He should say: 'do', 'hear', 'keep', or 'if thou shalt hear', 'if thou art willing', 'if thou shalt do'; can it be fairly concluded from this that therefore we can do these things freely, or else God is mocking us? Why should not this conclusion follow rather: therefore, God is trying us, that by His law He may bring us to a knowledge of our impotence, if we are His friends? Or else, He is really and deservedly taunting & mocking us, if we are His proud enemies? For this, as Paul teaches, is the intent of the divine legislation (cf. Ro. 3:20, 5:20: Gal. 3:19, 24). Human nature is blind, so that it does not know its own strength, or rather, sickness; moreover, being proud, it thinks it knows and can do everything. God can cure this pride & ignorance by no readier remedy than the publication of His law. We shall say more of this in its proper place. Let it suffice here to have touched upon it so as to refute this inference of a carnal and stupid wisdom: 'if thou art willing; therefore, thou can will freely.' The Diatribe dreams that man is whole & sound (as to human view, in his own sphere, he is); hence it argues from the phrases, 'if thou at willing', 'if thou shalt do', 'if thou shalt hear', that man is being mocked, unless his will is free. But Scripture describes man as corrupted & led captive, and furthermore, as proudly disdaining to notice, and failing to recognize, his own corruption & captivity; therefore, it uses these phrases to goad and rouse him, that he may know by sure experience how unable he is to do any of these things."

But Luther wrote much about how in Christ our will is freed to serve God in obedience. Not to earn anything by it, but still to serve him with vigor and in gratitude. It's one of the main points of the work you cited.

Would you be gracious enough to provide some examples?

I sense your heart is right here. You want to affirm that we are helpless apart from God. You want to insist that God gets all the glory. And I suspect you are reacting against the sort of ungodly introspection that gets some believers constantly worrying whether or not they've done enough to live for God. You want to say that our hope isn't in what we do. Christ has done enough on our behalf!

I'm glad you sense my heart is right; as it happens, I sense the same in you. =] I think that perhaps you are concerned that if we don't uphold a synergistic view of sanctification, then it would inevitably lead to this dangerous quietism or antinomianism in the Christian life that we've been discussing. I respectfully disagree, however: I think that there's a false dichotomy being set up between the alleged binaries of synergism in sanctification and antinomianism/quietism. I'm simply maintaining, in practice, what Augustine said in his Enchiridion: "Men labor to find in our will something that is our own and not of God, and I know not how it can be found." As I've already affirmed, it certainly APPEARS that from our ectypal perspective we are "working out our salvation with fear and trembling", but in reality - from the archetypal standpoint - it's all of God. So, when we read these commands in God's Word, we should certainly act on them, but that's just evidence of the way the Holy Spirit operates in us. It does not sustain the view of synergism in sanctification.

Thinking more about this, and sort of springing from what Bruce said above, Scripture provides a lot of evidence of the sort of activity or exercise we should engage in. Some additional references come to mind:

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

The healing of the paralytic in Mark 2 demonstrates the synergism being discussed:

Mar 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
Mar 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

The paralytic could not do anything on his own. He couldn't move, he had to be carried by four men.

Jesus healed him and told him to pick up his bed and go home.

The paralytic did what he was told. He heard the Master's voice and obeyed it. His own renewed muscles flexed, and he picked up his bed and walked out of there -- under his own power, so to speak.

And nobody there glorified the healed man. Instead, they glorified God because he had enabled the man to do something that previously was impossible for him to do.

This is the proper antidote to quietism. God enables his people to obey him, and his people therefore ought to do what they are told. They are to hear his voice and act according to their new nature. And that obedience is to God's glory alone.

I would argue that you are misinterpreting these passages. God simply utilizes the demands/encouragements to obey His Word as a kind of means to an end, and this is further evidenced in how He upholds us in our salvation. For example, He cautions actual Christians of life in Hell in Jn. 15:2, 6; Rom. 11:20-22; 1 Cor. 9:25, 27; Rev. 22:19, and elsewhere - and yet simultaneously, He assures us of an afterlife in Heaven. This is simply because He utilizes the caution of us mislaying our faith as the means to keep us in His guaranteed afterlife in Heaven. His cautions of us somehow "mislaying" our faith are the *means* He utilizes to keep us faithfully persisting. It's the way God communicates with mankind EVERYWHERE in the Bible - anthropomorphically. It simply can't be that it's us working with Him synergistically, because of what Paul clearly and unmistakably said in Romans 7:15-20:

"For what I wish, this I do not practice; but what I hate is what I do. However, if what I do not wish is what I do, I agree that the Law is fine. But now the one working it out is no longer I, but sin that resides in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for ability to wish is present with me, but ability to work out what is fine is not [present]. For the good that I wish I do not do, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. If, now, what I do not wish is what I do, the one working it out is no longer I, but the sin dwelling in me."

