Law-Gospel Off the Rails

The last week or so has seen renewed calls for reflection and responsibility on the part of Tullian Tchividjian in responding to critiques in the debate on sanctification.  His most recent post on the Gospel Coalition website indicates that he is instead digging in his heels, employing his law-gospel cookie cutter with ever more reckless abandon.  As Michael Kruger recently pointed out, Tullian shows no signs of paying attention to careful and charitable criticism from those interacting with him.  Yesterday's exposition of 1 John 5:3-4 indicates that Tullian is not listening even to the text of the Bible which he is handling.  

Yesterday's post from Tullian, titled Unburdened, takes on the apostle John's statement that God's "commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).  Predictably enough, Tullian insists that the reason for this blessed condition is that the Christian does not do the commandments of God but Jesus Christ bears this burden for us.  At this point, we know to expect the automatic and context-ignoring download of Christ's wonderful fulfillment of the law for believers in justification.  To wit, Tullian explains: "Though the commandments are indeed burdensome, that burden has been laid on the shoulders of another.  Jesus Christ, who demands that we be perfect, achieves perfection in our place... God's commandments are not burdensome because we do not carry them."   Continue at Rick Phillips

God Doesn’t Need Your Good Works…But Your Neighbor Does

Pertinent to any discussion regarding justification and sanctification is the question of effort. In my recent back and forth with Rick Phillips on the nature of sin and its ongoing effect on the Christian, some have assumed that when I say there is no part of Christians that are sin free, I’m also endorsing a “why-even-try”, effortless approach to the Christian life–that I’m overlooking or understating the importance of “sanctification.” I suspect that one of the reasons for this is owing to my passion to help people understand the inseparable relationship between justification and sanctification. 

 Whether this was explicitly taught or implicitly caught, I grew up with the impression that when it comes to the Christian life, justification was step one and sanctification was step two and that once we get to step two there’s no reason to revisit step one. In my experience as a pastor, this is one of the reasons why it seems so new to people that the gospel is not just for non-Christian’s but for Christian’s too–that it doesn’t just ignite the Christian life, but fuels it as well. By giving people the impression that sanctification is progress beyond the initial step of justification, they have concluded that once God saves us (justification) he then moves us beyond his work into our work (sanctification). But justification and sanctification are both God’s work and while they can and must be distinguished, the Bible won’t let us separate them. Both are gifts of our union with Christ and within this double-blessing, justification is the root of sanctification and sanctification is the fruit of justification. Moralism happens when we separate the fruit from the root. Or, as I’ve said before, imperatives minus indicatives equal impossibilities. As G. C. Berkouwer said, “The heart of sanctification is the life which feeds on justification.” So, I think it’s fair to say that sanctification is the justified life.   Continue at Tullian Tchividjian

See also: The Problem with “Gospel-Centered” Sanctification

See also: Protecting a Gospel-Centered Culture in Your Church

Misconceptions about Justification and Sanctification

I have benefited from reading the comments on the wide variety of blogs that have picked up the discussion between Tullian Tchividjian and me on the subject of total depravity, the Christian, and the doctrine of sanctification.  In some respects, these conversations are most valuable in terms of the interplay that takes place in the comments.  I have been helped by reading what people are thinking and want to thank those who have commented, whether positively or negatively about me.  I have found, however, a number of misconceptions that it may help to have cleared up.  Here are five points that I hope will clarify this discussion:

      1. Total depravity is not proved by arguing for the on-going presence of sin in the believer.  The point of total depravity is the spiritual inability of the sinner so that he or she will not and cannot respond positively to God through faith (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3).  To say that Christians cannot be totally depraved is not to argue that they do not continue to wrestle with sin, sometimes profoundly.  The point that I am making is that while Christians will continue to sin, it is not because we must do so.  We have been freed from the reign of sin (Rom. 6:6-12), though not from sin's presence (1 Jn. 1:8).  As Augustine put it, whereas before our conversion we were not able not to sin, in Christ we now are able not to sin.

2.  Luther's wonderful formula, simil justus et peccator (simultaneously just and a sinner), is the Reformation doctrine of justification, not sanctification.  To use this response to questions of sanctification is simply to change the subject.  With respect to sanctification, Christians are saints (1 Cor. 1:2).  To deny being a saint, as well as a justified sinner, is simply to deny being a Christian.   Continue at Rick Phillips    See also: We are Sanctified in Christ, but not Perfect Yet

 

Oh to Grace How Great a Debtor -- A Reply to Tullian Tchividjian

I was glad to see some some constructive dialogue in the comments section of Tullian Tchividjian's reply to my critique of his article on total depravity and Christians.  Let me say at this point (even though I look forward to the day when such statements are not necessary) that: 1) I bear no ill will to Tullian nor was I launching a personal attack against him; 2) I wrote an article expressing concern about something he had written, not heresy charges in a court of the church; and 3) it has been my impression that the whole point of blogging is to stimulate useful thinking among Christians.  This is why I engaged in a public response to a public article rather than private dialogue.  

Being something of an internet veteran, I was not surprised, however,  to see that it took only three comments to Tullian's reply for one of his supporters to accuse me of sin.  I hope in this response to allay such concerns and hopefully to advance constructive dialogue further.

