Try Harder (Reprise)

I ranted a while ago about "try harder theology". Yeah, it was a rant. I'd like to say it was a reasoned discussion, but it was written in the wee hours of the morning and I just sort of opened the flood gates and let it pour out.

There is some value to revisiting the whole topic: there is a lot more to be said. So let's start with a recap:
Romans 1–8 contains two general sections. The first, from chapter 1:18 through about chapter 5:8 is the discussion of justification. Justification is God's declaring a sinner to be righteous. This is demonstrated in Romans 4:5. God justifies the ungodly. It is the sinner who believes who is justified, not the one who works. Justification doesn't imply that we become righteous, but that God declares us to be so.

But discussion takes a sharp turn somewhere about Romans 5:9, where Paul begins a new argument. The central word from Romans 1:18 to Romans 5:8 is "justified". But in Romans 5:9, there is a new word, "saved". The argument from Romans 1:18 to Romans 5:8 was justification; starting in Romans 5:9 the subject is salvation.

From Romans 1:18 to about Romans 5:8, the argument was what we term a "forensic" argument. Men are guilty of sins, actual acts of rebellion. But in Romans 5:12 we turn from sins to sin. And in the second part of Romans 5 we learn not only have all men sinned, but all men are sinners. This is actually a different lesson. Romans 1:18–3:19 tell us what men have done. Romans 5 tells us why they did it.

Romans 6 gives us the solution to the ontological problem, just like Romans 4 gave us the solution to the forensic problem. Those who have been baptized into Christ, the argument goes, have been baptized into His death. Having been crucified with Christ, we are now dead to sin. So we are justified from sins and we are dead to sin.

Romans 7 gives us some practical consequences to Romans 6. Having died to sin, are we then transported into instant perfection? No, we are not. Sin dwells in us, in our flesh (Romans 7:18). So now we are introduced to a new word: "flesh". And we learn that there is an active force of sin that pulls us down. This is not merely bad habits: this is an active indwelling sin that lives in our bodies and drags us into sin. So Paul talks about wanting to do what he can't do, and not wanting to do what he does. And he concludes that there is a principle in his members that is distinct from himself.

The last few verses give us a remarkable truth: that the sin that dwells in us is stronger than we are. We can't overcome it, we can't be better. There is no amelioration: we need a Deliverer. We need Someone outside of ourselves to deliver us from the flesh inside.

And notice the Scripture specifically tells us Law doesn't help. Law only exacerbates the problem. We see the Law and delight in its perfection, but when we try to keep it, we find ourselves even worse off than before. The Law is good, but I am not.


My rant last time focused on the futility of overcoming the flesh by trying harder. And I (correctly) noted a specific example of someone teaching people to do the very thing Scripture says won't work. But there is more.

Romans 7 presupposes that there is a new creation. A sinner feels no internal conflict with the flesh: there is nothing for the flesh to fight against. And this is the part of Romans 7 that gets confusing. It's not that the Law is bad. In fact, the man in Romans 7 proves his regeneration by delighting in the Law. But when he tries to keep it, he finds himself worse off. The man in Romans 7 is a new creature in the old creature's body: this is the essential problem. The negative consequence is that futility of that man trying to improve himself.

But there is a positive truth too. If the new creature is in the old creature's body, that certainly proves there is a new creature. This is the fatal flaw in the passive approach that many try to take. It is absolutely true that God never intended us to duke it out with sin. It is absolutely true that we are powerless over the flesh in us. But that is not the whole truth.

The equal and opposite truth is that we are new creations. Yes, we encounter obstacles we cannot overcome, and the plain teaching of Scripture is that we ought not to try. But the Scripture is equally plain that there is a life that is to be lived. And so the new man is taught to yield his members as instruments of righteousness. Note we aren't to bludgeon them into being instruments of righteousness, we're to yield them.

But the point is that we are to live out eternal life, and it's not passive.

A friend many years ago told me, "There's a ditch on both sides of the road". It's all too easy to step into the ditch on the right trying not to fall into the one on the left.

There are two dangers here. The first is to ignore the ontological changes in Romans 6 and the warnings of Romans 7 and teach sanctification by Law. This is the error of the Galatians: to think that we can be justified by faith but perfected by works. And so there are millions of true believers who keep trying harder, but they eventually conclude they're not trying hard enough. But the Scripture teaches there's no such thing as "hard enough". It just doesn't work that way.

