Suffice it to say, the plot has thickened a bit here.

Well said, Deb.

Well said. Thank you!

OT law?

When you write this: “Instead people that call themselves christians claim that they are empowered or have been given an ability to keep the law after regeneration. This is pure pharisaism and the galatian heresy that Paul condemned.” you are not presenting or arguing against anything you read from me or anyone else of the Reformed tradition. You also carry a large dose of piousness in your delivery.

You see, with Paul christians should say that they are the chief of sinners. Not that they were prior to conversion, but that they are today after conversion. It is the mark of regnerate man to confess that he is the chief of sinners after being regenerated. Also with Paul christians should confess that they have no righteousness of their own, none, not one iota. Instead people that call themselves christians claim that they are empowered or have been given an ability to keep the law after regeneration. This is pure pharisaism and the galatian heresy that Paul condemned.

And one last thing, Michael. I am flabbergasted by those that say they are christians and claim an ability to keep the law. You know a christian should delight that he is not under the law. He shouldn’t put himself under the law again as the Galatians did, by claiming that he has an ability to obey. The christian should say that he’s under no condemnation, all punishment has been removed, so it is pointless to even talk about obedience or disobedience to the law by a christian. Every time a christian claims to have some ability or power to obey God’s commands, he is right there with the Galatians that Paul had to rebuke.

That’s fine Michael, what you describe is certainly not the lutheran view of a born again christian. Read the Heidelberg disputation by Martin Luther http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php , the theme of simul justus et peccator pervades lutheranism. We view the christian as 100% sinner when it comes to his ability to keep the law. Not 50% sinner, not 80% sinner, but 100% sinner, just like the unbeliever. As I said again, what differentiates the christian is that the christian is not under the law, so there is no punishment for his disobedience, and this sense, and this sense only the christian is sinless. He is sinless not because he obeys the law, but because he’s not under the law, there is now no condemnation.

Four states of man:

Pre-fall Adam in the Garden: able to sin, able to not sin
Unregenerate man after the fall: able to sin, unable to not sin
Regenerate man: able to sin, able to not sin
Glorified man: unable to sin

Nobody is talking about the state of glorified man here. Look at the difference between regenerate man and unregenerate man. Whatever unregenerate man does it is as filthy rags (even if he does ‘good’ in some civil sense or otherwise). Regenerate man, though, has *new ability* to not sin, and it doesn’t just have to do with repenting of sins committed and resting on Jesus’ sinless perfection.

Think of it this way: Adam had ability to NOT eat of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, yet he did. But he had ability to not do it nevertheless.

Fallen man – unregenerate man – doesn’t even have the ability to not eat of that fruit, using that example. He is dead in sin. He is born in sin and actively sins the first chance he gets. He has no ability to be any other way.

Only by the act of God that is regeneration by the word and the Spirit does man regain the ability to not sin. Ability doesn’t imply perfect behavior, any more than it did for pre-fall Adam. Adam in the Garden had ability to not sin yet he sinned anyway. Yet there is a difference between having that ability and not having the ability at all.

Once you have the ability to not sin you exercise your mind, and emotion, and will in a different state than you did when you were unregenerate. This involves effort. God-reliant effort no doubt (J. I. Packer’s phrase), yet effort none-the-less.

And yes, faith to some extent results in “better outward behaviour” I totally admit this. But an unbeliever can have a much better outward behaviour than a christian. An unbelieving lawyer may have a way stronger work ethic for example than a believing lawyer, simply because he’s more motivated by money and greed and will provide way better service to a his clients than a christian lawyer that does not have such a powerful motivation. The same can be said about olympic athletes that are chasing fame or anybody else. This is why Paul says at the beginning of his letter to the Corinthians that very few of the christians were strong or prominent in the world. So outward behaviour is not what God looks at. Most of the pharisees washed their hands but the followers of Jesus did not, there is not doubt that the behaviour of the pharisees in that area was better, but God didn’t care.

