justin tarlton (Jul 29, 2008)

Hello Grant, I’m a 2002 grad and I comment a lot on the BJU survivors board on Facebook where Camille is quite active. This is utterly ridiculous…and yet, completely not surprising that BJU would react this way. In hindsight, it is obvious that institutional infallibility and control is much, much more important to the leaders of BJU than is doctrinal accuracy. Christian “liberty” there and in fundamentalism as a whole is nonexistent. It has been replaced with rank legalism and an almost obsessive preoccupation with the external man at the expense of inward spiritual growth.

Ironically, I think it took the whole 4 (and a half) years at BJU for me to finally see that the Emperor was sorely lacking in the clothing department. I nearly attended another fundy school with slightly less strict rules, and I feel that if I had, I’d still be enslaved to that brand of religion. Seeing it up close and from the inside helped me move past the ridiculousness of it and on to a more Biblical view of life.

I’d love to see grads stand up and shout “NO!” to this sort of thing, but most have been shoveled this attitude their whole lives and have had the fear of man put so deeply into them, that they couldn’t bear to stand up to the system. I find that most grads either stay in the system somehow (usually though like minded churches) or go nuts, at least for a little while, after graduation. Some of us are fortunate though to find a “third way” and reconcile the errors we have been taught with the truth of the whole Scripture. That God has led me through that way is something for which I am infinitely thankful.

John Haynes (Jul 29, 2008)

Grant, I don’t know you or Camille, but I’ve read all the Ebenezer blog entries, and even though I don’t know the other side, since I went to BJU for my BA (‘86) and MA (‘91), I do know how BJU does things. So I pretty much do know the other side.

I’ve been thinking about what I can say about this. It is really sad that those who have drunk deeply of the BJU Kool-aid are in lockstep about this whole matter of shoving this Judaizer comment under the rug. It is troubling, to say the least. Maybe it’s a cop-out, and I certainly don’t mean it to be, but I think it’s something that may be indicative of where things are headed. It may show the direction the school is going in. I may have to reserve judgment until things develop further. If so, it’s only a matter of time before this snowballs into even more trouble for the University. I hope that’s not the case, but I fear that it is.

With regard to the passage in view (Gal. 5:4), I don’t think Paul is talking “rule-keeping system” as much as he is about seeking to be justified by the law, the Mosaic law. In other words, Paul is saying that you are putting yourself under a rule-keeping system and keeping those rules to be right with God. The bottom line is that it most certainly does apply. Judaizers haven’t been around for a long time, but the matter of works-based (or rules-based) righteousness is still around. I’ve heard it said before that there are really only two religions in the world: salvation by rules (works), and salvation by grace. It’s always been that way.

The biggest problem with this is that BJU really has no accountability. It’s not a church, so you can’t complain to the elders, and it’s not part of a denomination, so you can’t complain to the leaders there. Yes, we who are the alumni can do something, but that’s very difficult, as you have found out.

I do want to help. I’m not sure what I can do, but I do want BJU to realize that they really are accountable. I think we all should.

justin tarlton (Jul 30, 2008)

Grant, the problem with BJU is that they would see ANY grad who would lead a charge against this as “the embittered vengefulness of the disenfranchised.” Remember, you can tell what a man’s relationship with God is like by looking at his relationship with BJU. To attack the university is tantamount to attacking God Himself.

In a weird way, BJU is a niche business, not a “ministry”. They have created their own market through the mindset that we have mentioned, that no one can criticize the university. They have sent their grads out into churches to preach the same thing to parents who send their kids to that church’s Christian school, who tells its students that it is BJU or hell when they graduate. Those kids go to BJU and hear the same things they heard growing up, but in hi-def stereo and proceed to graduate and start the whole cycle over again.

I hate pessimism, but I don’t think that there is much that people like you and me and the thousands of other grads who have rejected this Biblical perversion can do about it. Not as long as BJU has a steady stream of consumers coming in from the BJU-controlled churches and schools.