 

My aim in this reply will therefore be simply to clarify my original concerns with Tullian's previous article.  They are these: 

1.  The doctrine of total depravity does not merely state that after the Fall all men and women are effected by sin in the totality of their beings.  The doctrine also states that they have no disposition towards God but only hostility and spiritual inability (see Berkhof, p. 247 for this definition).  I agree that Tullian specified the former and not the latter of these two components.  The problem is that the term "total depravity" includes both.  In his reply, Tullian gave numerous citations from Reformed confessions regarding the on-going depravity of Christians.  I would not quarrel with any of them, but would only note that none of these define Christians with the term "total depravity," nor with the definition of this specific doctrine.  So, in this respect, my critique of Tullian was saying, "Please don't use the term 'total depravity' for regenerate Christians, even while seeking to qualify the term, because it is not accurate."   Continue at Rick Phillips

Sin Remains: My Response To Rick Phillips

A couple weeks ago I posted a blog asking the question “Are Christians totally depraved?” The point I wanted to make was simple: “Because Christian’s never leave off sinning, they can never leave the Gospel” (Spurgeon).

The reason this is so important is because we will always be suspicious of grace (“yes grace, but…”) until we realize our desperate need for it. Our dire need for God’s grace doesn’t get smaller after God saves us. We never outgrow our need for Christ’s finished work on our behalf-we never graduate beyond our desperate need for Christ’s righteousness and his strong and perfect blood-soaked plea “before the throne of God above.”

But I had to tease out my answer a bit because for centuries theologians have acknowledged that “total depravity” means more than one thing. I wrote:

On the one hand, total depravity means that we are all born “dead in our trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1-3; Colossians 2:13; Romans 3:10-12; Romans 8:7-8), with no spiritual capacity to incline ourselves Godward. We do not come into this world spiritually neutral; we come into this world spiritually dead…In this sense, total depravity means we are “totally unable” to go to God. We will not because we cannot, and we cannot because we’re dead.

I continued:

So, in the sense above, Christians are obviously not totally depraved. We who were dead have been made alive.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus…(Ephesians 2:4-6)

But once God regenerates us by his Spirit, draws us to himself, unites us to Christ, raises us from the dead, and grants us status as adopted sons and daughters, is there any sense in which we can speak of Christian’s being totally depraved?

Yes.

Theologians speak of total depravity, not only in terms of “total inability” to come to God on our own because we’re spiritually dead, but also in terms of sin’s effect: sin corrupts us in the “totality” of our being. Our minds are affected by sin. Our hearts are affected by sin. Our wills are affected by sin. Our bodies are affected by sin.    Continue at Tullian Tchividjian

Total Depravity and the Believer’s Sanctification

Tullian Tchividjian of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Ft Lauderdale, FL and Rick Phillips of Second Presbyterian Church, Greenville, SC have recently engaged with the doctrine of total depravity in its relation to Christians. That is, they are discussing not whether or not people in their natural state are totally depraved, but whether and in what sense believers may be spoken of as "totally depraved." This is a very important issue, so I am glad to have it put on the front burner.

 

Years ago, Tabletalk magazine asked me to write an article on this subject. I was interacting primarily with forms of Christian perfectionist teaching on the one hand and carnal Christian teaching on the other. But I think the article still speaks to issues that the Reformed and evangelical community is debating today. So, here it is.

Total depravity is a reality, both taught in Holy Scripture and experienced in life, with important implications not only for pagans but also for Christians. Very often we think of this Biblical doctrine in connection with those who are unregenerate, or with regard to Christians before their conversion, but we reflect less frequently on the depravity which still infects those who have been saved by grace and reborn of the Spirit. This is a serious omission, for misunderstanding or underestimating the continuing corruption in the believer leaves the Christian unprepared for the warfare of sanctification and leads to a variety of spiritual problems.  Continue at Ligon Duncan

Thank God that Christians Are Not Totally Depraved

One of the most pressing concerns in Reformed churches today is the importance of getting the gospel right. Recently, Reformed churches have had to oppose the Federal Vision theology, which compromises justification by inserting good works into the definition of faith.  Unfortunately, Christians tend to defend doctrines by erring in the opposite direction. So it is that Reformed churches are presently facing a corruption of the gospel by the virtual denial of sanctification and good works.

In the context of this situation, Tullian Tchividjian has written a blog post addressing the first of the five points of Calvinism, total depravity, which defines the full extent of man's problem in sin. Tchividjian asks, "Are Christians Totally Depraved?" and answers, Yes.  Regenerate believers in Christ are, he says, totally depraved. It is true, he admits, that Christians differ from unbelievers in that God's grace has enabled us to believe the gospel, yet total depravity describes both believers and unbelievers with respect to our inability to live so as to please God. He concludes his post with a punchy summary: "Because of total depravity, you and I were desperate for God's grace before we were saved. Because of total depravity, you and I remain desperate for God's grace even after we're saved."

What's wrong with a statement like this, the point of which is to exalt God's grace? The problem is that Tchividjian teaches that, apart from our change in legal status through justification, Christians are in the same spiritual condition after regeneration as before. Unbelievers are totally depraved and Christians are totally depraved; the same condition describes them both.   Continue at Rick Phillips

Orthodoxy's Best Friend is Heresy