Now good works always follow faith because a good tree can not produce bad fruit. Martin Luther in the freedom of the christian clearly explains that faith makes the tree good and lack of faith makes the tree bad. So it is really faith that makes a work good, God accepts this faith counts it as righteousness as Paul teaches “Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness”. And Paul also teaches that anything that is not of faith is sin. Romans 14:23 is abundantly clear that is not the behavior that makes an act sinful or not, but the presence or lack of faith. If we eat meat with faith it is not sin, but if we eat meat without faith it is sin. You see the act of eating is sinful or not depending on whether we have faith or not. And so is every other behavior. So it’s not really what we do that makes us christians or that makes a work good or bad, it is the presence or absence of faith that makes a work good or bad. So a christian has no new ability not to sin as you teach, a christian has faith that makes all his works sinless (solely because God does not impute sin on account of Christ).

Now even though I acknowledge that after conversion temptations lost the power they once had, and so forth. I can not as a christian say, well now I sin less than before conversion. Sin is sin, god expects perfection. So both prior and after conversion I break the Law daily, I sin daily. The radical difference is that after conversion, I am comforted by Christ’s perfect obedience and death on the cross for ME, Christ’s full payment for my sin comforts and extinguishes all guilt from sin. This is because the Christian is not under law any longer, so he’s been freed from the consequence of sin (eternal damnation), but a christian is nor freed from sin, he still sins daily until his death. But God does not impute this sin, the sin is imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinner.

Michael, there is two things that we need not confuse. Christians have the first fruits, Romans 8:23. Also I have experienced it first hand after conversion, sin instantly lost its power and I mean in that as soon as I trusted Christ for salvation temptation did not have the power they used to have before. This is biblical and anybody that denies this, obviously has not experienced the renewal that comes with conversion and we can also label those people as antinomians.

With that said and having acknowledged the power of the gospel to transform our lives, I must also reaffirm what I have said before that these firstfruits in no way allow a christian to keep the law. God expects perfection and a christian’s works fall short. So the gospel does not empower me to keep the law, what it does is it provides me with the comfort that somebody else kept the law that I can not keep in my stead. This somebody is Jesus Christ, who obeyed daily and perfectly, while disobey daily even after conversion. Without having to go to lutheran writings, the Heidelberg catechism backs up my theology as well. The purpose of the law is knowledge of sin, Romans 7:7 , Romans 7:13, Romans 3:20 . Question 114 and 115 of the Heidelberg Catechism unequivocally teach the converted man’s total inability to keep the law. God does not grade on the curve, he expects perfection. No christian can keep a single commandment of God’s law, all a christian can do is Romans 7:14-24 , that is with his mind a christian serves the law of God but with his flesh he serves sin. The Heidelberg catechism teaches the same, that all a christian man can do is have a sincere resolution to keep God’s commandments, but he will fail to keep them every time. Here’s the Heidelberg catechism:

Question 114. But can those who are converted to God perfectly keep these commandments?

Answer: No: but even the holiest men, while in this life, have only a small beginning of this obedience; (a) yet so, that with a sincere resolution they begin to live, not only according to some, but all the commandments of God. (b)

Question 115. Why will God then have the ten commandments so strictly preached, since no man in this life can keep them?

Answer: First, that all our lifetime we may learn more and more to know (a) our sinful nature, and thus become the more earnest in seeking the remission of sin, and righteousness in Christ; (b) likewise, that we constantly endeavour and pray to God for the grace of the Holy Spirit, that we may become more and more conformable to the image of God, till we arrive at the perfection proposed to us, in a life to come. (c)

This last post was a reply to D Camp that quoted Luther, but misinterpreted what Luther meant.

“Put differently, Jen was concerned about those who view the law only negatively (as a means of exposing failure), and rarely discuss how Christians are empowered to obey it.”