Jonas (Jul 30, 2008)

As Christians who have seen the light are we not held responsible to help a fellow brother who is sinning? Even though BJU would see it as coming from the embittered, vengeful, and disenfranchised, aren’t we responsible to point out doctrinal error? One could pick up any of Berg’s books and find doctrinal error in there. When I was in school I never had a good feeling. It was all so outward and performance based. That in itself is error, maybe nothing doctrinal as I am no theologian, but it goes against what Jesus taught. I was burned out when I left and have been struggling since. However, my struggle is not directly with performance and looking good outwardly, my struggle is not going to far to the left. I’ve found myself questioning everything from Creation to God’s Deity. This, obviously, has led to me question my salvation at times. While I’m still searching out answers, I know that He is The Way. My issues are faith issues. Faith issues that stem from a system of works based righteousness and I have half a mind to talk to someone at BJU next time I’m in Greenville and ask why they have to look so good and why everything is performance based. Is anyone else familiar with the fact that in 2005 they started making everyone fill out a card once a month that made a student write down the number of times he/she went to church and on extension? And that if a student missed church or extension they have to write an explanation? Tell me THAT isn’t works based. Maybe I got off base, but I needed to write this out. I’m praying for my friends that are still there too. The change has been huge in some of my friends. I’ve known clean cut Bible majors who get out of school and end up sewing the wild oats. I’ve seen the opposite. The guy who no one thinks will succeed ends up on fire for God. It’s not really the school at the end of the day, it’s a personal decision to be live out God’s plan. However, that doesn’t excuse the people at BJU who have led people down a long road of pain and questioning. I’m thankful God didn’t call me to be in a position of and type of leadership at that place.

Sorry if I got off topic, but I didn’t know where else to say what I needed to say.

gordo (Jul 30, 2008)

Justin – you said it yourself – “the thousands of other grads who have rejected this Biblical perversion”.

Compare the number of grads coming out of BJU for the last 75 years with the number of copies of the Voice of the Alumni printed. The majority of BJU grads, to one degree or another, have rejected the institution.

Joseph (Jul 30, 2008)

Honestly, I don’t see a connection between the student handbook and the Judaizers. You could make a case that BJU (as a whole or factions within) sets up a rule-based system of sanctification. However, this is quite different that saying that people are justified by works. I suggest you rethink applying terms such as “judaizers” and “liberals” to BJU. Such inacuracies will only result in allowing your argument to be rejected prima facia.

Camille K. Lewis (Jul 30, 2008)

Hey, Joseph!

BJU does say that justification is by God alone. But they clearly and repeatedly argue that sanctifying grace is earned. They defend that idea to the point, as is pointed out here and on my blog, that they’ll dismiss Paul’s rebuke to the Judaizers.

Go look at my “How To Get Grace From God” post. That’s . . . at least in error. And I’m not so sure it’s not another Gospel.

Joseph (Jul 30, 2008)

Hey Camille,

As I said above, you have a case in criticizing how BJU presents the doctrine of sanctification. There is a growing concern within fundamentalism regarding how this doctrine is taught. I’m not comfortable saying BJU/Berg teaches that sanctifying grace is earned. What would I say? I’m not sure, and I don’t have time to think about it right now [ a cop-out I know, but I have to finish a rhetorical analysis of 1 Thess by Friday and be able to sight-read 2 Cor in Greek by Monday. I’ll take a closer look at it next week ]

However, my point is that you and Grant can’t both be right. Grant is saying that Berg is a Judiazer—that he believes you go to heaven by doing good works. You say he is a Keswick theologian—that he believes you can go to heaven without any change in your life at all. Furthermore, he’s a liberal because he believes Grant was taking Galatians out of context. I’ll have to re-read/listen to Berg before I can offer an informed opinion, but I already feel sorry for the guy. Calling him a liberal Keswick judiazer is a little much.

Joseph (Jul 30, 2008)

Oh, btw, I haven’t been to your blog in quite a while. It’s colorful now. I like it.

Camille K. Lewis (Jul 30, 2008)

I think you’re mishearing us. And I think we have different definitions of Judaizer. The standard fundamentalist definition of Judaizer as a person who says you work for your justification is . . . well, convenient. It’s like my saying that a bad mother is someone who DOESN’T serve their kids hotdogs for lunch.

This isn’t about Jim Berg either. It’s about the system of fundamentalism as practiced and reified at Bob Jones University. Berg is just a “representative anecdote” to use Burke’s phrase. Had to squeeze that in, didn’t I?

