Two Kinds Of Holiness?

[Reformed Roman]

I was reading "The Pursuit of Holiness" by Jerry Bridges.

I was reading a chapter where he was talking about holiness. He was pretty much saying there are two types of holiness talked about in scripture. I don't recall him defining them with terms, but he described them. One type was how God makes us fully holy and righteous before Him. But Jerry also talked about another type of holiness we are called to strive for. And that God calls us to.

Again he was talking about walking in a standard of holiness, and that it didn't mean walking in perfection but that walking in holiness is bsaically living a life for God, living set apart by what we do. But it was so vague I just couldn't comprehend it. Because I know I've sinned and screwed up and I haven't walked in holiness like I should.

Are there terms for different types of holiness? Are there even different types talked about in scripture? And how can I practically wrestle with this. I feel like I constantly would live with guilt. I know I'm a sinner and I know I've been unholy. Yet that normally causes me to rely so much on grace that I get relaxed in responsibility. But even the thought of trying to "walk in holiness" seems to make me think "I've failed, that's why I need Christ". And it just seems like trying to meet a standard I can't keep. So I just need a little clarification and practical help

 

[KMK]

Again, the words of the confession are helpful:

LBC Chapter 13aragraph 1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally,1 through the same virtue, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them;

There is a definitive sanctification when we are united to Christ, called, and regenerated.

There is a progressive sanctification when we are 'farther' sanctified through the abiding of the Word and Spirit in this life.

Your feelings of guilt are misplaced, I think, because you are mingling justification with sanctification. In justification, all of your guilt was charged to Christ, and His righteousness was credited to you. You may fall short of the standard, but you are in no way guilty. In sanctification, we grow in grace more and more but will never achieve the standard. But, that cannot make us 'guilty'. You will feel the need to repent. You will feel the chastisement of a loving Father, but to feel 'guilt' is to tear down at what Christ has done in justification.

 

[Reformed Roman]

Perhaps this comes from my feeling of the word "holiness".

When I think of holiness I think of perfection. I think of a standard that only God can set. And being told I can achieve walking in holiness is something that makes me scratch my head, because even the thought of that would make me feel guilty.

 

[psycheives]

Dear Zach, please keep in mind that book is very old and since then Bridges has developed his theology more and so that book is kind of out of date. In fact, today he implied that the book title includes a bit of an Arminian influence that he had not shed back in those days and if he had to do over, he wouldn't call it that. He sees the title as too man-centered rather than God-centered. And this causes me concern about the contents of the book as well. It didn't include all the usual Reformed emphases.

I recently re-read the book and I also find it overall quite unhelpful and that it doesn't address the deeper issues of struggling with sin. Bridges' newer books are better. Still, keep in mind that Bridges is not Reformed and runs in circles with men emphasizing more of a man-centered view. I have read many accurate things in his sanctification books, but I don't know if he gets the whole picture correct. I haven't read enough.

And although John Piper is also not Reformed, these teachings are in line with our views: See John Piper Gal 3 sermons and Piper's APTAT teaching on Desiring God website. Also read John Owen on sanctification. He's one of the best. And get John Hendryx's book "Christ Our Sanctification" Christ Our Sanctification: The Reformed View of Mortification and Vivification by Grace - Kindle edition by Varioius Authors, John Hendryx. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Kevin DeYoung also wrote a great book called The Hole In Our Holiness. Good book that shows that gratitude (while being a primary motivator) is not the only reason for obeying God. He goes right to the scriptures. So I would recommend you go to Piper first, Hendryx and Owen (either order) and lastly DeYoung Have fun!

Oh, and Reformed Christians believe the Lord's Supper is a "means of grace", which means that God may sanctify us through our partaking in Christ through the supper.