This is pure pharisaic language, what Mike wrote, legalism at the highest proportion. Even Calvin in his Institutes when he speaks about the third use of the law he does not suggest at any point that a christian can obey the law. The lutheran confessions are consistent with Calvin on this. The third use of the law is to rebuke and discipline christians, but at no point is it implied that a christian has been empowered to obey the law.

ANWERS ALL THE ANTINOMIAN ACCUSATIONS AND EXPLAINS HIS VIEWS ON THE 1ST USE, 2ND USE, AND EVEN 3RD USE.

http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2014/05/is-tullian-tchividjian-an-antinomian.html

“Fail.” Tullian has mentioned that we are “free to fail” here, here, and here again

++++ YES, as has been made clear elsewhere, Tullian’s point is that failure does not put us outside the love of God or His forgiveness or our salvation. We are FREE from condemnation

If by “fail” he means “sin,” he has quite a bit of explaining to do. “Free to sin” sounds foreign to Scripture’s teaching on sin.

++++ He does not mean this. You know it. Where does he say this?

“Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means!” (Rom. 6:1-2), to quote one verse out of several that says the exact opposite of Tullian’s phrase.

++++ He does not mean this. You know it. Where does he say this? (Which particular phrase of his do you have in mind?)

He also quotes Machen ..[where] Tullian cuts and pastes selectively from Machen’s What Is Faith? The quote rings true .. but has a broader context necessary for understanding its full meaning:

++++ You quote Machen at length; how does that diminish Tullian’s point? Please explain

As it is, they are turning aside from the Christian pathway; they are turning to the village of Morality, and to the house of Mr. Legality, who is reported to be very skillful in relieving men of their burdens.

++++ This is exactly what Tullian is worried about!

So it always is: a low view of law always brings legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace.

++++ Exactly, which is why Tullian rejects the moralistic notions that God accepts our obedience however imperfect

So Machen’s point does not pit law and gospel against each other, but pits legalism’s law against Christian law.

++++ This is a curved ball; I have truly no idea what you mean (or how you could justify what I think you might mean)

He eliminates the law as an option for motivation in the Christian life: “Telling people to change can’t change them,” “Nowhere does the Bible say that the law produces love. Nowhere.” (Actually, the Bible speaks more strongly than what Tullian rejects; Psalm 119: 97ff talks about loving the law itself, which includes love towards others and towards God.)

++++ This is misleading and unfair. Tullian is talking about the Law in the NT negative Pauline sense. You are now introducing a statistically minority usage from the OT where ‘Law’ means the precepts of God which include both the law and the gospel. Normally we say ‘precepts’ to distinguish them

Tullian .. also advocates an understanding of sanctification that is only passive: He eliminates as possibilities other elements of the sanctified Christian life that involve effort,

++++ NO, he does not. He advocates every possible effort in the direction of holding fast in faith to one’s justification. Are you suggesting that justification is something we can move beyond? That we can ‘bank’ our justification and now contribute synergistically to our sanctification?

“For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue “

+++++ This is another classic mistranslation! The word ‘supplement’ in Greek means something like ‘spring out of and into’. The essence here is that faith in its maturity leads to virtue; it is not that we have some faith and now we work to get/have some virtue alongside. The Roman Catholics would be proud of that view! All progress comes from faith; it does not come by slotting in something alongside faith. If you want to work at something, dare to believe that Christ is all in all for you; that is a lot harder than a little external ‘virtue’ make-over

“Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (Heb. 12:14),”

++++ Striving for holiness is not striving to be ‘good’; you will never even be as good as the Pharisees. It is striving to be set apart – striving to see yourself as God’s tool in this stinking world (we are of course normally happy to see Him use us in a big way, but are we happy for Him to leave us on the sidelines?). It is a question of submission, not matching Jesus in His goodness

“Therefore, my beloved, ..work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. (Phil. 2:12-13)”

++++ Is this being offered as a synergistic path towards salvation? It seems so – don’t be shy! Again. like everything else, it is theocentric not anthropocentric. It does not say ‘work FOR your salvation’; it says ‘live out the salvation that you have, but do so with fear, trembling, awe, reverence, amazement (Is 6) since you might think it is you but it is in fact God who actually works in you – not just to get you to do, but get you to even want to do, and even think that it is you that does His good pleasure – realise that, and weep and then rejoice!!’