Keswick theology = Judaizing. ::shrug:: It’s the same thing. Both misunderstand the unmerited grace involved in sanctification. You say they are different. I don’t see how.

And what else is theological liberalism but dismissing whole portions of Scripture as inapplicable today? I understand that that fact makes us all uncomfortable, but it is what it is.

Camille K. Lewis (Jul 30, 2008)

It is extry colorful!

Re-reading some more. . . . You say:

You say he is a Keswick theologian—that he believes you can go to heaven without any change in your life at all.

Uh . . . that’s not any definition of Keswick I’ve ever heard. I now understand why you think that we’re contradicting each other. Keswick/dispensational/Holiness views of justification do talk about the “second blessing” as the beginning of sanctification. Lordship salvation presents it differently which is, I’m sure, what you’re predominantly hearing up there in your neck of the woods.

But Keswidispiecostal sanctification is way, way, way more than just that. It’s an artificial and extrabiblical bifurcation of the redeemed person into two natures — one good and one bad — which, as Mark Noll describes, is “near Gnosticism.” It’s a precarious picture of the Christian life as constantly at risk of “the flesh.” And it’s a picture of earning sanctifying grace. It’s black-dog-v-white-dog.

Don’t take my word for it. Look at George Marsden, Joel Carpenter, Mark Noll, and M. James Sawyer. The last guy is actually a Dallas Ph.D. (Dallas being the main clearinghouse for Keswidispiecostalism) and is pretty spot-on in his criticism. Here he talks about Keswick theology in-depth and here he talks about Lordship salvation.

His resolution for both is what Grant and I are foregrounding.

Addendum: If we were “picking on” Jim Berg, I’d feel sorry for him too. Grant’s post doesn’t even mention him at ALL. ::shrug:: I brought him up as another example when you said that BJU doesn’t preach that sanctifying grace is earned. Do you want the proof or not?

Will Lee (Jul 30, 2008)

I find it ironic that you would be told that Paul is addressing a very particular first century situation which doesn’t apply to us today. I find it ironic for these reason: First, it sounds an awful lot like the new perspective, which BJU would denounce in the strongest terms. Don’t get me wrong, I’m probably a borderlined new perspective guy myself, but BJU most certainly is NOT. Second, it doesn’t fit with the rest of BJU-brand fundamentalist religious rhetoric. They constantly look for ANY verse or partial verse of Scripture to “apply” today, especially if it can be twisted…oops, I mean “interpreted”…to support their sanctifying rules. It’s ironic, too, because sermonaudio.com lists 37 messages preached from Galatians during BJU chapels. If it doesn’t apply, what’s the point of wasting 37 chapels on it?

For what it’s worth, I’m teaching through Galatians right now in our small group. I tend to follow Dunn and Wright much of the time on the first century aspects of Galatians. Yes, Paul was writing to these churches to address a specific problem: they were being told that the people of God were defined by racial and Mosaic Law boundaries. Paul writes to say that the people of God are now (as they have always been) defined not by Law but by faith. You can say that Paul was writing to address a first century problem, but you can’t say that there is no application today. Fundamentalism may not be trying to gain entrance into the covenant people of God by becoming Jews, but they are definitely defining the people of God by their own brand of law-keeping.

As far as what can be done about it, I would probably ask the question differently. We are not commanded in Scripture to save institutions. We are commanded to help brothers and sisters in Christ. I am not convinced that it is our duty to save BJU from itself, but we must be very concerned about rescuing individuals from false gospels and false understandings of gospel realities. You know as well as (and even better than) I do what happens to people who try to change the institution that is BJU. But I can testify, as I’m sure you can too, about the grace of God in the lives of individuals who come from a BJU-tpe background. Let’s rescue them and proclaim the true gosple. Let come what may to the institution, but let’s not sacrifice the people in the institution just because we can’t change the whole thing.

By the way, for what it’s worth, Camille, I tell people all the time that my APS teacher taught me more about how to think biblically than any of my Bible teachers ever did! You ARE acheiving your goal, even if you don’t know it. You’re just doing it one person at a time! Thank you for investing in me!

Joseph (Jul 30, 2008)

Camille,

Wow, we aren’t connecting on so many different levels. Pardon the numbered response, but I wouldn’t be able to keep track of it otherwise (I spent too much time on the debate team).