Furthermore, Acts 27 is an unmistakable instance of God utilizing a warning as a means to an end of completing a promise - "There will be no loss of life among you..." (Acts 27:22), but then suddenly, "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved." (Acts 27:31) How could God possibly caution those sailors of death, while just assuring them that they wouldn't die? He simply utilizes the caution of losing their lives to make them stay in the boat, to protect them from demise. In the same way, He utilizes the demand to obey His commands as the means to endow us with the ability to obey.

 

[Jack K]

I'm honestly sitting here amazed that you think this verse supports the view that we, as meager human beings, possess any sort of power to sanctify ourselves - albeit if it's "just" succeeding the Lord's regeneration.

Yeah, but no one here has said we sanctify ourselves. Read the posts. No one has said that.

What we have said is that part of God's work of grace in us is that he gives us the ability to obey him and to be cooperative, willing—even eager—participants in his sanctifying work in us. The alternative is that our obedience is an illusion and not real obedience at all.

I think that perhaps you are concerned that if we don't uphold a synergistic view of sanctification, then it would inevitably lead to this dangerous quietism or antinomianism in the Christian life that we've been discussing.

It's interesting that I'm having this discussion with you because typically on this board my bent is to affirm the value of resting in Christ. I think this is a first! — the first time anyone here has suggested I'm concerned that we'll get dangerously lax on sin and become antinomian. Usually it's the other way around. Others here worry I'm the antinomian.

But your critique of Owen seemed, frankly, so odd that I had to jump in and explain him... and speak up for working at obedience. I would urge you, as others here have done, to explore these things and come to see that a dependent-on-the-Spirit sort of effort in the Christian life ultimately witnesses more to the grace and sovereignty of God in salvation, not less.

 

[No Name #5]

Yeah, but no one here has said we sanctify ourselves. Read the posts. No one has said that.

In a sense, you are. You are saying God initiates the sanctification process, and we react in kind, proceeding to carry it out - a sort of "You scratch my back, I'll scratch Yours" mutual relationship. In so doing, you put man at the echelon of God as a kind of equal, rather than the superior and Holy Father He in fact is.

The alternative is that our obedience is an illusion and not real obedience at all.

You are thinking in Matthew McMahon's "divided sense" here, rather than from the compound sense. Consider McMahon's chessboard analogy from his book The Two Wills of God. (I'm not arguing that these were his thoughts on synergism/monergism in sanctification, bear in mind; only that I think this analogy works equally well on this issue as it did with McMahon's opposition to the thesis of God comprising two wills.) Picture two chessboards, one on top of the other; this is to illustrate playing a game of chess from two separate dimensions.

"So long as the pieces did not move in a manner that does not befit them (i.e., the bishop could not move sideways), they have the ability to work at either of the two levels."

Now picture these pieces (theological ideas) moving from the first board to the second. As he says:

"Here it would be easily feasible to have 64 pieces divided between 2 boards. And certainly it would be far more challenging to play a game of chess with 64 interwoven pieces on 2 boards! For our purposes, Chessboard 1 is the compound sense (God as He is in Himself but revealed to us) and Chessboard 2 is the divided sense (God entering into human relationships with a revelation of Himself more analogically). Theologically, God could move, interact, and speak to us on either of the two chessboards. The divided sense is a more 'human' sense of the way God desires to be known, and the compound sense is the divine perspective of the way He desires to reveal Himself. They are modes of understanding encapsulated in a manner befitting human beings. It is acceptable to say God repents from the human perspective, whereas from the divine perspective that would be an unacceptable description of the way God is working since we must remember more than just the human situation at hand - we must also remember that God is immutable. The Bible - in the way it condescends the divine down to us so that we may apprehend something of the complexity of God - must take on a great part of this divided sense. God had the Bible written by men, but these men were carried by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21). They had to pen the words in a way which analogically described God in two ways: humanly speaking, as if God had feathers, and divinely speaking, that He is pure spirit. The two ways are not contradictory, but complementary. The two chessboards interact quite well."

