Tags
Bible, Christianity, commandments, Gospel, Great Commission, holiness, hymn, Jay Adams, Justification, new calvinism, obedience, Reformation, Sanctification
[The hymn writer got it spot-on right. It's "Trust and Obey" not "Trust and Contemplate". – JT]
Jay Adams:
This word today is taboo in some Christian circles. Why? Because it runs counter to the new trend that confuses sanctification and justification. And yet, why should this be? There is no valid reason for such a confusion except the desire to promote the new form of quietism that some have called Gospel Sanctification [GS]. This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.
When people tell us that what you must “do” to be sanctified is to preach the Gospel to yourself, or to focus, marinate, or otherwise soak one’s self in the cross, they make a totally unbiblical case for their view. You find nothing of the sort in the Bible. Thinking “deeply” about the Gospel will not, in itself, bring on sanctification. Certainly thinking about what Jesus did for us on the cross ought to motivate us to become more set apart from sin and to righteousness (i.e., sanctified). But motivate us to do what? Meditate on the cross? No. What, then?
What Jesus told us to do in the Great Commission was “obey (KJV: “observe”) all that He commanded us.” Obey—that‘s what the Gospel hymn says: Trust and Obey. And the writer got it right—we trust for justification (as Abraham did) and we obey (for sanctification). The Holy Spirit enables us to know from Scripture, and to do by His strength, the things that please God—we don’t obey in our own wisdom or power. John 14:15 is still in the Bible, though you’d never think so if you read GS materials (see also John 14:21, and see the warning of 4:24. Don’t miss John 15:17). One wonders whether he ought to ask GS people what Paul asks in Galatians 3:1.
Anyone who wants to think “more deeply” (a favorite term of the GS people), ought to concentrate on the Great Commission and on Philippians 2:12, 13. God gives us the desire and the ability to do those things that please Him. Doing is obeying (see John’s great phrase to “practice the truth” [1 John 1:6]). And be sure to read carefully John 17:17—there we learn that God’s truth believed and obeyed in one’s daily walk (2 John 6–not meditation or fixation on the Gospel) is what sanctifies.
Related articles
- Michael Horton’s Sonship Theology
- The Only Gospel Command to Be Obeyed
- Preaching the Gospel to Yourself
- Progressive Sanctification
- Book Review: ‘How People Change’ by Paul David Tripp and Timothy S. Lane
- Four Phases of Sanctification
- Dead Works That Include the Gospel
- An Open Letter to New Calvinists – from John Owen
- 8 Ways to Accelerate Growth of a Church Plant
Amen and many thanks for this post! I would describe this as the razor’s edge between two common errors: Easy believism on one side and navel gazing on the other. I loved this: “we trust for justification (as Abraham did) and we obey (for sanctification). The Holy Spirit enables us to know from Scripture, and to do by His strength, the things that please God—we don’t obey in our own wisdom or power.” This is the doctrine that my elders press on us weekly. Good for the soul of the saints and hard on the flesh. Press on!
Joel – Have you read or heard anything of this book: http://www.monergismbooks.com/Righteous-Sinners-The-Believers-Struggle-With-Faith-Grace-and-Works-p-19242.html
It’s on my wish list.
Sure haven’t. Sounds interesting. Let me know what you think of it after you read it.
Agreed, excellent article, obedience is an unmissable tenet that runs through the entire old testament [ and the new] . Folks not seing this are running around like headless chooks, it should be that obvious.
Joel,
I have no problem with the obedience part of this article. I do have problems with the implication that sanctification is a matter of mere obedience that doesn’t require faith. We trust for justification and obey for sanctification? No! He was right before, “Trust and obey.” Sanctification is not by faith alone, but it is alone by faith. People without a believing attachment to Christ don’t obey.
Who implied that sanctification doesn’t require faith? Not Jay Adams.
I never cease to be astonished over the myriad ways humans, professing to be followers of Christ leap off the path blazed in Scripture that teaches us that without God’s grace and without His intervention nothing can happen to change the fallen condition; that somehow we can muster from within ourselves what it takes to ‘be a Christian’; ‘to be saved’; ‘to be justified’; ‘to be sanctified’; ‘to please God’.
In short, I’m astonished over how many times and ways humans keep falling for the original temptation that ‘you will be as God’.
God intervenes, God regenerates, God enables and leads us to repentance, God saves, God justifies; all these are monergistic. The only synergistic part of the Christian life is where we, after all these things are complete have the competence to desire the things of God and work (OBEY) in concert with and in submission to the Holy Spirit that is working sanctification in us.
It is interesting to note that the Phil. text does not say, “it is God who WORKED in you” But “It is God who IS WORKING in you.” He will continue to perform this work until Jesus returns. It is not that he regenerated us and left us to do the rest by our obedience. We continue to obey because he continues to work in us. We never outlive our need for constant dependance on him for his sanctifying work.
I’ve been thinking about this topic quite a bit. I think there are two different ways to view the “synergism” involved in our sanctification (assuming in general an acceptance of justification by faith alone).
(1) God has transformed us through regeneration. We are “new creatures”, no longer “sinners who are forgiven” (let alone “simul iustus et peccator”), but now “saints who sin” (but not of necessity, since we have in fact been set free from the power of sin). As unbelievers, seeking to be right with God by law-keeping was futile because of our inability in the flesh (as Paul recounts this experience of what had to be an unbeliever in Romans 7). But now, as believers, we should turn again to the law and “just do it” (as Nike would say), since now we have a God-imparted new nature with that complete ability. In fact, the primary way we are to relate to God now is through the law (that is, God has given us commandments in the Bible, we are to learn them and obey them). The “synergism” is pretty much serial (perhaps “deistic”): God changed us (that was His part), now we are to obey His law (that’s our part).
(2) The primary way in which God has changed us is by uniting us to Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. If we presume as believers to turn again to the law and “just do it”, we will only incur frustration (as Paul recounts the experience, in Romans 7, of a believer attempting sanctification by applying himself to law-keeping). If our very relationship with God becomes defined by our law-keeping, we are at great risk of turning our trust away from Christ (cf. Gal. 5:2). Paul’s answer lies not in the believer becoming a new person in an independent sense, but in another Person altogether dwelling in the believer and empowering the performance of his every good thought or action: God Himself, in the Person of the Holy Spirit. So Paul does not leave the frustrated believer in Romans 7, but leads him into chapter 8 by means of “walking according to the Spirit”. Likewise in Galatians, Paul turns believers away from the law, and back to “walking in the Spirit”, yielding the fruit of the Spirit, against which there is no law. This “synergism” is not only continuous, but God-centered, requiring God’s active, Personal involvement at every point (as “gracewriterrandy” says above).
God’s law is always the same. His law (moral law in particular) is always our standard of righteousness. We can’t claim to be acting righteously while breaking God’s law. Period. The question is though, is the law also intended to be the “means” of sanctification (by which we directly become more righteous), and the “medium” through which our whole relationship with God is effected (i.e., our “point of contact” with Him)? I think the answer is no. Such represents an under-realized eschatology, and falls short of the New Covenant reality that God has revealed (see 2 Cor. 3).
That is very well stated. I believe you have well summarized the two positions between we must decide. My view, of course, would be the latter of the two.
Pingback: Gospel-Centered Sanctification | Soli Deo Gloria
Pingback: “Frolicking in the Shadow of the Cross” vs Aggressive Sanctification « The Reformed Traveler