1. Our definitions of “Judiazer” are different. My definition is no more convenient than yours. The issue at hand in Galatians is justification (2:16, 21). Unless you accept a new-perspective-on-Paul definition of justification, Paul is responding to a position which upheld works as the means of salvation, not works as the evidence/result of being in the covenant community.

2. Will—if you hold that “Paul was writing to [the Galatians] to address a specific problem: they were being told that the people of God were defined by racial and Mosaic Law boundaries,” then you hold to the new perspective. Wright holds that justification “is not ‘how you become a Christian’, so much as ‘who is a member of the covenant family.’” Wright’s concept of justification has two notable results. First, the doctrine of justification becomes “the great ecumenical doctrine”: Everyone who believes in Jesus is justified by God and should join together. Second, since God justifies everyone who believes in Jesus, people “not knowing about or believing in justification by faith” can still be saved. They can be “justified without knowing it.” You might want to re-read Wright’s “What St. Paul Really Said.” The new perspective has some dangerous conclusions.

3. I’ll admit that in defining Keswick, I did represent a more extreme faction in the movement. I was referring to the Grace Evangelical Society position. However, Keswick theology emphasizes the crisis experience much more than what we call progressive sanctification. That’s why guys like Hodges and Dillow have no heartburn over arguing that good works aren’t a necessary result of conversion.

4. Keswick theology is way bigger than the one or two nature debate. Keswick theology, among other things, redefines sin as willful disobedience to a known command of God—that kind of shoots total depravity in the foot.

5. Keswick theology and Dispensationalism are not synonymous.

6. Theological liberalism is a whole lot more than “dismissing whole portions of scripture as inapplicable to today.” It is a system that doesn’t see the absolute necessity of applying any portion of scripture to one’s life. Machen systematically argues that liberalism is not even a form of Christianity; he makes this evident in his title: “Christianity and Liberalism.”

7. There is a vast difference from saying that a text doesn’t apply to a specific situation and saying that a text doesn’t apply today. I don’t think Paul’s comments regarding justification have any direct application to BJU’s presentation of sanctification, but that doesn’t mean that I’m saying Galatians is not applicable today.

Joseph (Jul 30, 2008)

You said:

“Stephen Jones and Gary Reimers say [that grace is merited after salvation]

I missed your citations (I don’t check this site very often); where did they say that?

Joseph (Jul 30, 2008)

A couple of thoughts,

First, the judiazers were telling Christians they were not justified unless they kept the mosaic law. The judiazers were speaking to Christians, but this doesn’t mean that justification is not in view.

Second, your definition of liberalism neglects the fact that libralism is a system of doctrine. You can’t have ethics without doctrine. The issue is that liberal doctrine is radically different that Christian doctrine.

Camille K. Lewis (Jul 30, 2008)

1) NPP? ::rolleyes:: Come on, Joseph. Is that the best you can do? It’s either the fundy definition or the NPP definition? Sigh. . . . There’s that bifurcation all over again. No, no, no. Who do you want? Berkhof? Murray? Hoeksema? Calvin? Heidelburg? Westminster? Luther? Augustine?

Well, let’s not get too bogged down. How about Machen?

The particular form of merit which they induced men to seek was the merit of keeping the law of Moses, particularly the ceremonial law. At first sight, that fact might seem to destroy the usefulness of the Epistle for the present day; for we of today are in no danger of desiring to keep Jewish fasts and feasts. But a little consideration will show that that is not at all the case. The really essential thing about the Judaizers’ contention was not found in those particular “works of the law” that they urged upon the Galatians as being one of the grounds of salvation, but in the fact that they urged any works in this sense at all. The really serious error into which they fell was not that they carried the ceremonial law over into the new dispensation whither God did not intend it to be carried, but that they preached a religion of human merit as over against a religion of divine grace.

So the error of the Judaizers is a very modern error indeed, as well as a very ancient error. It is found in the modern Church wherever men seek salvation by “surrender” instead of by faith, or by their own character instead of by the imputed righteousness of Christ, or by “making Christ master in the life” instead of by trusting in His redeeming blood. In particular, it is found wherever men say “the real essentials” of Christianity are love, justice, mercy and other virtues, as contrasted with the great doctrines of God’s Word. These are all just different ways of exalting the merit of man over against the Cross of Christ, they are all of them attacks upon the very heart and core of the Christian religion. And against all of them the mighty polemic of this Epistle to the Galatians is turned.