When God says to "come", "do", "work", etc., in His Word, He is in a legitimate sense "lisping" to us a la John Calvin in his Institutes. It nevertheless remains to be Him working within us entirely, because there is "no one that does good, not even one". It also remains to be "true" obedience because "obedience" is whatever God defines it to be at the outset.

It's interesting that I'm having this discussion with you because typically on this board my bent is to affirm the value of resting in Christ. I think this is a first! — the first time anyone here has suggested I'm concerned that we'll get dangerously lax on sin and become antinomian. Usually it's the other way around. Others here worry I'm the antinomian.

I'm not antinomian, period. I read the Lord's commands and I desire to do them, but only in *the divided sense*.

But your critique of Owen seemed, frankly, so odd that I had to jump in and explain him... and speak up for working at obedience. I would urge you, as others here have done, to explore these things and come to see that a dependent-on-the-Spirit sort of effort in the Christian life ultimately witnesses more to the grace and sovereignty of God in salvation, not less.

We do indeed obey, and work at doing so, no less - but again, merely in *the divided sense*. It seems to me that my viewpoint is the one that is "dependent-on-the-Spirit", while yours is dependent on man, albeit "halfway".

 

[VictorBravo]

I would argue that you are misinterpreting these passages. God simply utilizes the demands/encouragements to obey His Word as a kind of means to an end, and this is further evidenced in how He upholds us in our salvation.

I don't have much time today to discuss this, but it concerns me that you are not following what is being said. You've already called John Owen heterodox, and, I assume that would include everyone who agrees with him. I think it would be wise to ask yourself if you are missing something. So far, the only arguments I've seen you make fail to deal with the Scriptures that point to renewed and saved man's active responsibility and ability.

Rather than coming up with "divided" command scenarios, I'd suggest reading what the Reformed Confessions and theologians have to say about this aspect of sanctification.

I may be misreading you, but it seems to me that you are rejecting the idea that man can have any volition at all. It sounds like you are saying that his obedience, whatever it may be, is not in any sense springing out of him. I can understand the desire to avoid giving man credit for anything, but this approach ignores the state of the new nature found in the believer.

As the Confession you subscribe to says, WCF Chapter 9, paragraph 4: "When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good. . . ."

I'm having trouble seeing how the above is any different from what Owen and others have been saying here.

 

[Jack K]

I'll have one more go at this. I want to be helpful and I too, when I was younger, had a hard time understanding how Christian obedience could matter and yet not be what our salvation depends on, even in part.

First...

You are saying God initiates the sanctification process, and we react in kind, proceeding to carry it out

No. Again, I am NOT saying that. Please read carefully. No one here has claimed that. Our sanctification is NOT ours to finish. The initiative God provides is NOT one that makes us responsible for taking things the rest of the way. Rather, it's one that makes us eager participants in the work HE is completing in us.

It seems to me that my viewpoint is the one that is "dependent-on-the-Spirit", while yours is dependent on man, albeit "halfway".

Hmm. Somehow, it seems that when I say we "cooperate" and become "willing participants," you read that as being the same thing as "we have to do our half." But they aren't the same thing at all.

The idea that "we have to do our half" would, indeed, be a horrible way to think about it. The better way to think is that "we willingly join in." We do this so full of blunders and mixed motives that if our sanctification depended on us to complete it, it would surely fail. Thankfully, it depends on the Spirit, not on us.

So, prompted by God, I can undertake to stop doing a particular sin and, with prayer and attention to the other means of grace, be successful—and give all glory to God! He was NOT waiting for me to do "my part." I was relying on him. Yet I was, at the same time, working hard (in a constantly dependent way) toward the same goal for my life that he has. We share this same goal because he has freed me from bondage to sin.

Praise God! I'm not just saved in spite of my sin. I'm also transformed into a person who battles sin in my life and can do truly good works. Now, these good works do NOT earn me points with God. And my battle with sin does NOT mean I bear part of the burden for my salvation. No! Christ has borne my sin, his righteousness is my standing with God, and the Spirit is sanctifying me. Yet, the life I live in Christ is part of the richness of my salvation. With gratitude for his grace and hope in my future, I eagerly work at it, knowing that "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

Do you see how the idea that we must do "our half" cheapens all that? So when I say we cooperate with the Spirit in our sanctification, please don't read that as the same thing as saying the job is half ours. We aren't equal partners.

