1. The basis of the statement is that God is at work in you. Working out your salvation without acknowledging that leads to the problem that Jared is worried about. If we ignore God’s sovereignty in sanctification, we end up moving in the direction of the Galatian heresy.

2. The command in the statement is to work out your salvation. That means actually doing something, even if that doing is based on what God is doing and reliant on God ultimately fulfilling that promise in us. If we take God’s sovereignty in sanctification to be a reason not to bother becoming sanctified, then we use grace as a means for sin, something Paul is as opposed to as trying to merit our salvation in the above way.

I submit that Jared is most worried about the first problem, Joe is most worried about the second problem, and Paul has concern to instruct people to avoid both (usually in different places).

The problem is when we read attempts to avoid the problem in 1 as encouragement to commit the problem in 2 or vice versa.

I feel the same way sometimes. “IT” is like me, myself and i have stumbled into a 2012 end of the world movie of our next generation (which, I saw last night and I guess time will tell which of these world was or is the best. :)

Peace

I feel the same way sometimes. It’s like I stumbled into a Star Trek convention and two guys with Spock-ears are arguing about episode 1 in Season 4 of The Next Generation (which, by the way, was “The Best of Both Worlds, Part II”).

I always thought that the point of the “gospel” was that we finally had a lawkeeper who covered our sin and now enabled us to be law keepers ourselves.

Or perhaps I have completely missed the point of this whole conversation.

There was a time when I didn’t understand the Lutheran “Law and Gospel” terminology. When I heard some good discussions using it, I realized they were answering questions I had had since I was about nine years old.

The questions from age nine came when a woman who taught VBS tried to explain the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian. For the Christian, among other things, “bad thoughts” went away. I found I could still picture a car accident despite praying the prayer. Well, while that specific example might have been something evangelical teaching could have gotten me beyond, the deeper question of basing assurance of salvation on some degree of measurable change remained a problem. When the Lutheran answer was presented, it made a lot of sense to me. And distinguishing between Law and Gospel was a lot of what solved this.

I wonder what “New Perspective on Paul” people teach in VBS.

First, let me say that this post wasn’t just about you. Though I think you are one of the bloggers that I’m referring to, you are certainly not the only—or even the primary one—I’m talking about.

Second, the most I ever expect of anyone I criticize (and that seems to be a harsher word than I intend) is what I expect of myself: Listen to the criticism, see if it is correct, and apply if necessary.

If you’re receiving a number of responses saying that you are right and that my critique is off-base, then you should listen to them. I’m just one guy with an opinion. As I said in the post, I could be wrong about all of this. Generally, on your posts I can (I think) read between the lines and get the gist of what you are saying. That is more than what I can do with some other folks.

So if I’m the only one thinks your posts are sometimes lacking in clarity, then I apologize that I included you in the critique.

I could go on and on but I’ll simply close by saying, may God Bless you in His Own Way Matt!

Peace

That’s officially the most confusing comment I’ve read yet at this blog.

I think I speak for us all when I say, eh?

Matt

I would like to compliment you on coming out of your shell and if you think I’m wrong please accept my apology. If am mistaken then my excuse will be that I have not read enough of your post and/or other materials, simply said I just don’t know you yet. Besides, trying to figure someone out by picking his/her brain is not very polite as far as my God is concerned so I’ll just keep reading and let “The Holy Spirit” tell me what i really think about you.

But just the same I would advise you from my experience not to get too far from that spiritual/reality shell of your JOB. :)

There’s so much to digest here that I’m not sure if I will ever get out of my shell also but if “The Holy Spirit” tells me to comment again, there’s no way that I could refuse HIM?

I hear ya! You’re not out of your shell yet Victor? Go Figure!

Peace

So, if I listen to talks about sanctification through this mindset, and they are just boring, prescriptive talks describing lengthy, tedious, habit forming activities, I can see no motivation at work except an underlying appeal to fear. Perhaps disguised by some other word, but fear is all it can really come down to. Many forms of Protestantism also use a clever form where they say we’re saved by faith, but I can only know I have saving faith through my works. But, this is practically indistinguishable from a Catholic works and faith doctrine.

This leads me to my conclusion that no Christian, no matter how Protestant, really believes in faith alone. Even Luther wished he hadn’t preached faith alone to the masses. Thus my respect for Catholicism, since at least pre-Vatican 2 is very straightforward and clear about its doctrine (insofar as I’ve researched).

2) There are, in addition to subtle differences in definitions amongst people who ultimately agree, areas of real and substantial disagreement. In these areas, I wish we could treat each other a bit more charitably. And in order to avoid being fuzzy in my prescription, here’s what I mean: Every time a question is raised we answer it as if it’s the first time we’ve heard it. It’d make the ongoing debates about catholicism at this blog (and elsewhere) much more productive, I think.

Joe, is this a fair assessment of the situation?

I think there is sometimes a fear among Christians that, while the gospel is fine as far as it goes, we need a good dose of law to keep us on the straight and narrow. At its worst, this can devolve into a view in which the gospel is seen as solely about justification, while sanctification is seen as more reliant on the third use of the law; or one in which the message of the forgiveness of sins through Christ is seen as a message only for non-Christians, because Christians are already forgiven and don’t need to be told about it each week. But even where things don’t go that far, many of us (knowing our own hearts) feel more comfortable using the law as a hedge around the gospel, as it were.

So no-one is saying that sanctification doesn’t matter; just that the means by which the Holy Spirit sanctifies us is principally the preaching of the gospel of the forgiveness of sins in Christ. The “third use” has to be understood in that context (as the voluntary obedience, without anxiety or coercion, of the “new man” – as my pastor puts it, “faith wants to do this”).

That’s counter-intuitive, which is why we so easily fall back on our to-do lists and checklists of appropriate Christian behaviour.

I am a pastor in the least churched state in the nation. Every week I meet with people who are, for lack of a better word, “simple” in their faith (or lacking in faith). Most are blue collar, uneducated, and do not understand the vocabulary of theology. But they are evidencing real freedom, real growth, real comfort, real life change from the very stuff I post here that is being found so dense and indiscernible.

And this is how I know that some of the Internet objections are asinine.