Need we go on? Oh why not. . . .

Luther on Galatians:

If my salvation was so difficult to accomplish that it necessitated the death of Christ, then all my works, all the righteousness of the Law, are good for nothing. How can I buy for a penny what cost a million dollars? The Law is a penny’s worth when you compare it with Christ. Should I be so stupid as to reject the righteousness of Christ which cost me nothing, and slave like a fool to achieve the righteousness of the Law which God disdains?

Man’s own righteousness is in the last analysis a despising and rejecting of the grace of God. No combination of words can do justice to such an outrage. It is an insult to say that any man died in vain. But to say that Christ died in vain is a deadly insult. To say that Christ died in vain is to make His resurrection, His victory, His glory, His kingdom, heaven, earth, God Himself, of no purpose and benefit whatever.

That is enough to set any person against the righteousness of the Law and all the trimmings of men’s own righteousness, the orders of monks and friars, and their superstitions.

Who would not detest his own vows, his cowls, his shaven crown, his bearded traditions, yes, the very Law of Moses, when he hears that for such things he rejected the grace of God and the death of Christ. It seems that such a horrible wickedness could not enter a man’s heart, that he should reject the grace of God, and despise the death of Christ. And yet this atrocity is all too common. Let us be warned. Everyone who seeks righteousness without Christ, either by works, merits, satisfactions, actions, or by the Law, rejects the grace of God, and despises the death of Christ.

Berkhof:

Paul had to content particularly with the ingrained legalism of Jewish thought. The Jew boasted of the righteousness of the law. Consequently, the apostle had to vindicate the place of faith as the only instrument of salvation. In doing this, he naturally dwelt a great deal on Christ as the object of faith, since it is from this object only that fiath derives its efficacy. Faith justifies and saves only because it lays hold on Jesus Christ (498).

So this isn’t “new.” This is old. Reformed, mind you, but old.

3) Oh yes, Keswick emphasizes crisis sanctification more than progressive sanctification. Most definitely. That’s why we were (ironically) called “perfectionists” at BJU because we were arguing for progressive sanctification (nothing could be further from the truth). Check out the documents for yourself, Joseph, here and here and here.

4) I think you need to catch up a tad. I’ve got a published scholarly article on Keswick. I’ve written about it extensively. Again read M. James Sawyer. You’re actually incorrect that Keswick redefines sin as willful disobedience to God. That’s Wesleyan, not Keswick. Keswidispiecostalism sits between that Wesley and Calvin and defines sin as the flesh — as anything human. ::shrug:: Again, not my words. Marsden says the same thing.

5) Andy Naselli’s dissertation from BJ Seminary proves otherwise. There’s no difference in the rhetorical form of Keswick and dispensationalist view of sanctification. Both have a “second blessing” or “dedication.” Both present sanctification as precarious. Both bifurcate the believer. Both present a push-pull of sanctification.

Your #7 explains your #6. ::shrug:: You agree that Galatians doesn’t apply to today. Okay. There’s not much more to say then.

Camille K. Lewis (Jul 30, 2008)

Second, your definition of liberalism neglects the fact that libralism is a system of doctrine. You can’t have ethics without doctrine. The issue is that liberal doctrine is radically different that Christian doctrine.

I often hear this same argument from people defending fundamentalism. It’s a partisan argument. “Of course, we’re not liberal! Because we’re conservatives!!!”

That misses the point. The form of the argument is the same. The “story” that’s being told is identical. In sum, what Grant is saying here is, “I thought we took the Bible very seriously. I thought that’s what we signed up for. But this doesn’t apply now because it’s too pointed? Because it makes us uncomfortable?”

How far away from our ideals/ values/hermeneutic do we have to go to defend the Powers that Be? That’s scary! Again, I thought we were fundamentalists here.

The citations referenced which you are asking for come here and here. That second link actually points up the problems quite nicely. As those men argue there, this is “another Gospel.”