 

[No Name #5]

Perhaps I was too rash in calling John Owen heterodox; I should have chosen my words more carefully. It simply *seems* that way at times. For that, I humbly apologize. I simply (and kindly) disagree with the view of synergism in sanctification, but that is clearly insufficient for the charge of heterodoxy.

First of all, to Raymond: I do believe that we have volition in sanctification, but merely in the divided sense, not the compound. According to the compound sense, we are completely and entirely sanctified (thanks be to God's mercy), but in the divided, we are (partly) unsanctified sinners and cannot increase it to our credit. I would simply interpret the WCF in Chapter 9, paragraph 4, as saying that we are "free to do that which is spiritually good" in the divided sense. Thus, to say that I believe our obedience does not spring from us "in any sense" (as you represent my view) is wholly inaccurate.

Jack and Raymond: At times, I'm tempted to say this disagreement between us is simply a miscommunication arising from a confused intermingling of the divided & compound senses, but then I see one of you say something like this:

I'll have one more go at this. I want to be helpful and I too, when I was younger, had a hard time understanding how Christian obedience could matter and yet not be what our salvation depends on, even in part.

(emphasis mine)

Here you seem to be explicitly saying that our salvation depends, in part, on our obedience. I'm afraid that I'd have to assert that view *is* indeed heterodox. But then you say:

Our sanctification is NOT ours to finish. The initiative God provides is NOT one that makes us responsible for taking things the rest of the way. Rather, it's one that makes us eager participants in the work HE is completing in us.

Which I agree with wholeheartedly. From my perspective, you appear to be speaking from both sides of your mouth, and that was my incentive for addressing this issue to begin with - the fact that, without bearing in mind the divided & compound senses, referring to us as if we are "cooperating" with God seems to be dangerously flirting with the idea of us being responsible for our salvation.

What am I missing?

 

[VictorBravo]

Liz, thanks for pausing to reflect. As I said before, I have little time today--but, your question quoting Jack seems to show a misunderstanding of what he said. Look again at the portion you quoted:

. . .
Jack and Raymond: At times, I'm tempted to say this disagreement between us is simply a miscommunication arising from a confused intermingling of the divided & compound senses, but then I see one of you say something like this:

I'll have one more go at this. I want to be helpful and I too, when I was younger, had a hard time understanding how Christian obedience could matter and yet not be what our salvation depends on, even in part.

(emphasis mine)

Here you seem to be explicitly saying that our salvation depends, in part, on our obedience.

Jack is saying that in his youth he was trying to reconcile the following two points:

(1) How is it that Christian obedience is important,

(2) Even though it is not what salvation depends on.

Which is not at all what you concluded from his statement:

Here you seem to be explicitly saying that our salvation depends, in part, on our obedience.

Blessings, and feel free to call me Vic.

 

[Jack K]

Here you seem to be explicitly saying that our salvation depends, in part, on our obedience.

Are you just having fun with me? I'll assume maybe I wasn't clear.

Please notice I wrote "not" in that sentence. Our obedience is not something our salvation depends on. Not even in part. (Though obedience must surely be part of the salvation experience, since God doesn't leave his saving work incomplete.)

referring to us as if we are "cooperating" with God seems to be dangerously flirting with the idea of us being responsible for our salvation.

Clearly in your mind it does. This is why I'm trying to walk you through this. Please keep in mind that for the past few hundred years of Reformed thought people have spoken of cooperating with the Spirit in sanctification without meaning that by it we're responsible for getting ourselves saved. Cooperation in sanctification is simply NOT the same thing as earning our salvation.

Let's try an illustration:

Imagine a father crossing a busy street with his two-year-old son. The father could carry him, but part of his love for the child is seeing that the child grows up. So he takes the two-year-old by the hand and, at the right time, walks with the child safely across the street. They made it. Now, did the two-year-old cooperate? Yes. He walked with his dad, willingly and trustingly. Part of the father's love in the child's life is that the two-year-old has learned both to walk and to trust. So the child cooperated, and the father was happy to have the child participate. But would you give the child any of the credit? I hope not. The child's cooperation was not necessary for the two to get across the street. Still, for the growth of the child it was good of the father to allow—perhaps even insist—that the child participate by walking with him hand-in-hand. And the child's participation and effort were real participation and effort, not an illusion. At the end of the walk the child might even look up to his father with a grin and say, "I made it!" and the pleased father would tell him, "Well done!"