But the opposite danger is just as real. This is the danger of becoming fixated on the flesh in us, realize we need a Deliverer, and slide into a complete passivism. I've known many who've fallen into this, and it leads to what another friend dubbed "Christian Buddhism", where the believer strives for a state of nothingness. This is the error of those who teach "dying to self" as the solution.

The first error ignores what the Scripture says about the flesh, the second ignores what it says about the new creation.

The fact is, the Scripture doesn't teach a life of nothingness, but it does teach the futility of human effort in sanctification. So Scripture doesn't teach a passive life, but it does teach an effortless one. We are called to eternal life, and we're to live it out down here, in a wicked world, in sinful bodies. But we live it not through will-power or human effort; we live it through faith in the Son of God (Galatians 2:20). Christ Jesus is our life, our sanctification, our holiness, our wisdom, and our righteousness (Colossians 3:4, 1 Corinthians 1:30). We've not been saved to be autonomously good, but we've not been saved to sit here either. We've been called to look into His eyes and take a step at a time.

16 But I say, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall no way fulfil flesh’s lust.
17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these things are opposed one to the other, that ye should not do those things which ye desire;
18 but if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under law.
(Galatians 5:16–18, JND)

I used to think "walking in the Spirit" a very deep and mysterious thing. I don't think that now. I think what the Scripture terms "walking in the Spirit" is simply the deliberate act of submission to Christ. It's not that we try harder, it's that we bow to Him and let Him lead us. When we come up against the flesh, we look to Him to deliver us. And we take each step relying on the Lord to be our provision.

I've been overwhelmed by the last verse of 2 Corinthians 3:

But *we* all, looking on the glory of the Lord, with unveiled face, are transformed according to the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Lord the Spirit.
(2 Corinthians 3:18, JND)

What is the secret to the Christian life? It's the transforming effect of looking on the glory of the Lord. Looking doesn't require a lot of effort, but it's a definite and distinct activity. And as we gaze on Him, we are told, we are transformed into the same glory.

He that boasts, let him boast in the Lord (1 Corinthians 1:31, JND)

The Sunday School lesson I never had

Try harder!

I listen to a lot of sermons at work: my job is sometimes heavily interactive, but there are a lot of days where I am working alone more or less all day. I wear headphones to sort of announce my desire not to be disturbed, and I frequently spend a whole work day listening to sermons as I work. By far I listen to MP3s from VoicesForChrist.org the most.

I've noticed a real rise in "try harder theology" in the messages I've been listening to. What do I mean by "try-harder theology?" I mean that line of teaching that would tell us that a holy life is the result of will power and effort. I suppose we might use terms like "law" or "legalism" too. I refer to it as "try harder" theology, because it seems we always need to try a little harder. That's because it fundamentally doesn't work: you can't actually try hard enough.

People who teach this sort of thing like to offer advice that should work, but it doesn't. They'd tell us what we need to do is make covenants, perhaps we need to exercise our will more, or maybe what we really need to do is to fast and pray. But in the end, we find what Paul found:

I find then the law upon *me* who will to practise what is right, that with *me* evil is there.
For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man:
but I see another law in my members, warring in opposition to the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which exists in my members.
(Romans 7:21–23, JND).

There are all sorts of nice theories out there about how we can live more godly lives. And they seem to make a lot of sense, but the Scripture is very clear: there is a law of sin in our members. That law says, when I want to do what is right, evil is right there with me. We can't escape this law as long as our bodies are unredeemed. We are new creatures in Christ, but we live in the old creatures' bodies. And as long as we're in the unredeemed body, the law of sin is there. And the harder we try to do right, the more we find that law of sin working against us.

Law---any law---can't help us. The problem is not that we lack laws, the problem is that the whole purpose of law is to point out what we're not. Law can't make us good, it can just tell us we're not. The Law of Moses is a perfect law---the only perfect law---and it can't make us good. If the perfect law is powerless to make us good, surely any other law is equally powerless.

So when we put ourselves under law---any law---to make us more godly, we find that we merely prove what God has already said: we are not.

This was the error of the Galatians. They began in the spirit, but they thought they could be made perfect in the flesh (Galatians 3:1–3). They thought they could get life through faith, but live it out by works. This is not Christianity, the just shall live by faith. The Colossians were told, "as therefore ye have received the Christ, Jesus the Lord, walk in him" (Colossians 2:6, JND). We are to walk as we received; by faith.

I spent many years trying harder. I memorized my Bible, I fasted, and I prayed. But in the end, I found exactly what Paul found: there is sin in my flesh. As long as I live in an unredeemed body I'll carry sinful flesh around with me. And like Paul, I found not only was it there, but I was powerless over it. I wanted to do what was right, I found myself doing what was wrong. So I assumed I needed to try harder. And I tried very hard, but it was never hard enough.