Will Lee (Jul 30, 2008)

Joseph, I’m not sure this was meant to be a discussion on justification. You don’t have to agree with Wright’s or Dunn’s definition, or Luther’s or Berkhof’s definition, or BJU’s definition. The point is about gospel realities presented in Galatians. Whether you hold to a Lutheran or NPP or BJU definition of justification isn’t what this discussion’s about. The discussion is about whether what Paul was writing to the Galatians, whatever it was, is applicable to Christians today. We may disagree about the precise definition of justification, but I’m not sure that your fear-mongering is helpful: “The new perspective has some dangerous conclusions,” you say. (That’s the same line I was given at BJU when I asked what was so wrong with John MacArthur!) Let’s not interact with NPP’s ideas; let’s just say that they are “dangerous,” and then we don’t have to think about it. I certainly understand the controversy surrounding Wright and Dunn and NPP, but I’m afraid most of us can’t think past the Reformation. We hear Luther and we just stop. Paul obviously meant whatever Luther says he meant. Never mind the 1400 or so years that separates them.

If you hold to a traditional Reformed/Lutheran view of justification, then the discussion becomes this: Paul taught the Galatians not to seek a right standing before God by earning it through good works; therefore, we should also not seek a right standing before God by earning it through good works. If you hold to a more Wright/Dunn view of justification, then the discussion becomes this: Paul taught the Galatians not to seek to be identified as the people of God through Jewish Law keeping but through faith in the Messiah; therefore, we ought not to seek to be identified as the people of God through any form of law keeping but through faith in the Messiah. Either way, the BJU/Fundamentalist practice of insisting on law keeping in order to become right with God or maintain a right standing with God is clearly unbiblical.

Will Lee (Jul 30, 2008)

Joseph, you said, “the doctrine of justification becomes “the great ecumenical doctrine”: Everyone who believes in Jesus is justified by God and should join together.” I’m confused. Is that a bad thing?

Camille (Jul 30, 2008)

Either way, the BJU/Fundamentalist practice of insisting on law keeping in order to become right with God or maintain a right standing with God is clearly unbiblical.

Nice! And exactly what I was trying to say on my blog.

And thank you for your kind words, Will. ::blush::

Will Lee (Jul 30, 2008)

From a paper by N.T. Wright on justification:

“The positive result of justification is that we live for God because Christ has died for us. Good works, as the Reformers never tired of saying, are done not to earn salvation but out of gratitude for it: not out of fear lest we should be lost after all but out of joy that we are saved after all. Sanctification is the completion, not of justification, but of regeneration: holiness is the continuation and bringing to perfection (in the resurrection of believers) of the good work which God has begun by the new birth. Justification is a different kind of event altogether: regeneration and sanctification are acts of grace to change the heart and life, whereas justification is the declaration, anticipating the verdict of the last day, that the believer is in the right. Justification results in holiness because it presupposes the new birth. It is therefore also the basis of Christian assurance, the certain hope of eternal life. Assurance is not an extra blessing over and above justification, but simply the outworking of justification itself, the realization that the Spirit who inspired faith and now inspires love will continue until, in the resurrection, he has produced the full harvest of which he himself is presently the first fruits.”

gordo (Jul 30, 2008)

“Beware the Judaizers” – wasn’t that the sequel to “Help, Help, the Globilinks!”?

Interesting discussion – thank you. Justin hit the nail on the head. “In hindsight, it is obvious that institutional infallibility and control is much, much more important to the leaders of BJU than is doctrinal accuracy.”

Exactly right.

The Bard (Jul 31, 2008)

There are two issues going on here, and I am afraid that this thread has unintentionally conflated the two. Let me try and untangle them. First, there is the question of whether BJU’s views on Sanctification, as spelled out by Gary Reimers, match Scripture’s. Second, there is question of BJU’s views on Galatians.

As to Sanctification, according to the first post on this thread, http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/saving-versus-sanctifying-grace-35715/ , Reimers said that sanctifying grace is obtained by works: we must want to be sanctified, and must work towards sanctification, and if we don’t want it bad enough and work hard enough, God won’t sanctify us.

Now, this is false doctrine. But, I emphacize, it is *not* false because of anything in Galatians. Galatians is about *justification,* about whether we must keep some moral code to enter heaven. Over and Over, Paul refers to Justification, not Sanctification, and every person I have heard discuss the Judiazers said that the Judiazers taught that one must keep the law to be saved. Thus, references to Galatians, and by extension to NT Wright and the NPP are not that helpful.