Now, that's just an illustration. Don't try to pick it apart too much. No illustration works in every detail. The point is simply to show this: cooperation is NOT the same thing as bearing the responsibility.

 

[No Name #5]

Thanks so much for the clarification, Jack and Vic. I misunderstood. Nevertheless, I still stand by my original view that sanctification is a gift of God's - by His grace - for those whom He chooses. It's not dependent on any man's works, lest a man be able to boast of having "more" sanctification than those with "less". I'm concerned that, if we follow the synergistic view of sanctification, this would cause men to see other men as either more or less sanctified due to their obedience or lack thereof. I know, for instance, that many who are new in the Faith are made more sanctified than those who have been Faithful for years. How would you respond to this?

 

[VictorBravo]

Thanks so much for the clarification, Jack and Vic. I misunderstood. Nevertheless, I still stand by my original view that sanctification is a gift of God's - by His grace - for those whom He chooses. It's not dependent on any man's works, lest a man be able to boast of having "more" sanctification than those with "less".

Yes, a gift of God. We are enabled by his Spirit to hear his voice. We are enabled by his Spirit to do his works. It is the work of God to transform totally depraved sinful creatures into children of God. He grants those children new natures. That nature is such that it wants to hear the voice of the Master and do the work he tells them to do. But, of course, as you've noted in Romans 7, there is a tug of war. Our flesh resists what our natures would do. Indwelling sin is something that God has left in us to work through, guided by his Spirit.

I am certain he does this to his glory. As we struggle with obedience, we gain painful understanding of what we really have been saved from. A sanctified soul is one who would never boast in the work God has performed in him.

As Paul says in 1 Thess. 5:24, speaking of the work of sanctification: "Faithful is he that calleeth you, who also will do it."

But it is always good to keep in mind the tension of Scripture. Immediately before the verse above, Paul provided a "to-do" list that the "children of light" are to follow.

His sheep hear his voice and obey. There are things we are called to do. When we obey, it is because the Spirit enables us. When we disobey, it is because of our sin. So we have the proddings of Christ's commands and the promise of his salvation--and none of it is to any man's glory, but to God's alone.

I'm concerned that, if we follow the synergistic view of sanctification, this would cause men to see other men as either more or less sanctified due to their obedience or lack thereof. I know, for instance, that many who are new in the Faith are made more sanctified than those who have been Faithful for years. How would you respond to this?

Sure, the word "synergistic" has bad connotations related to Pelagianism in the context of justification. But the word means "working together." That sense is proper when it comes to our walk with our Lord after he has brought us to faith, after we have been given the new heart and the ears to hear. If we are not working as he has called us, we are not being obedient. If we are not obedient, we are not acting like his sheep.

But we are to always remember that it is not our work that we are working, but God's work. None has any right to boast any more than a beautiful flower has the right to boast. God shapes the nature of his creatures. And he has formed the nature of a new believer to respond to his commands and do them. And, as I said above, it seems part of the scheme of sanctification is for us to learn, firsthand, how impossible it is for us to do any good work unless he works within us.

"Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it."

That's the best I can do right now.

 

[Jack K]

Thanks so much for the clarification, Jack and Vic. I misunderstood. Nevertheless, I still stand by my original view that sanctification is a gift of God's - by His grace - for those whom He chooses. It's not dependent on any man's works, lest a man be able to boast of having "more" sanctification than those with "less". I'm concerned that, if we follow the synergistic view of sanctification, this would cause men to see other men as either more or less sanctified due to their obedience or lack thereof. I know, for instance, that many who are new in the Faith are made more sanctified than those who have been Faithful for years. How would you respond to this?

I have no big objections to that, and there's much I like in it. For sure, all of our salvation—including our sanctification—is by God's grace.

I'm not convinced that acknowledging our cooperation in sanctification necessarily leads to boastful comparisons to others. Certainly, we're all prone to play the game of comparing ourselves, but I'm not sure working at obedience tends to make it worse or more likely. Personally, my struggles to obey tend to make me more humble and understanding of others, not more boastful, as I realize how dependent I am on God at every step. In any case, I heartily agree that we have no cause to boast—or feel insecure—no matter how obedient we are or how quickly we grow as believers.