And one more essential thing is that the Reformed hold to the THREE USES OF THE LAW. Almost no other Christians recognize this belief and this causes them to lead guilt-driven, fear-driven sanctification methods that are unbiblical. The 3 uses of the law is what allows Reformed Christians to understand they are truly forgiven and under NO CONDEMNATION before God. The first use of the law is most commonly taught to unbelievers but reminded to Christians. The first use of the law is the belief that the law is given to condemn sinners and to make them recognize their failure to keep God's law perfectly. When we know we have failed and can never succeed, we are driven to Christ, who succeeded for us. Since he succeeded for us, we are relieved of the fear and guilt of trying to attain an impossible standard. As Christians, we live under the third use of the law. This is the view that the Christian isn't under condemnation and knows he won't live perfectly but that Christ lived perfectly for us so we will always be right with God. NOW that we know we are always right with God because of what Christ did for us, we can live according to the law of God (which we now see as guidelines/directions/the idea of the Christian life) out of love and gratitude and admiration for God and his law. We now see God's law as great and not scary anymore. Hope this helps!

 

[Reformed Roman]

Dear Zach, please keep in mind that book is very old and since then Bridges has developed his theology more and so that book is kind of out of date. In fact, today he implied that the book title includes a bit of an Arminian influence that he had not shed back in those days and if he had to do over, he wouldn't call it that. He sees the title as too man-centered rather than God-centered. And this causes me concern about the contents of the book as well. It didn't include all the usual Reformed emphases.

I recently re-read the book and I also find it overall quite unhelpful and that it doesn't address the deeper issues of struggling with sin. Bridges' newer books are better. Still, keep in mind that Bridges is not Reformed and runs in circles with men emphasizing more of a man-centered view. I have read many accurate things in his sanctification books, but I don't know if he gets the whole picture correct. I haven't read enough.

And although John Piper is also not Reformed, these teachings are in line with our views: See John Piper Gal 3 sermons and Piper's APTAT teaching on Desiring God website. Also read John Owen on sanctification. He's one of the best. And get John Hendryx's book "Christ Our Sanctification" Christ Our Sanctification: The Reformed View of Mortification and Vivification by Grace - Kindle edition by Varioius Authors, John Hendryx. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.

Kevin DeYoung also wrote a great book called The Hole In Our Holiness. Good book that shows that gratitude (while being a primary motivator) is not the only reason for obeying God. He goes right to the scriptures. So I would recommend you go to Piper first, Hendryx and Owen (either order) and lastly DeYoung Have fun!

Oh, and Reformed Christians believe the Lord's Supper is a "means of grace", which means that God may sanctify us through our partaking in Christ through the supper.

And one more essential thing is that the Reformed hold to the THREE USES OF THE LAW. Almost no other Christians recognize this belief and this causes them to lead guilt-driven, fear-driven sanctification methods that are unbiblical. The 3 uses of the law is what allows Reformed Christians to understand they are truly forgiven and under NO CONDEMNATION before God. The first use of the law is most commonly taught to unbelievers but reminded to Christians. The first use of the law is the belief that the law is given to condemn sinners and to make them recognize their failure to keep God's law perfectly. When we know we have failed and can never succeed, we are driven to Christ, who succeeded for us. Since he succeeded for us, we are relieved of the fear and guilt of trying to attain an impossible standard. As Christians, we live under the third use of the law. This is the view that the Christian isn't under condemnation and knows he won't live perfectly but that Christ lived perfectly for us so we will always be right with God. NOW that we know we are always right with God because of what Christ did for us, we can live according to the law of God (which we now see as guidelines/directions/the idea of the Christian life) out of love and gratitude and admiration for God and his law. We now see God's law as great and not scary anymore. Hope this helps!

Great in-depth response. I appreciate it! Bridges has always been recommended to me, and has been "reformed" from what I've read. So I'm not sure if we differ on that definition. Perhaps he was less reformed when he wrote this book?

I agree though that there are other authors that could be of help on the subject. And perhaps would be better uses, especially if he's had better thoughts on the topic since then.

 

[Reformed Roman]

This is from an interview he did with ligoneer in 2012. Here's a quote:

I started to teach this principle of “dependent responsibility.” Then I was challenged by a friend to try writing. My first book, The Pursuit of Holiness, became a best-seller. But I soon realized that a pursuit of holiness that is not founded on grace and the gospel can lead to a performance mentality and even to discouragement. That’s when I began to emphasize grace and the gospel as foundational to the pursuit of holiness.