However, Galatians is not the only book in Scripture! The Reimers/Berg/BJU view of sanctification is false *because of Colossians 2:6,* which tells us that “therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him.” We received Jesus Christ by grace, through faith, and we walk in him (which is another way to describe sanctification) the exact same way: by grace alone.

Indeed, Colossians 2 is also relevant to sanctification because in v. 8 Paul talks about not letting ourselves be ‘taken captive . . . according to human tradition” and in vs. 16-23 he warns against letting other “pass judgment” on us for our failure to keep some extra-biblical moral code.

Now, Johan Tetzel’s theology is false because of Galatians 1-3. The same is true for the theologies of Joseph Smith and your flavor-of-the-day apostate mainline liberal. But to prove Reimers wrong, I submit you need to go to Colossians.

What about the flap over Galatians? Reimer’s answer (and also Berg’s and, sadly, Steven Jones’s) certainty proves his own inconsistency in interpreting Scripture. It is *totally inconsistent* with everything BJU claims to stand for to dismiss Galatians as “only relevant to that time.” The inconsistency is worth pointing out because it shows BJU’s inconsistency and mishandling of Scripture. If they dismiss Galatians, what else will they dismiss? Perhaps Colossians, because that is the book that kills their false view of Sanctification.

The Bard (Jul 31, 2008)

While I’m here, I’d like to torch another false statement about sanctification that has been attributed to Reimers (I say “attributed” here because there is a chance, however remote, that I am misreading him, and if so, I welcome clarification).

The statement is that: “If a Christian does not want to be sanctified, he doesn’t have to be. God will leave him alone and not help him. God will treat that child like he’s an unbeliever and will not extend grace to him until he desires to be sanctified.”

This is false. God certainly disciplines his children, but He does not leave them alone or treat them like unbelievers. Nowhere, I mean nowhere, in Scripture, will you find a statement that God treats His children like unbelievers.

More importantly, the “Christian who does not want to be sanctified” is in the same class as the tolerant Klansman and the peaceful member of Al-Qaeda: He does not exist. If you have genuinely been justified, you will want to be sanctified. God’s saving grace is too marvelous and too powerful to leave your life untouched. Someone who has *no* interest in sanctification over a *long* period of time is someone who “went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us.” 2 John 2:19 (I add the qualifications because all of us have ups and downs in our spiritual life).

How do we know that God’s true children will want to be sanctified? Jesus tells us that His sheep hear His voice, know Him, and follow Him. Not some sheep, all sheep. All hear, and all follow. Perhaps the most powerful verses on point are the promises in Ezekiel 36:26-28:

“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.”

Is there any other reaction to these verses than to cry “Yes and Amen” and to fall down and worship?

The Bard (Jul 31, 2008)

Grant, just to clarify, I didn’t say that Galatians was not directed to believers. I said that it was directed to believers who were being falsely told that they needed to keep the law in order to enter heaven, not believers who were being falsely told that they needed to keep the law in order to win God’s approval during the rest of their lives on earth.

I agree that the passage you quoted, especially verses 1-5, talk about the Christian life, and further agree that Paul makes the “God started your salvation, and God will finish it” argument throughout his letters. See, e.g., Phil 1:6. That said, I continue to see the primary point of the passage as addressing those who seek to obtain, or maintain, their justification through works. Going back to Gal. 2, we see that focus on justification by faith in vs. 15-21. I see Gal 3 as part of the exact same discussion (for example, Paul’s warning in v. 10 about “relying” applicable to justification) and would add that in 3:15 Paul talks about no one adding to a covenant once it was ratified. God is not going to save you by grace, and expect you to stay saved by works.

Furthermore, even if your interpretation is more accurate and Paul is also talking about sanctification, I suggest that the dual focus adds some confusion (as the earlier posts have shown) and it might be easier to dispatch Reimers with Colossians alone.

That said, I won’t press my point any more. Perhaps I have studied Gal 2 & 3 so much in the context of defending justification by faith that I am overlooking what else is there, and perhaps further study and the work of the Spirit will change my interpretation of the passage (but perhaps not).

The most important point is that Scripture does agree with Scripture, and you and I agree on what Scripture teaches even if we disagree on where. God bless you for your courage and your insights, and I look forward to reading and discussing future posts.

