He that endures to the end

I am in the final weeks of a decent semester, but I really don't want to keep pushing.  There are many times in life where hardship looks bad: cancer, loss of a loved one, persecution.  But the reality of my life is that most of my hardship appears in the form of drudgery.  Long hours invested in projects with people who don't end up growing.  Huge amounts of time put into projects for school that seem pointless.  Putting priorities in place that mean that my yard is a wreak, but my school work is getting done.  My kids have a parent at home, and I work until the project gets done, sometimes late into the night.

The reality is that of such sacrifices most greatness is build. Athletes spend years training for one single event. Which is over in a couple of seconds, or at most a few hours.  I am in training- still - again - And training is drudgery for a cause.  So long as I don't loose sight of the goal the details of my life are worth it.

Really it is not that much different than a terminal illness.  The things that hold you to your course, and keep your spirits up are identical.  Sleep deprivation and physical weakness are the enemies of faithfully reaching the end of the race. But the real problem is want to. 

When Jesus speaks to the churches in Revelation, he is speaking to people not in seminary, and not in a cancer ward, but under persecution.  And his charge over and over is to endure to the end.  Somehow in God's providence there is room for us to make the choice to continue.  The strength to make it is his, the ability to overcome is his, the Grace is all his.  But somehow my human weakness is the place where a choice must be made.

So I will endure- and do my homework until the end. And then I will clean up that terrible yard.

JC Ryle and Romans 7

So I have been interacting with JC Ryle, in his hundred year old text on Holiness, and there are several things that have jumped to the fore as I have been thinking about this whole process of self-examination and sanctification etc. J.C Ryle insistst that sanctification admits of degrees. Now he carefully qualifies that by saying that a really sanctified individual may not know it himself and that there are two major tests that must be in place: first a person must know his own sinful status, and others must see objective fruit in your life.

I find it odd that this has become an issue for me at Seminary. In normal circumstances I am generally more prone than others to point out the need for confession and repentance. “Search Me of God” is one of my favorite songs -judged by how frequently I insert it in the schedule- and my youth group get's to hear about confession and repentance on a regular basis. But apparently that doesn't translate well to an academic context.

It may be that we are speaking past each other. Except for the issue of Romans 7:14. I did a detailed paper on Romans 7 a while back, and I realized that I am in the minority in terms of the application of the passage. But then I have started reading people like Owen and others and I have realized that the high standards of exegesis that I have been encouraged to use. Combined with C.S. Lewis' observation that mistakes in old Books are safer because they are more glaring from a century or more away, have pointed to three things about Romans 7:

1. Many of the people who use Romans seven, are committing a classic fallacy, where you propound a true doctrine, from a text that doesn't actually have bearing on it. Such with the doctrine of struggle with sin in the believer. Galatians 5:17 is clear enough on that point, but Romans seven is not in the context of sanctification but an extended discussion on Justification, and reconciliation of which sanctification is the fruit Rom 6:22 – As J.C, Ryle rightly pointed out doctrines must be distinguished from one another if we are to retain any of them. Romans does not get to sanctified living per-say, until chapter 12. We are in an extended section on Reconciliation in Romans 6-8. Reconciliation -which I think is what people are getting at when they talk about identity in Christ as being so important - is one of the fruits of our union with Christ, and it's practical application is that we are restored as servants to God. Reconciliation leads to presenting our members in service to God.
2. The main challenges to viewing Romans seven in it's context rather than in a series of less connected little rants is that very strong language of love for God's law, in verses 21, and 25. According to the majority view it seems that an unregenerate person must hate God's law in the inner man, as a logical necessity. And a Regenerate individual must love God's law in the inner man. If Paul is saying that an unbeliever can love God's law in the inner man, then Paul is wrong by locigal necessity. My response is that according to the whole book of Romans the point of the Law is that an unregenerate individual would see the goodness of God's law and be convicted of sin – in my understanding that means that an unbeliever, in his inner man, recognizes the goodness of the law, in other words he can be said to love the law, but be totally incapable of honoring it. For instance the Jew of 2:18 who knows and approves what is excellent, or the statement of 3:20 that knowledge of sin comes through the law, which in the immediate context is the precise point that Paul makes in 7:7-11. Rendering that objection less difficult in my mind. That fact that Paul engages in strong present tense language, is also mentioned, but I take that as a rhetorical device to add emphasis to the visceral quality of the struggle.
3. A third interesting challenge in understanding Romans 7, is that Owens at least seems to think through soteriology with the Law of God condemning the unregenerate as a necessary step. The election, and effectual call, of God is first felt as the Holy Spirit applies the Law in the conscience condemning an individual through the law, and then we see regeneration, justification and reconciliation, in response to hearing the Gospel. That is the precise layout of the logic of Romans 7, and it fits the broader context of the book, along with the close context of the surrounding passages. This being said, Romans seven is usually referenced in regard to indwelling sin in the believer and not salvation, justification or reconciliation which are the themes of these passages.