It is my desire that as a result of reading my books, people will seek to pursue holiness out of gratitude for what God has done for us in Christ. There is no doubt that it is our duty to pursue holiness. But I want believers to desire to do out of gratitude what is our duty to do. I want to see the “ought to” mentality replaced with a “want to” attitude.

I don't necessarily think there is an arminian base for the book here. I just think the book was more specifically talking about our responsibilities as christians. It talked some about grace, but the emphasis was on our responsibility. Again, that is good, and it needs to be talked about. But it seems like from his response he would have added a chapter or two in the beginning and the end to emphasize grace. I've read many of his books and grace flows from the pages.

So I think as long as I continue to read with a "grace" prespective it can help me out. Honestly I've gotten so much grace talk in the past that I've forgotten that I'm actually responsible to act and to do. Yet I know I can only act through Him, and by seeking Him. It's a quick book though, so I might try to finish it quickly and then mix in some good Piper on the subject.

 

[Jack K]

Zach:

Allow me to second the point that Bridges has changed his thinking substantially since he wrote The Pursuit of Holiness. I recommend Bookends of the Christian Life for a basic statement of his current understanding of how to approach Christian living. I have little doubt you'll notice the difference. It's still concerned with holiness, but much more grounded in the work of God—both for us and in us. For that reason I think it may help with your guilty feelings. The Pursuit of Holiness is not really a good book for a person who has that sort of struggle. I would never give that book to a person who said he was struggling with guilt or feeling like a failure when it comes to holy living.

This sounds to me like the real heart of your question. But do notice that Ken gave a clear and good answer to your stated question about two types of holiness. Yes, there are two types. Think of them as two aspects of salvation, which is a multi-faceted work of God in us and for us. Among other things, salvation includes both a definitively changed heart and growth in actual holy living (though this growth may feel painfully slow to us at times). It includes both grace which we were powerless to cooperate with and grace now to join in with the Spirit's agenda for our lives. God is good! He does so much for us when he saves us. And because this second type of holiness is progressive, we need not get discouraged when we see (often with greater clarity every day) that our lives now are still far less holy than we would like them to be.

 

[Reformed Roman]

Zach:

Allow me to second the point that Bridges has changed his thinking substantially since he wrote The Pursuit of Holiness. I recommend Bookends of the Christian Life for a basic statement of his current understanding of how to approach Christian living. I have little doubt you'll notice the difference. It's still concerned with holiness, but much more grounded in the work of God—both for us and in us. For that reason I think it may help with your guilty feelings. The Pursuit of Holiness is not really a good book for a person who has that sort of struggle. I would never give that book to a person who said he was struggling with guilt or feeling like a failure when it comes to holy living.

This sounds to me like the real heart of your question. But do notice that Ken gave a clear and good answer to your stated question about two types of holiness. Yes, there are two types. Think of them as two aspects of salvation, which is a multi-faceted work of God in us and for us. Among other things, salvation includes both a definitively changed heart and growth in actual holy living (though this growth may feel painfully slow to us at times). It includes both grace which we were powerless to cooperate with and grace now to join in with the Spirit's agenda for our lives. God is good! He does so much for us when he saves us. And because this second type of holiness is progressive, we need not get discouraged when we see (often with greater clarity every day) that our lives now are still far less holy than we would like them to be.

Let me just say any type of holiness seems to me like a perfection I can't have. Holiness seems like it's almost only reserved for God to me, just when I think about it.

I also struggle with being passive and just hoping God will strike me with some type of huge desire or faith to go do things, when I don't get those things I tend to pass off godly disciplines. So I struggle with prayer sometimes, getting in the word, and basic things, and when God doesn't do His part, instead of taking responsibility I tend to be pretty passive as well. So I struggle with two different things that conflict with each other.

I struggle and always have struggled much with feeling overly guilty. Yet at the same time I also struggle with relying so much on grace (in a passive type of way at least) that it causes me to be still and expect God to do all the work without any effort.