“The Christian life isn’t about progress… “
“Church isn’t a place for people to get better… “
“Following Jesus is more about realizing my own weakness and insufficiency and finding them in Jesus than it is about growing… “
I keep hearing statements like these and I must confess they leave me baffled. I’m baffled because I know they are meant to be good news—but for the life of me I can’t find the good news in them.
I understand the good news of realizing that my identity is totally and absolutely found in Christ. It is tremendous news that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus and this is based not on my performance but upon the already accomplished work of Jesus Christ.
That is really great news.
But I’m convinced the above statements cut the legs out of grace and end up not being all that good of news. Grace makes a person actually want to follow Jesus. It makes me want to “progress”, “grow”, “get better”. Saying the Christian life isn’t about progressing in holiness is only good news to those wanting to still treasure sin.
In an effort to highlight the sufficiency of grace in covering our sin we must be careful not to teach that progress in Christ-likeness is somehow not a goal, not possible, or not even something to be commended.
Consider Paul’s argument in Romans 6. In response to the outlandish statement that we should continue in sin so that grace abounds, Paul says “How can we who have died to sin still live in it”?
He then spends 11 verses defending his statement that believers are dead to the enslaving power of sin. That old man—Adam—has been crucified through our union with Christ. Under the law believers were still enslaved to the power of sin and so all the law could do was condemn us. But, as Paul notes in 6:14, we are not under law but under grace. As such sin will not have dominion over us because we have been crucified and made alive with Christ.
I agree with Tom Schreiner’s comment on this:
This means that the normal pattern of life for Christians should be progressive growth in sanctification, resulting in ever great maturity and conformity to God’s moral law in thought and action.
If Paul had wanted to say something like “the Christian life isn’t about progressing in holiness” here was the place to do it. The question in verse 1 is charging Paul’s gospel (saying things like Paul did in 5:20-21) with being untrue because such a statement is incompatible with growth in holiness. Notice that Paul doesn’t challenge that assertion. If Christianity doesn’t lead to actual holiness then what of the promises of Ezekiel and Jeremiah that people would actually obey with new hearts?
This is why the gospel is such good news. We are free from guilt and condemnation. God does not relate to you based on your performance but the performance of Christ.
AND believers will actually grow in godliness. That is great news for Christians because we abhor sin. We want to give up every darling lust. This is why the gospel is such good news—it declares that in Christ our old self has been crucified and we actually can grow in Christ-likeness.
So you can keep any “grace” that doesn’t make you more like Jesus. I’ll take the one that has slain the old man and causes me to—yes painfully at times—become more like Christ.
“I keep hearing statements like these and I must confess they leave me baffled. I’m baffled because I know they are meant to be good news—but for the life of me I can’t find the good news in them.”
Mike,
I agree.
My progress is always incomplete. It’s often slow and inconsistent. Sometimes, I’m sliding backwards. It’s good to know that God’s grace covers me when I’m not progressing in the manner or to the extent I had hoped. But it would be depressing to think that I should never expect to progress at all.
Do you think that those who make such statements are simply misfiring in an attempt to encourage beleaguered Christians frustrated by a history of failure?
Jeff, I think that is exactly what is happening.
There’s a huge gulf between “Because of grace, I can attain perfection” and “Because of grace, I can sin.” One might think it should be easy to navigate that gulf, but it’s so difficult — in both theory and practice. Thus the books and debates, not just recently but throughout church history. One of the most helpful treatments of this subject I’ve found has been C.S. Lewis’s essay “A Slip of the Tongue.” To paraphrase him, “We will never drive the invader [of sin] completely out in this life, but we must daily be in the Resistance and not the Vichy government.” Progress will always be a struggle, but surrender is never an option.
So,,, this is like a prominent thing? People are saying there’s no growing for the believer? Wow. I know antinomianism creeps up here and there and says this sort of thing but hadn’t heard it lately. So, thanks for the heads up and some scriptural foundation.
I don’t know that people are saying “there is no growing for a believer” it is far more nuanced. And that, in my opinion, is why it is so deadly.
Mike,
I’m just curious if there are any particular pastors/teachers you have in mind, and if you wouldn’t mind sharing. Is this something you’re facing locally or is it epidemic in some online community? I only ask because I haven’t really encountered this type of error (plenty of other problems, but not this particular one).