Paul gives us the answer in Romans 7:24, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of this body of death?" (JND). The problem is not that I need to try harder, the problem is that I need someone to deliver me.

J. N. Darby said it wonderfully:

Nor can you get out of the difficulty until you have come to the personal consciousness, the self-knowledge, which finds out that you cannot get the victory over sin. It is a terrible thing to see; but it is learning this, that I have no power, and not merely that I am guilty. "To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not"; and until you are brought to the conscience of "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me?" I cannot succeed; sin is too strong for me; I am not brought to the point, where alone the deliverance is got. I may or may not have the knowledge of forgiveness. This modifies the form, but not the substance, of the experience. It is always essentially under law, that is, a claim upon us to be in a given state. But you say "I must try." "Very well," I say, "Try away, try away." Why? Because then he will learn that he cannot, and presently he will say, not "How shall I do better?" but, "Who shall deliver me?" He is then in such a condition that another must take him out of it. He finds he is not only ungodly, but without strength; he has learned what he is, not merely what he has done; and then he sees Christ there in power, and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus makes him free from the law of sin and death. This is not a question of non-imputation, nor of cleansing, but of making free. Then I find it settled in seeing the truth and ground of it in the cross of Christ, and not in my personally obtaining of purity at a given moment.
("Cleansing and Deliverance", Collected Writings, Vol. 23)

Read those first two sentences carefully. The problem is not only that we have sin in our flesh, but that we are utterly powerless to overcome it. Until we learn that, Darby says, we will try to be better instead of looking for deliverance.

This is closely related to the teaching of Romans 6, although it's not the same thing. We are crucified with Christ so that we are dead to sin. Not so that we can die to sin, but so that we have died to it. The basis of our deliverance is, we have died to sin. But Romans 7 tells us something more: sin is still there in our flesh. We are new creations, but we live in old bodies.

God never meant for us to duke it out with sin. We've been crucified with Christ to be freed from sin (Romans 6), and we need to be delivered from the sin we find in ourselves (Romans 7). In both cases, it is God's work to rescue us. But "try harder" Christianity takes us from our Deliverer and throws us back into the conflict to fight it out for ourselves. It is foolishness. It is the opposite of faith.

I've been down that road; there's nothing good down there.

A particularly egregious example is a message from the 2005 Shepherding Conference at Greenwood Hills in Pennsylvania, "A Critical Need" (MP3). Here we have a speaker addressing leaders from several "open" assemblies in the USA and Canada. He addresses the problems of moral purity in leadership, focusing mainly on Internet pornography and so forth. It's uncomfortable, but probably necessary. And it's commendable that he speaks openly about it. But around 13 minutes into the talk he presents his "solution"... from Daniel 1:8 and then later from Job 31:1.

Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not pollute himself (Daniel 1:8, JND)

I made a covenant with mine eyes; and how should I fix my regard upon a maid? (Job 31:1, JND)

And then he spends the rest of the message urging the brethren to enter into covenants to avoid this sort of sin.

It is utterly appalling. This brother points out a very real problem, but he offers no solution. His solution is law. I can't repeat it enough, the solution to lawlessness isn't law. That's the whole point of Galatians: the Law was given to demonstrate that we need a Saviour. Once we come to Christ, the Law has done all it can:

But before faith came, we were guarded under law, shut up to faith which was about to be revealed.
So that the law has been our tutor up to Christ, that we might be justified on the principle of faith.
But, faith having come, we are no longer under a tutor;
for ye are all God’s sons by faith in Christ Jesus.
(Galatians 3:23–26, JND)

This is exactly what Romans 7 is talking about: law doesn't actually empower us to live lawfully. Law can tell us we're bad, but it has no ability to make us good. We don't need law, we need deliverance. The problem of lust isn't to be conquered through purpose of heart, strength of will, or a covenant with or eyes (or anything else). What does Romans 7 teach? There is sin in the flesh and you are powerless over it. You can't beat this thing, it's stronger than you are. There is a law of sin in your members and the harder you try to be good, the worse you're going to find you are. And what is the result? The result is we realize we are "wretched" and we look for the Deliverer.

