In recent months I've been more intentional in my consideration of the topic at hand. Just what is the nature of sanctification and what doctrine assures us of our salvation from God's wrath?
At one point in my race with Christ, I believed that there was no real pressure for the child of God to pursue holiness or good works; they were just supplemental actions not linked to our justification in any way. After some time in the faith, and some small measure of study and discipleship, I came to understand the intended (and undeniable) connection between justification and sanctification, the old adage, "you are saved through faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone (Jam. 2). But that doctrinal truth was rarely tempered with the gospel; I mean, we were certain about being regenerated by grace through faith alone(Eph. 2), but the relationship between grace and sanctification didn't seem so clear—at least not in praxis. It seemed as though the "progressive" nature which I then believed was part of the process, was emphasized far more often than the gracious power of the Spirit needed in order to mortify my sin. As a result of adopting the "Lordship" position, I began to tie my assurance of pardon to my performance or progress in the mortification process. This, as I see now, is deadly, especially when coupled with a high view of ecclesiastical discipline and a low view of the Lord's Supper. The next shift in my theology concerned my view of the Lord's Supper. Over time I no longer saw it as a simple memorial of what Christ did in time—a periodic reminder needed because it might have been the only time during the month that we heard so loudly and clearly about Christ's work for us, and before which we were charged to confess any known sin so as to make ourselves suitable for the participation in the ordinance—I soon came to see the sacrament as a means to an end: the end was the outpouring of God's gracious benefits, so I no longer saw the practice only as a reminder of Christ's death, one such practice my heart was never really prepared to take, but instead, as another means for God to be good to me on account of His Son; a visual, tactile proclamation of the gospel for weak sinners whose whole persons (bodies and all) are being saved.
When that theological shift was well under way, I began to question the "progressive" nature of sanctification. Maintaining my view of church discipline, and beginning to see the great necessity of protecting the Table from unbelievers, and protecting unbelievers from hypocrisy, I started to tie my assurance of pardon more to Christ's merit rather than the progress of my sanctification; I had begun to see the actual/biblical separation of Law and Gospel; I had been convinced that it was not my obedience to the imperatives of scripture that should make me sure of my justification, but rather my belief, against all hope, in the gospel laden indicatives of scripture: that I have been made a son of God, a child of the Kingdom, a new creation. But therein lies the true struggle of this journey, if I am set apart to Christ, and I am a new creature, and I have been declared just in God's eyes, and it is in those declarations that I find my assurance of guiltlessness, then is my mortification of personal sin necessarily progressive, and what is really meant by that term? It is this question over which I intend to muse in the next several posts.
4 comments:
When you say, "high view of ecclesiastical discipline", what exactly do you mean, or what aspect(s) of church discipline do you have in mind? It was also unclear to me whether or not you saw this as a positive thing.
Hi Kerry,
I apologize, that was a bit cryptic. When I wrote it I didn't think about the situation to which I was referring being a personal one.
I was trying to make a point (through the illustration no one could actually understand) that it is a terrible thing when one tries to assure himself of His pardon by constantly looking at his "progress" in the mortification of sin. When you have that mindset and your church "takes church discipline seriously" (has a high view of...which in our case at the time meant that if you saw someone you thought was overtaken by a particular sin and you approached them and no change was made, then you took your friend and other church member to confront him, and then there still was no change, the congregation would eventually be informed that their membership will be revoked and to evangelize that person as though they were never saved) yet the final "phase" of that disciple is tied more to church membership than it is tied to taking the Lord's Supper (because that ordinance in NOT seen as a means of God distributing His grace) then it is even more difficult for one to understand sanctification as a gracious process given by the mercy of God. So I believe that church discipline is a positive thing when administered rightly; for one reason, to protect the congregation and the Table and to encourage the offender to believe and repent. So, though the church we were in actually had a disciplinary process in place, which is much more than can be said for much of Evangelicalism, it was administered in the context of a difficult application of progressive sanctification.
I hope that has clarified what I was trying to say.
That does clarify. I look forward to the rest of your discussion on this.
Good. Yeah, me too...it's sort of a "stream of thought" type of writing. Not that I suggest that method for developing one's theology, just that I am thinking this through via the blog.
Post a Comment