Learning begins with clear definitions. Until we can define something clearly, it is doubtful that we really understand it. If the people who hear us fail to understand and agree with our definitions, they often will hear the opposite of what we actually are saying. Some years ago, the following dialogue took place between an angry woman and my brother Ernest:
“You don’t believe those awful things that your brother John believes do you?”
“What awful things do you mean?”
“That all babies go to hell.”
“No, I do not believe that.”
“That some people sincerely want to be saved but God will not save them because they are not one of the elect.”
“Oh, my no, I do not believe that.”
The woman sighed in relief and said, “I am so glad that you do not agree with your brother John.” My brother knew that I did not believe anything the woman accused me of believing. When he told me about the incident, he said, “John, if you had met her, you would have known that it was a waste of time to try to explain that her views of what you believe were completely wrong.” To this day, that woman thinks that my brother and I disagreed about the doctrine of election.
Definitions and presuppositions (out of which our definitions grow) are to thinking and teaching what a foundation is to a building. If the foundation is not square and level, then the whole building will be crooked—not only at the bottom, but also all the way up to the top. The entire scheme of redemption, just like a building, will lean in the direction dictated by the foundation.
Until we can definitively identify and describe our basic presuppositions, we will find it impossible to communicate or discuss a topic intelligently with any person who disagrees with us. Something may be an irrefutable fact to you, but the same thing may be utter nonsense to me. The evolutionist will refer to many facts that clearly support the theory of evolution. However, he or she has a basic presupposition that provides a framework for the interpretation of facts. The evolutionist begins with evolution as the first fact. Belief in evolution establishes the supposed truth of all other facts. The same things are not facts to me, simply because I do not believe the basic presupposition of evolution. The only level on which that person and I can meaningfully discuss the topic is on the level of presuppositions. We must start with the foundation or definition. Is evolution a fact or is it an unproven article of faith used by those who consciously reject the God of the Bible?
The world has no lack of faith. It has too much faith. Unfortunately, that great faith lies in the wrong person. All people are committed believers who live by faith. Some people believe lies and build their entire lives based on those lies. They build the house (in which they will live eternally) on the sand of lies and reject the authority of Scripture, which is the only solid foundation for truth. How we live depends on where we start—what we use for the foundation. This is Jesus’ point in Matthew 7:24-27. Some people build houses on the sand of lies; others build houses on the rock of truth. A Christian lives by faith in the words and authority of Jesus Christ the Lord. The non-Christian lives by faith in something else. Often that faith is in human autonomy.
My wife used to have a housecoat with twenty-two buttons. One day (before she had her morning coffee) she put button number one into buttonhole number two. Devil that I am, I watched her go all the way from top to bottom until she realized that she had one button left and no more holes. How many mistakes did she make? We would be prone to say one, but in reality she made twenty-one mistakes. She had to undo each button and start all over.
Life is the same, except that we are not able to start over with another chance. We may sail along through life with little or no trouble (as my wife did with the first twenty-one buttons). It all seems to go so smoothly. Everything seems to fit so well. However, when we reach the end of this life and face God, we will see that everything we did was misaligned, simply because we did it all for the wrong reason: from the wrong foundation. This is what Proverbs 21:4 means: “An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin” (KJV, emphasis added). Plowing is not inherently sinful, but when unbelievers plow, they are acknowledging, and depending on, God’s faithfulness in the seasons, while their hearts deliberately rebel against the God who controls the seasons. Their very plowing is an unconscious act of faith in the God they refuse to acknowledge.
This principle of starting everything from the right foundation holds true for theological discussions. A number of years ago, a man handed me a two-hundred-page book on predestination. The author’s opening statement ran along these lines, “Predestination is like this: A train company chooses to send a train from Pittsburgh to Chicago. That train is ‘predestined’ to arrive at Chicago at a given time. The train company will guarantee you that since the train is predestined to arrive at Chicago, you will also be ‘predestined,’ or guaranteed, to arrive at Chicago, if you are willing to get on the train. God’s predestination is the same. If you will only ‘accept Christ with your free will,’ then God will guarantee that you will be secure until the train reaches its predestinated goal. Once you ‘get on the train of grace,’ you are eternally secure and ‘predestined to get to heaven.’”
I handed the book back to the man and said, “This view is not true. The book is wrong.” The man exploded and said, “How do you know? You have not even read the book!” I tried to explain to him that if the author’s definition was wrong, then the entire book was wrong. The definition was assumed, without warrant, and the rest of the book was a futile attempt to prove the definition was correct. You could give me a ten-thousand-page book that begins, “The Bible is not really the inspired Word of God,” and I will assure you, without reading another word, that the book is garbage! All of the supposed facts presented in the rest of the book are based upon false presuppositions. Unfortunately, most people, like the man who gave me the book on predestination, are not presuppositional thinkers.
If you believe that free will is the moving cause of your conversion, then it logically follows that you can be saved and then lose your salvation. If your free will can get you saved, that same free will can get you lost. What free will begins, it also can end. Since I believe free grace, not free will, is the cause of salvation, then being saved and then lost again is not a logical possibility. Sovereign grace will finish what it begins! It is a waste of time to discuss being saved and then lost again without first discussing free will.