This sermon is putting Christians under law, plain and simple. It is the opposite of the teaching of the New Testament. It is opposite to the faith of the Apostles. The Epistles uniformly present not law nor the power of the will (because really, that's all he's offering in this sermon), but new life in Christ as the power for our walk down here. Christ has been crucified and I have died with Him. He was raised from the dead, and I am to walk in newness of life. I have died with Him: this is fact. I am to act on this fact by reckoning myself to be dead to sin. And when I find that law of sin in my members; when I recognize that I am a new creation in the old creation's body, then I am to look for my Deliverer. That is the teaching of Romans 6 & 7, Galatians 2, Colossians 2 & 3, and Ephesians. The Epistles don't tell us how to deal with this problem, they tell us how Christ has already dealt with it. They don't tell us to make covenants or put ourselves under law: on the contrary, they warn us that these attempts will merely exacerbate the problem.

This sermon offers as a solution the very thing Romans 7 tells us doesn't work. I don't know how I can say it more plainly than that.

And what I'm proposing ought not to be "strange doctrine" to these brothers. It was the settled doctrine of "brethren" from their beginnings in the 1820s until very recently. Darby might have said it best, but it was taught by W. Kelly, C.H. Mackintosh, F.W. Grant, George Mueller, etc. Literally all "brethren" for more than a century held that sanctification is by grace, not law. I am not proposing anything new: I have many books on my shelves more than 100 years old that all insist on the same thing.

Not everything on VoicesForChrist.org is bad. Indeed, there is some very good ministry there. In fact, there is a series on Romans by William McRae that's just excellent. And there is a lot of solid stuff by Neil Dougal, John Phillips, and Colin Anderson, as well as many others. But I'm finding "try harder" theology is becoming more and more prevalent there.

Up to this point...

I've been pretty quiet lately, not having a whole lot to say. But I've been thinking a lot, and there are some things I've decided I want to say more or less in "public".

We moved out here (the Northwest) from North Carolina in the summer of 2008, so a little over two years ago. When we arrived here we had no idea what sort of church/assembly fellowship we'd find. I had become somewhat bitter and disillusioned about "brethren", and I was not very interested in getting involved in that sort of thing again... but I found to my dismay that the pickings are kind of slim as far as Christian fellowship is concerned. I don't see a lot of point to attending a gathering where the Lord's Supper isn't done weekly, which limits the selection significantly. There are any number of liturgical gatherings, but I found they quickly deteriorated into superstition and sacerdotalism. We did find some wonderful Christians in different places, but I found myself more and more chafing wherever we went.

We tried sitting at home on Sundays, but that's a recipe for disaster. Everyone I've known who's gone down that path ends up regretting it. And it wasn't too long before I realized that was a really bad idea. I'm not telling anyone else what to do, but I just found there is a difference between the sort of rugged dependence on God that Paul teaches in Galatians 1 & 2 and isolationism. Yes, there is a sense where we need to be independent (really "directly dependent" is a better term); but I can't reconcile "isolated" with Scripture. So we set out to find Christians with whom to remember the Lord.

We spent a few months in a PCA church, which was on the whole very positive. Actually, I have a high opinion of the small PCA church we visited. There were certainly points of disagreement, but I was very pleased with that bunch.

But I finally realized that my earlier claims about believing the "brethren" line were true. When I look in Scripture I see something very much along the lines of what "exclusive brethren" teach: I just couldn't find anyone doing it.

We eventually settled into an "open brethren" assembly an hour away. We spent almost exactly a year there: the first day we visited was Easter 2009, the last time we were there was Easter 2010. So not really a year, but a liturgical year.

Then the week after Easter 2010 I met a guy at work from an assembly in Tacoma, and I went to visit that next Sunday. It turns out a friend of mine from back east knows these people and spoke very highly of them, so that was a very positive sign to us. We spent a couple months scoping them out and finally decided we just needed to settle in. So we've been breaking bread there since sometime in the summer.

I'm not going to say too much about the Tacoma assembly here: it's full of people who've got the flesh in them. Some of what is said there is nonsense, some is really helpful. But when I look around and talk to the people, I see people who are genuinely trying to walk with the Lord.

One friend described it this way: "You've heard of 'tight-open' brethren, well we're 'loose-closed' brethren." I think that's a good description. And frankly when I look back on my blog, I realize that's what I've been groping towards. I'm still convinced "exclusive brethren" teach what Scripture teaches, and I've been wanting to find people with whom to practice it.

So at least that part of the story has had a happy ending.

But we did spend that year with "open brethren", and there are some comments I'd like to make about that. I won't put them here, I just wanted to give a prologue to the next post(s). I'm deeply troubled by a good deal of what I've seen and heard in "open brethren" over the last several years; but I'm concerned about how I express them. Here be dragons.