These things lead to a weakening of the doctrine of indwelling, active, and captivating sin in the believer. That the believer still struggles with sin is not in question, hence the second half of most of Paul's writings, the clear teaching of Peter, James and John. The question is about how active, and powerful sin is. And I think the reality is that it is the passions of the flesh in the heart of the believer which draw us back to sin (Rom 6:12; 1 Cor 7:36; 1 Tim 5:11; 2 Tim 2:22; 2 Tim 3:4; Titus 2:12; James 4:1, 3; 1 Peter 1:14; 1 Peter 2:11; 2 Peter 2:18) but sin itself is a dead master, it has no right to dominion, and it is defeated in the righteousness of Christ. It needs to be actively resisted, by denying (crucifying) the passions of the flesh, and submitting our members as the slaves of righteousness that we are. But the problem is in us- not imposed on us by an external force that dwells in us. Sin does indeed cause tremendous amounts of problems- but it is not an active force within us, because we are reconciled to God. The Spirit of God sets us free (Rom 8:1).

There is a really scary second issue that JC Ryle brings up, and which I am inclined to believe. And that is that there are a lot of people who say they are Christian, but who habitually walk in the lusts of the flesh. And they are probably not save at all.

Not to minimize that point at all, there are Christians who struggle with sin, who get entrapped in sin, and who capitulate to sin. But a genuine Christian can't get away with it, because God will discipline those he loves! This is accomplished in part through Church discipline, and in a major way through suffering but more terrifying through the direct judgement of God. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of a living God -ask Ananias and Saphira.

The fact that there are so many in churches who claim to be believers, who at the same time can walk in habitual patterns of sin, without qualms of conscience, or the discipline of God is a sign of God's merciful forbearance on unbelievers allowing that they to might come to repentance, if they hear the gospel faithfully proclaimed.

A caveat is needed here: just because a Christian suffers is not an indication of discipline or judgement. Job should be a bright neon warning not to jump to that conclusion. If God is disciplining for sin, the sin will be obvious enough that a person can see it. Although the Bible talks about secret sins, or sins of ignorance- which do bring consequences (Leviticus, and the story of Achan make that clear), sin can only be confessed and repented when it is brought into the light. The offerings for unknown sins, were required when a person realized their guilt. While we should be quick to repent of sins we are aware of, and of which we are made aware, through the clear teaching of Scripture. Endless soul searching for phantom sins that cause the problems in our lives is a fruit of health-and-wealth theology, and not a Biblical concept. Christians suffer. All suffering has value in making us more like Christ. Not all suffering is discipline for sin.

Thoughts from this side of Sanctification

The goofy reality is that even with 2000 years of history behind us Christians don't agree about a lot of things.  Not a surprise. With human nature what it is and with the continuous tendency to stray from the simple truth, it is to be expected, but it is still goofy.


So here I sit a seminary student trying to figure out sanctification, the various schools of thought don't really seem to help much when it comes to actually counseling people, and trying to figure out what I am supposed to be doing. People are much more complex than a simple description can cover, and sin is more insidious than a simple response will address. 


The beautiful thing is that God is still very clear about two things.  He does the saving.  We are justified by his grace apart from any works of (un)righteousness that we may produce (Gal 2:21). and having been saved by grace we cannot then proceed to sanctification by works either (Gal3:3).   But there is a profound change that takes place once we have entered into union with Christ (Gal 3:27) and we are now heirs together with Abraham of God's GRACE (Gal 3:29). And the key issue in sanctification seems to be one of relationship (sometimes referred to as identity).  We are sons of God (Gal 4:6), and that change of relationship means we do not have to go back to relating to God from a position of debtor, or even of beggar (Gal 4:9). Our relationship with God is one aimed at freedom (Gal5:1) and that is a powerful concept, if you are free act like it!! Once we are in Christ - the only thing that matters is faith working itself out in love (Gal 5:6). We are no longer trying to keep a set of rules designed to keep us from sinful behavior that cannot change our hearts, and we are not tied to external symbols of God's grace, we have Christ in us! 