Most theological arguments and most other arguments as well, might just as well be conducted in an unknown sign language or in a silent debate. One side does not listen to what the other is saying, and as a result, they talk past each other. Ancient Greek debating societies followed a good rule that we should adopt today. No one could offer any criticism of an opponent’s position until he was able to state, to the opponent’s satisfaction, exactly what the opponent had actually said. If we observed this rule today, we would not publish books that rely on caricature to refute a position.
Most political, philosophic, and worse, theological, discussions are a waste of time. Two people can use identical words, but each may use those words to mean entirely different things. The truth that God’s people must be sanctified holy means something entirely different to me than it does to a Charismatic.
What is the correct foundation from which to build our understanding of grace? Let us begin with a basic text on the subject:
Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established [strengthened—NIV] with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein (Hebrews 13:9, KJV).
If we are to protect ourselves from going astray in our Christian life, we must have our hearts established with grace, or as the NIV says, strengthened by grace. At a minimum, that implies the following:
1. We need a heart that understands and loves the truth of grace.
2. That understanding encompasses the entire theology of grace.
3. That understanding leads to the conviction that grace is the only power that can give us spiritual strength. Neither the law nor self-effort can provide spiritual power.
4. We must understand and apply the means and follow the process whereby the heart is established or strengthened in grace. It is just as essential that we learn exactly how a saint grows in grace, as it is to know how a sinner is saved by grace.
One does not have to listen to many sermons or to read many books to discover that Christians hold very divergent views on how they grow in grace. Someone is always presenting keys, secrets, and/or experiences that guarantee victory and holiness. In this book, we address two specific views. One view emphasizes the Decalogue in the conscience as the God-ordained schoolmaster for saints, and the other view frees the conscience from that law through marriage to Christ.
Let me illustrate the differences between the views. Suppose a newly married man wants the love between him and his wife to grow and to create genuine faithfulness to each other. Each morning before he leaves for work, he reminds her that it is her duty not to commit adultery. Each day during the next month, they study the various things that lead to adultery, so she can fortify herself against this sin. Does such a climate best promote love and faithfulness? Proponents of both views agree that the woman’s duty is to love her husband and not to commit adultery. We all want to help her achieve that goal. The question, therefore, is this: What is the best way to help the wife grow in love and faithfulness in her attitude and her ensuing action toward her husband? Will constantly reminding her of her duty produce sincere love? Is it possible that thirty days of studying the little things that lead up to adultery could actually plant some seeds in her mind that she otherwise would not have considered?
Suppose we use a different approach. Instead of constantly reminding his wife of her duty, the husband, before he leaves for work, kisses his wife and reminds her of how much he loves her. At ten o’clock in the morning, he phones her and says, “I am thinking about you. I thank the Lord constantly for all you have brought into my life. Let’s have supper at that Chinese restaurant you like so much.” Would love and faithfulness have a better chance to flourish in the second atmosphere than they would in the first? This is the heart of our understanding of grace.
The purpose of this book is not to question if the law of God given to Moses is holy, just, and good. The Holy Spirit settled that (Romans 7:12). Nor are we questioning if both lost people and saved people need clear instructions regarding the objective commandments that constitute our God-ordained duty. Both our Lord and his writing disciples provide many examples of “this do” and “this do not.” We believe that the Bible spells out clear duties of Christians living under the New Covenant. We also believe that a failure to press those duties on both sinners and saints is a failure to preach the whole counsel of God. Anyone who suggests that our position in any way denies these two things is either grossly ill informed or deliberately spreading a lie.
What then is our main purpose in this book? It is clearly stated in the text we quoted from Hebrews. We want Christians to live holy lives. We believe that holy living is possible only as grace establishes (or strengthens) the heart of the Christian. We believe that sin is so awful and so powerful that it actually uses the law as its ally. The holy, just, and good law of God literally gives strength to sin, as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:56. “The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law” (KJV, emphasis added). He writes much the same in Romans 7:8. “Without the law, sin is dead” (KJV). The law awakens and empowers sin. God gave the law this very function. The law’s specific purpose is to arouse sin for the express purpose of convincing people of the depravity of their hearts. The Holy Spirit explicitly states this truth very clearly:
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts: for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me (1 Tim. 1:9-11, NIV, emphasis added).
How can anyone read these verses and say, “The greatest aid in a believer’s sanctification is the law”? Do preachers really believe their congregations consist of lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; those who kill their fathers and mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, slave traders and liars and perjurers?
If the goal in preaching is to stir up sin and give it strength, then preaching the law in such a way that it brings the believer’s conscience under the law is the surest way to reach that goal. However, if the goal in preaching to God’s sheep is to give them spiritual power to be holy, then the one thing you must not do is to press the law on the conscience.[1] That is Paul’s point in 1 Timothy 1:9-11 and 1 Corinthians 15:56. Read these verses carefully. It is one thing to use the law for the express purpose of making someone feel the reality of sin, it is quite another to use the law to try to provide strength against sin. This is the point in the illustration of the newly married husband and his wife. The two different views of sanctification we are discussing are diametrically opposed to each other. A preacher has a duty to seek to instill all of the New Covenant commandments in the Christian’s mind as a revelation of the Father’s will for his children. Some of those commands also appear in the Mosaic law. But it is utter folly to try to put the Christian’s conscience under that law in the hope that the fear of condemnation will move them away from sin. Once the law has revealed and justly condemned sin, it has fulfilled its duty and reached its limitations. It cannot produce or promote holiness. The glorious gospel alone gives strength against sin.