Though I have no doubt Tullian’s heart burns to help believers in their struggle with sin and guilt, true compassion carries with it both intent and content. The former (intent) should be pure, and the latter (content) should be true.
Tullian’s ..pure in intention, [but] he feeds his readers less than the whole truth of Scripture’s teaching on both the law and the gospel.

++++ Charge remains unclear and certainly unproven

I notice also the you quote Psalm 119 above without making a distinction at to the Law being the Mosaic order vs. the Law being another way of referring to the whole of Scripture. David uses the word Torah in the Psalm effectively as a way of speak of God’s Word which in fact contains both Law and Gospel, not just nomos.

At the end of the day, there is no sanctification without justification, and there’s no glorification without sanctification. This should allow us all to walk in a spirit of humility and thankfulness for God’s grace in His glorious Gospel.

“The indwelling of Christ, redeems us from the bondage of Egypt (sin) makes us free, gives us power to do good.”

“Nevertheless the works themselves do not justify him before God, but he does the works out of spontaneous love in obedience to God and considers nothing except the approval of God, whom he would most scrupulously obey in all things.”

“Although I am an unworthy and condemned man, my God has given me in Christ all the riches
of righteousness and salvation without any merit on my part, out of pure, free mercy, so that from now on I need nothing except faith which believes that this is true. Why should I not therefore freely, joyfully, with all my heart, and with an eager will do all these things which I know are pleasing and acceptable to such a Father who has overwhelmed me with his inestimable riches?”

I think some of the problem is that too many authors do theology by slogans. I think the most charitable reading of Tullian’s “free to fail” slogan is the idea that we are free to try to obey Christ radically, remembering that we shall not lose our justification when we fail to measure up. I think Tullian is trying to motivate paralyzed Christians to obey more, knowing they will fail in their attempts, and yet not become discouraged. Some who preach the third use of the law more vigorously sometimes actually end up discouraging obedience because they forget to remind people to first rest in Christ (cf. WCF 14.2). I *think* this is what Tullian is trying to get at, at his best.

But it is just not very carefully said, and thus he is rightly receiving flak. As in almost all theological controversies, it seems to me that less (publishing of books and articles) is more. But not blog comments.

John 14:23,24 We keep the law because of love, we don’t love because of the law.
Love is the ultimate fruit of the Christian’s life, not obedience. Obedience is a result.
2 Peter 1:5-7 puts love as the highest goal, the ultimate virtue, as does Romans 5:1-5, and obviously 1 Corinthians 13.

Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law; it is obsolete because of Him.
Romans 8 implies sanctification. We have no relationship with God without sanctification. Justification only releases us from God’s wrath, it doesn’t give us entry into the realm of His love, which nothing can separate us from.

In Philippians 2:12,13 God works in us both to will and to do. And tell me what would produce “fear and trembling” in a Christian? -not law but realization of grace.
Hebrews 12:15 says we need to look out for each other so that we don’t miss God’s grace- exactly what Tullian is doing.
You also mentioned Romans 13:10- Love is the fulfillment of the law, not obedience.
The law is the power of sin- 1 Corinthians 15:56. Verse 57 goes on to remind us that Christ gave us victory over that.
Psalm 119:97ff- We keep God’s law out of thankfulness. His law is good for us, but it has nothing to do with salvation.
Jesus died for us, we are justified, our sins are forgiven, and we avoid God’s wrath (expiation/justification). Jesus lived for us, we have His righteousness, and we have God’s favour (propitiation/sanctification). Jesus didn’t just give us His character though, that is something we have to earn for ourselves. It doesn’t affect our salvation, but it does affect our happiness, our success, and God’s pleasure with us.

“Thus I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave commandment, but because they have been implanted in me by nature.”