I do wholeheartedly agree with you though. Ultimately it undermines Jesus’ command to follow him, and it puts a bowl over the light of the Great Commission – no longer will we have to teach ALL the disciples from ALL the nations to obey ALL that Jesus commanded. Thus, it is a gospel issue and it culminates in missiological heresy.
In Christ,
-Bob B.
Bob, I have heard these statements from a few popular preachers but I don’t really want to mention names at this point. I say that because I don’t know that it would be beneficial for the discussion. I’d prefer it not to be about personalities.
This is something I’ve seen locally and it its also something that I see on the internet quite frequently. And I don’t think I’m alone there is a reason why Mark Jones wrote this book:
http://tinyurl.com/k44y5kg And why Kevin DeYoung wrote this book: http://tinyurl.com/nw8gjr9
And a reason why both sold pretty well.
Yep. Both are great books…and both authors have engaged in heated discussion with the same guy. It seems to be the usual suspects, always quoting innkeepers from the west coast.
Reminds me of the recent sermon I saw reported on about the Ten Commandments. The argument was, there is no word for “commandment” in Hebrew, just sayings. The pastor turned them into promises. He said one of his motivations was seeing people who did not come to Christ because they said they could not keep the law. (I thought that was the point!) So changing them to promises gave confidence.
Steve in Montana
No word for commandment in Hebrew? That would be news to the Hebrews. The word is “mitzvah.”
Mike Leake,
Superb post. You hit the nail right on the head. Good stuff brother.
I know there is a thing called cheap grace, and it is being taught in our churches more than one might think. Cheap Grace says, give me Jesus but don’t make me a living witness. Cheap Grace says my heart have been changed but my actions haven’t. I’m so tired of cheap grace in our churches. Cheap grace says I’m saved, but I’m still the worst sinner in the world.
Jesus paid the ultimate price for our sins, nothing cheap about it. Let no man deceive you, he that does righteousness is righteous. He that practices sin is of the devil, the devil sinned from the beginning.
Some people like the “definitive” aspect of sanctification, but reject the “progressive” aspect of sanctification. As one preacher in Orlando put it, “…progressive sanctification is nonsense”.
Rick Mang
I often hear a twist on this where people get sanctification and justification confused and end up with instant practical righteousness. They claim that they no longer sin, and if anyone sins that person isn’t saved. But the resulting claim is the same, namely that you don’t grow after you’re saved.
Aside from the theological error, the practical issue that I see in both cases is that discipleship after salvation isn’t done well if it’s done at all.
Part of this complex issue is due to the involvement of paradoxes. There is a sense in that which is ought and not yet, the being and yet to be, the thank God, I am not what I use to be, thank God for what I will be. Such things are the tension between the is and its apparent contradiction. Even so there is change, change for the better, and those around the elect are aware of the change, including even the animals. The growth of compassion is a slow process, but it is sure. Only the hard nosed will not survive the change, and soon they will find themselves outside the camp and not with the Lord. On the other hand, there are those who would put the Lord Himself outside the camp and did only to find that they had done so to their own despair and to the delight of needy, rejected souls, who grieve over their corruption.
Isn’t this just the old problem of antinomianism? The idea that now that I’m saved, I can live any way I want to because “all my sins are gone”? It’s pretty simple, really. If I’m saved, I’m changed and changing because I am a new person, predestined to become like Christ, Rom. 8:29. If there’s nothing new and different evident in my life, then I’m not born again and the Old Man still rules. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Inspect the fruit and you’ll know the root.
Yep. It’s certainly at least a cousin of Mr. Antinomian.
Mike,
I have never heard statements like those, but I don’t get around much.
But what I use to hear was just the opposite, almost. Things like:
“You can and should be perfectly sanctified.”
“If anyone sins after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no longer a sacrifice for sin.” [From Hebrews 10 to justify the ability to become sinless.]
“The achievable goal of every Christian is sinlessness.”
Many of these same people went to churches or preached at them where sin was a man’s too long hair, a woman’s too short dress, a man without a tie on at church, any alcohol, any tobacco, etc. In other words, any visible sin, was what they preached against or heard about.
Maybe the people now who are offering up your OP quotes are reacting to those ideas and as happen many times, reaction tends to be overreaction.
mike