We are indeed free, and the only caveat is that our freedom is not designed to take us back to doing the things the Law was designed to protect us from. We are free to relate to God as his children, that doesn't mean we should then immediately begin to act like enemies!  We should live out our high position and rank as children of God by imitating God (Eph 5:1-2), that means that we should put his love in action in our lives.

That then leads to a profoundly important command - one which I'm not sure I have wrapped my mind around yet-  we should live by the Spirit, in the same way that we are made alive by the Spirit  (Gal 5:25).  What does it mean to live by the Spirit?  Well, Paul compares it directly to being saved by the Spirit.  Which happens in the blessed confluence of God's sovereign gift of faith and my dependent act of faith.  Confess and believe and you are saved (Rom 10:9-10).  I think - and again this is what I am trying to wrap my mind around here- that our sanctification functions in much the same way.  I confess that I am right with God, and a child of God - and I believe it.  As one of my high school students said the other day, "my head and my heart, they have to agree."  What happens next is that my new nature or identity, or pattern of life, begins to reflect what I know I am -by faith.  in other words, if I am living by the Spirit, in the same way I am made alive by the Spirit, what I know, and what I belive combine to change the way I act. 
   In Salvation, when what I believe and what I know combine, I cease striving against God, and I cease striving towards God. I simply rely on His grace - made effective in the Cross.   In Sanctification it works backward from the same place.  When what I believe and what I know combine, I begin to depend on my new relationship with God in increasingly pervasive levels in my life. I rely on his grace, made effective in the cross- and the same power that raised Christ from the dead which is now at work in me to make real in my life what God says is true of me. I start eschewing lustful, violent and idolatrous activities (5:19-21), and begin to see the likeness of God realized in me (Gal 5:22-23), because my head and my heat agree that I have crucified the flesh.

This could of course be interpreted to mean that it is possible to reach the magic tipping point where the Christian life is all down hill, where sin no longer has any interest (we know it has no dominion) and where everything I do is a perfect reflection of God's character.  But that idea stands in stark contrast to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles on the continued reality of sin in this world.  The sanctifying work of trusting God, must be a habitual and continuous daily action.  When we don't get it right it proves not that God has failed, nor that we are not saved (because it didn't depend on our actions anyway) but that we were sinners in the first place (Gal 2:17-18).

One of the things that we believe about salvation is that God uses means in a typical context.  God's grace saved us by means of the penal substitutiary atonement provided by the Cross of Christ. God's grace makes us alive by means of the same power that brought Christ up from the dead.  The context in which God's grace makes us alive is that of hearing someone preach the word of Christ (Rom 10:14-17). We are no more saved by preachers than cured by doctors, they are merely the normal context in which God's grace applies the means of healing.  We belive similarly about sanctification that it has a means, and a normal context. God's grace sanctifies us by means of the righteousness that was provided in the Cross. the Grace of God sanctifies us by the same power that raised Christ from the dead.  The contexts in which the righteousness and the power of the death and resurrection of Christ is typically applied to our lives are the Word of God, God's people and suffering.  Let me be clear, we are not sanctified by the Bible, we are not sanctified by going to church and we are not sanctified by going through pain.  We are sanctified by God's grace, applying the merit of the Cross to our lives, which tends to use those things as the context in which to apply the righteousness and power of the Cross of Christ to our lives.

Our only part in the sanctification process is to proceed by a rich, well informed, ever strengthening faith. Faith acts.  That is important.  Faith is not passive.  Faith is demonstrated in obedience. This is true of salvation- when we cease striving, and start trusting, our faith is demonstrated by our repentance, our confession, our prayers, our baptism, and by our forgiveness of others.  Our Sanctification is equally by faith, and is demonstrated by our repentance, our obedience and submission to Scripture, our imitation of God, and our love for one another.  Part of that obedience is to place ourselves in the typical contexts of Grace - because we are told to by the one we trust. but our obedience does not sanctify, and our obedience does not make us holy - it demonstrates it.