Tag Archives: sanctification

Please God or suffer the consequences

8 Replies

My wife is coming back today from a mission trip to Costa Rica. Knowing that she’s coming back, I tried to do a bit of straightening up around the house. I’m laundering not only my clothes but the sheets and towels as well. And I’ve got a brisket in the crock pot, so she won’t have to worry about cooking for a couple of days.

I do all of that, of course, because I’m afraid she’ll divorce me if I don’t. That’s the only reason people in a loving relationship think about pleasing the other, right? When she gets home, she’ll take care of many of the chores around the house, knowing that I’ll toss her out on the street if she doesn’t.

Hopefully by now you realize that I write in jest. Yet this reflects the way many talk about our relationship with God. Those who believe in salvation by works often say that if you take out that element of fear of condemnation, people won’t want to do good things. Some who are assured of their salvation will mock any attempts to discuss what is pleasing to God, saying that the only thing that matters is that we have eternal life.

For many, that’s the bottom line: am I going to an eternal reward or eternal punishment?

Just as the relationship I described in the first two paragraphs is far from healthy, so such an attitude toward God is sick. Back in January, I wrote:

Neither do I believe in a mere transactional relationship with God. That is, I think that my relationship with God isn’t just about getting what I want from Him (in this case, salvation). In a relationship of love, you seek to please the other, not because of what you might get by doing so, but because you love the other.

And I fully agree with myself. :-)

I seek to know God’s will, to know what pleases Him, not because I’m afraid He’ll toss me in the lake of fire when this life is over. I do it because I love Him and want to do what He wants. I want to be like Him, more so every day.

Am I misguided in this view?

The “Only The Atonement Counts” Dodge

2 Replies

This is the sixth post in a series of posts looking at the Sermon on the Mount. I’ve referred to a blog by Michael L. Westmoreland-White which brings up these specific points; he in turn credits John Howard Yoder and Glen Stassen. Westmoreland-White describes “dodges” to the Sermon on the Mount, ways in which people seek to get around applying it today. We’ll look today at the last dodge in the group: the “all that matters is the atonement” dodge. (I might note that he is specifically discussing pacifism, so his comments at times focus on how the Sermon is applied at a national level)

To some degree, I addressed this last dodge on Friday. Some feel that any talk of how Christians should live somehow cheapens Jesus’ sacrifice and turns Christianity into a works-based-salvation religion. I probably don’t have a lot to add to what I said on Friday; I strongly encourage you to read that post to understand my rejection of that outlook.

I will restate however that Jesus did not die to give Christians a free pass to live as they please. He died to allow men to be holy, men who can’t make themselves holy on their own. The proper response to such a sacrifice is loving obedience, not out of a desire to justify ourselves, but out of a desire to please the One who died to make us holy.

In the Old Testament, God marveled at the fact that His people couldn’t understand this point, that they would respond to His love and mercy by turning their back on Him. Maybe this is seen most graphically in the book of Hosea, where Hosea marries a woman who is continually unfaithful to him, with this relationship symbolizing the relationship between God and His people. Today God expects a similar loving response from the bride of Christ, not out of fear of divorce, but out of a loving desire to please her husband.

I have a few more thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount, but we’ve finished looking at Westmoreland-White’s article. I’d like to hear your reactions.

Bounded vs. Centered Sets

5 Replies

Last week, Leadership Journal ran an article by John Ortberg where he discussed a concept made popular by Paul Hiebert: bounded vs. centered sets. Hiebert was sort of the Yoda of missionary anthropology, so I’ve read lots of his writings, included his discussion of this concept. But I hadn’t really thought of it in the way that Ortberg applied it.

The idea is that instead of looking at our salvation as a bounded set (saved, not saved), we should look at it as a centered set, the center being Christ. What happens is that we start with salvation by grace, then begin to act as if we were saved by works. In Ortberg’s words:

If we treat Christianity as a bounded set, there will always be a disconnect between the gospel and discipleship. The gospel will be presented as something to get you “inside the circle.” Once you’re inside, we don’t want to say you have to do anything to stay in (that would be salvation by works). But we don’t want to say you don’t have to do anything (the triumph of entropy, or, to use a biblical word, being lukewarm, or to use a theological word, antinomianism). So we don’t know what to say.

However, if we treat Christianity as a centered set, the relationship between the gospel and discipleship becomes much clearer. The gospel is the proclamation that life with and through Jesus is now available to ordinary people. It is a free gift of forgiveness and grace that cannot be earned. If I want it, the way that I enter into it is by becoming a follower of Jesus and orienting our lives with him at the center.

There have been times on this blog where I’ve presented an idea and someone says, “So if we don’t do that, we’re lost?” That’s bounded-set thinking. We need to understand that sanctification is a continual process, the process of becoming like Christ. We should ever be working to be more like Jesus.

Now before someone points it out, yes, I do believe there is a difference between saved and not saved, that there is a boundary. The idea of the bounded set is not totally wrong. But it’s less than helpful as we examine the concept of sanctification.

I found Ortberg’s article to be thought-provoking. I hope you’ll read it.