Convergence

I've been thinking about the issue of "God's Sovereignty" and "Human Responsibility". And the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that these two incongruous-seeming principles unite in a single Person.

The Lord Jesus came out from God to man: He stands before us as God's provision for a sick and sinful world. He represents to us God's sovereignty.

and the life has been manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father, and has been manifested to us (1 John 1:2, Darby)

Christ is the summation of all men can possibly want in God

Jesus says to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father unless by me. (John 14:6, Darby)

Christ Jesus, who has been made to us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and holiness, and redemption; that according as it is written, He that boasts, let him boast in the Lord. (1 Corinthians 1:30 & 31, Darby)

But there's the other side too: Christ stands before God as a Man, as the Man. He is all God could ever look for in a Man, and He stands as the Responsible Man

I have glorified *thee* on the earth, I have completed the work which thou gavest me that I should do it (John 17:4, Darby)

While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying, *This* is my beloved Son, in whom I have found my delight: hear him. (Matthew 17:5, Darby)

I tried to speak about this in the assembly a couple weeks ago, and I think everyone thought I was babbling incoherently. Maybe I was.

Job longed for Someone who could stand as a mediator between God and himself,

For he is not a man, as I am, that I should answer him; that we should come together in judgment. There is not an umpire between us, who should lay his hand upon us both... Oh that there were arbitration for a man with +God, as a son of man for his friend! (Job 9:33, 34; 16:21, Darby)

What Job longed for---what we all need---is Someone who can relate to us and at the same time relate to God. Paul gives us the answer,

For God is one, and the mediator of God and men one, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, the testimony to be rendered in its own times; (1 Timothy 2:5 & 6, Darby)

There is one Person---exactly one---who can stand for man with God, and stand for God with men.

The Lord Jesus, we are told, is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1). He is the brightness of God's glory (Hebrews 1). We cannot see God, but God has pointed to Christ and said, "If you want to know what I am like, look at Him!" He is the complete revelation of God, the God who used to speak through the prophets but has now spoken in the Son.

And at the same time, He is the One who can stand before God and say, "There is nothing you can look for in man that I am not. No demand, however exacting, can be made that I have not already fulfilled."

And this one Person is right now sitting at God's right hand, representing my interests in Heaven. It boggles the mind, but it ought to encourage the heart.

Ezekiel

I'm still soldiering through Ezekiel, trying to get a handle on this book. I've nothing spectacular to report, but I wanted to give an update in case anyone else cares.

I've been pretty meticulous about not consulting any sort of commentary; I figure the time for that is later. I did glance at one paragraph in JND's Synopsis, but I can't remember why. I've spent a lot of time reading and re-reading the book and mulling over what I've read.

I can't help but notice the opening scene is somewhat repeated three times (chapters 3, 8--10, and 43). The appearance of the glory of the Lord "as at Chebar" seems to mark out sections in the book:

1. after the first vision at Chebar (chapters 1--3), the rules of the watchman are given (chapter 3)


2. after the second vision (chapter 3), prophecies are given against Israel, Judah, and Jerusalem


3. the third vision (chapters 8--11) is while the glory of the Lord leaves the Temple in Jerusalem; after that comes the bulk of the book, chapters 12--42


4. the fourth and final vision (chapter 43) takes Ezekiel into the new Temple

My amillenialist and postmillenialist friends will note I'm confident a great deal of the prophecies in Ezekiel refer to the return under Zerubbabel. My premillenialist friends will be glad to hear that there are significant chunks of Ezekiel that clearly refer to a future kingdom with Ephraim and Judah once more united in the land.

I've noticed that Ezekiel's prophecies to the Gentiles (Ammon, Edom, Egypt, Moab, Tyre, etc.) all occur between the third and fourth visions of the glory: after it leaves the Temple and before it returns. Prior to the glory of the Lord abandoning the temple in Jerusalem (chapters 8--11), all of Ezekiel's prophecies are to Israel (i.e. Israel, Judah, Jerusalem and the exiles in Babylon). Once the glory returns in chapter 43, his attention returns to Israel. But in the middle of the book, where the glory is gone, he prophecies to Gentiles as well as Israel.

I've written a lot of notes on my computer, and the first 15 or so chapters are heavily underlined in my main study Bible. There's a lot in this book, and I'm really still scratching at the surface, trying to make the smallest dent in it.

Strength of God

I've been wrestling with Ezekiel for the last couple weeks. I really want to get a grasp on Ezekiel: it's one book I've always found interesting and exceedingly puzzling.