John Owen, in his great sermon on Romans 6:14, states the same principle:
First, the law giveth no strength against sin unto them that are under it, but grace doth. Sin will neither be cast out nor kept off of its throne, but by a spiritual power and strength in the soul to oppose, conquer, and dethrone it. Where it is not conquered it will reign; and conquered it will not be without a mighty prevailing power: this the law will not, cannot give.
… [The law is taken] for the covenant rule of perfect obedience: “Do this, and live.” In this sense men are said to be “under it,” in opposition unto being “under grace.” They are under its power, rule, conditions, and authority, as a covenant… In this sense the law was never ordained of God to convey grace or spiritual strength unto the souls of men.… It is not God’s ordinance for the dethroning of sin, nor for the destruction of its dominion.… There is, therefore, no help to be expected against the dominion of sin from the law… “The law is holy…just…good” but can do them no good, as unto their deliverance from the power of sin. God hath not appointed it unto that end. Sin will never be dethroned by it; it will not give place unto law, neither in its title nor its power…[2]
Secondly, the law gives no liberty of any kind; it gendereth unto bondage, and so cannot free us from any dominion,—not of sin, for this must be by liberty. But this we have also by the gospel. There is a twofold liberty:—1. Of state and condition; 2. Of internal operation; and we have both by the gospel.
…the freedom of the mind from the powerful inward chains of sin, with an ability to act all of the powers and faculties of the soul in a gracious manner. Hereby is the power of sin in the soul destroyed. And this also is given us IN THE GOSPEL.
Thirdly, the law doth not supply us with effectual motives and encouragements to endeavor the ruin of the dominion of sin in a way of duty; which must be done, or in the end it will prevail. It works only by fear and dread…these things weaken, enervate, and discourage the soul in its conflict against sin…
Fourthly, Christ is not in the law; he is not proposed in it, not communicated by it,−we are not made partakers of him thereby. This is the work of grace, of the gospel. In it is Christ revealed; by it he is proposed and exhibited unto us…[3]
It is noteworthy that Paul, in 1 Timothy l:9-11, does not set the law before us as the ultimate standard for sound doctrine, righteousness, or holy living. The “glorious gospel of the blessed God” is the ultimate standard for describing a truly righteous life, godly behavior, and correct biblical doctrine. Paul tells Christians to adorn themselves with the doctrines of the gospel. He never sends them back to Moses to be clothed in righteousness in either justification or sanctification.
We know too many preachers, whose sincerity we do not question, who resemble the husband mentioned earlier. They constantly remind their congregations of their duty in the hope of producing love and faithfulness. Every week, they send the sheep home with the rod of Moses on their backs. We must add that we also know some preachers who think that to preach Christ faithfully means never to mention either the word law or the word duty. These position-only people-pleasers send their hearers home with an unshakable confidence in an empty profession. They proclaim a twisted view of the Christian life that almost boasts, “We are free to do as we please, without fear.” It is far easier for a true Christian to fall into a legalistic mindset than it is for him or her to fall into a “let’s sin that grace may abound” mindset. However, this latter view poses a subtle danger in that it makes it easier for a false convert to fall into an antinomian attitude. A true Christian, by nature, or rather by new nature, will always hate sin and love righteousness, and this, to some extent, protects him or her from antinomianism. The glory of the New Covenant is that it guarantees that God will write his laws in the heart of every true child of God. In both Galatians and Romans, Paul warns against both legalism and antinomianism, but it is obvious which one gets more attention.
We should also note that the more sincere a child of God is in wanting to please God, the more he or she realizes the depth of his or her own depravity and guilt. Unless a person really grasps, in the conscience, the glorious truth of justification by faith on the grounds of the imputed righteousness of Christ, that person likely will try harder to please God as a means of gaining assurance. Such tender sheep are easy prey for law-preachers who use guilt to manipulate and control. The reverse is also true. The shallower the knowledge of sin, the likelier a person will be to excuse his or her sin and not to be concerned about it. Until such people see themselves as impotent victims, they will never see the need of a strong remedy that actually deals with the power of sin. Such people are looking for a ministry that presses neither duty nor the necessity of evidence of a changed life.
I can honestly say, from personal experience and observation of others, that if legalism or antinomianism were the only options, I would rather be a true believer with a legal mindset and joyless life than a false professor with a happy but groundless assurance. I would rather be a Mr. Fearing than I would a Mr. Talkative. Thank God, we do not have to settle for either of these choices. The biblical truth of grace assures us of both victory and unspeakable joy. The blessed Son of God delivers us from the law of sin and death, and the blessed Holy Spirit leads us to enjoy his fruit as we walk in the promises and precepts of God’s Word.