Sanctification is a tricky animal to understand. One aspect of it is definitive (happens immediately and it's done). We're all made holy, period. But another aspect of it is ongoing or progressive. We grow and keep growing—and all at different rates. Both are part of God's goodness to us. But in that second sense, some of us are more sanctified than others and some of us get to these levels of spiritual maturity more quickly than others. If your point is that this isn't simply proportionate to how much effort we seem to have put in, then I agree.

 

[No Name #5]

Thanks so much for the clarification, Jack and Vic. I misunderstood. Nevertheless, I still stand by my original view that sanctification is a gift of God's - by His grace - for those whom He chooses. It's not dependent on any man's works, lest a man be able to boast of having "more" sanctification than those with "less".

Yes, a gift of God. We are enabled by his Spirit to hear his voice. We are enabled by his Spirit to do his works. It is the work of God to transform totally depraved sinful creatures into children of God. He grants those children new natures. That nature is such that it wants to hear the voice of the Master and do the work he tells them to do. But, of course, as you've noted in Romans 7, there is a tug of war. Our flesh resists what our natures would do. Indwelling sin is something that God has left in us to work through, guided by his Spirit.

I am certain he does this to his glory. As we struggle with obedience, we gain painful understanding of what we really have been saved from. A sanctified soul is one who would never boast in the work God has performed in him.

As Paul says in 1 Thess. 5:24, speaking of the work of sanctification: "Faithful is he that calleeth you, who also will do it."

But it is always good to keep in mind the tension of Scripture. Immediately before the verse above, Paul provided a "to-do" list that the "children of light" are to follow.

His sheep hear his voice and obey. There are things we are called to do. When we obey, it is because the Spirit enables us. When we disobey, it is because of our sin. So we have the proddings of Christ's commands and the promise of his salvation--and none of it is to any man's glory, but to God's alone.

I'm concerned that, if we follow the synergistic view of sanctification, this would cause men to see other men as either more or less sanctified due to their obedience or lack thereof. I know, for instance, that many who are new in the Faith are made more sanctified than those who have been Faithful for years. How would you respond to this?

Sure, the word "synergistic" has bad connotations related to Pelagianism in the context of justification. But the word means "working together." That sense is proper when it comes to our walk with our Lord after he has brought us to faith, after we have been given the new heart and the ears to hear. If we are not working as he has called us, we are not being obedient. If we are not obedient, we are not acting like his sheep.

But we are to always remember that it is not our work that we are working, but God's work. None has any right to boast any more than a beautiful flower has the right to boast. God shapes the nature of his creatures. And he has formed the nature of a new believer to respond to his commands and do them. And, as I said above, it seems part of the scheme of sanctification is for us to learn, firsthand, how impossible it is for us to do any good work unless he works within us.

"Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it."

That's the best I can do right now.

Thanks so much for the clarification, Jack and Vic. I misunderstood. Nevertheless, I still stand by my original view that sanctification is a gift of God's - by His grace - for those whom He chooses. It's not dependent on any man's works, lest a man be able to boast of having "more" sanctification than those with "less". I'm concerned that, if we follow the synergistic view of sanctification, this would cause men to see other men as either more or less sanctified due to their obedience or lack thereof. I know, for instance, that many who are new in the Faith are made more sanctified than those who have been Faithful for years. How would you respond to this?

I have no big objections to that, and there's much I like in it. For sure, all of our salvation—including our sanctification—is by God's grace.

I'm not convinced that acknowledging our cooperation in sanctification necessarily leads to boastful comparisons to others. Certainly, we're all prone to play the game of comparing ourselves, but I'm not sure working at obedience tends to make it worse or more likely. Personally, my struggles to obey tend to make me more humble and understanding of others, not more boastful, as I realize how dependent I am on God at every step. In any case, I heartily agree that we have no cause to boast—or feel insecure—no matter how obedient we are or how quickly we grow as believers.

Sanctification is a tricky animal to understand. One aspect of it is definative (happens immediately and it's done). We're all made holy, period. But another aspect of it is ongoing or progressive. We grow and keep growing—and all at different rates. Both are part of God's goodness to us. But in that second sense, some of us are more sanctified than others and some of us get to these levels of spiritual maturity more quickly than others. If your point is that this isn't simply proportionate to how much effort we seem to have put in, then I agree.

To all of this I can only give a resounding amen. Both of your responses were beautiful, and I'm thrilled to say that I agree entirely. I'm really pleased to discover that we actually see eye to eye on our incapacity to earn sanctification.