Jerry (Jul 31, 2008)

Hi! I am a new believer and am trying to sort through things. I went to BJU, but was not a believer when I attended there. I find this discussion very helpful and thought provoking. I have a couple of questions:

1. Are we not also commanded to work out our salvation. While God’s grace is all that is necessary for salvation and a right relationship with God; after salvation, don’t we still have a choice whether or not to read our Bibles, tell the truth, be loving to our families etc. Don’t we have an obligation to “work” towards this end, even though we will never be perfect? Don’t we have choices every day to make? Shouldn’t we be making better choices as we grow in sanctification?

2. Is it wrong to make an analogy between our relationship with God and our relationship with an earthly father? In other words, while we will always be God’s son, when we do sin, don’t we need to ask forgiveness and “change” (works) our behavior to restore the felloship on a relational level. While we are still God’s child, there is a breach in relationship when we do not do the right thing (works).

3. Another question? How do the pastoral qualifications or Christian leadership fit into works vs. grace? Certainly, a pastor is to uphold certain “external works” characteristics or he is unqualified to lead. Did he grow in these areas through grace or through discipline? Isn’t it some of both? Is God as pleased with someone who is making little effort (works and discipline) in their life as with someone who seriously “works” to please God after salvation by obeying His commands.

4. Isn’t reading our Bibles also an avenue where God gives us grace to obey? God’s revelation to us is grace (undeserved), but yet we must still excercise discipline or choice (or works) to get up every morning and do it. So in a sense, doesn’t our “works” (reading the Bible) enable us to receive grace (The instruction of the Word of God) We don’t deserve revelation, but we must “work” to receive it.

MY wife and I having been reading through these posts and asking these questions, so I was hoping I could get some help=)

Justin (Jul 31, 2008)

“It’s not a life of works; it’s a life of fruit.”

I love that. Galatians 5–the works of the flesh are indeed our own works, but the fruit of the Spirit is just that–fruit! I don’t have to work for anything anymore. I just love God (often easier said than done–we are, after all, imperfect), and the fruit is the obvious (and may I say inevitable?) result.

Grant, oddly one of my most vivid Jones memories comes from the spring semester of 2006 during the evangelistic meetings. You had sang a solo for the service so were sitting up in the choir loft area in front of everybody. At the end of this particular sermon, Jones III came up and gave his customary sermon rehash. He asked the question, “How many of you stand guilty before God?” I was sitting in the back of the amphitoreum, so I saw thousands of hands raise in response to the question. I was shocked. Was I the only who knew that I was now blameless in Christ? No, I was not. As I panned the room, I saw you, standing your ground… That was the beginning of my journey. I remember walking out of there and saying to everyone next to me, “I’m not guilty.” Seeing you up there gave me some weird sort of confidence that I wasn’t out of my mind, and that I should keep studying. Anyway, just thought you’d like to hear that.

Jerry (Jul 31, 2008)

Thanks for your reply. I am at work right now, but will give it some thought tonight at home, and will reply back tomorrow.

Camille K. Lewis (Jul 31, 2008)

Wow!! God is good!!

The Bard (Jul 31, 2008)

Wow. What a story for Grant and Justin, and what an absolutely heretical way to respond after a song. Has BJIII read Romans 8:1? If this were a novel, Grant’s small decision, witnesses by only a few who were paying attention, would be the turning point. Wow.

I was IM-ing a Catholic friend of mine from Notre Dame this afternoon, and I told her about Reimers’s statements on sanctification. When told her about the part where Reimers says that we earn grace in sanctification, and that some believers do not want to be sanctified so God leaves them alone, she was shocked and responded “that’s not right, and if it’s earned, it’s not grace.” Go figure. When a serious Catholic has a better understanding of Grace than a member of the BJU faculty, we have a problem.

Finally, I came across this quotation by J.I. Packer tonight. While the specific context was one of justification, it fits for sanctification as well. Packer is complaining about a change in modern preaching, and he write that:

“The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men. The subject of the new gospel is man and the help God gives him.”

Mel (Aug 01, 2008)

Since we’re tossing out verses that contradict “earning grace for…” what about Romans 4:4?? “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” Granted Rom 4 is all about justification rather than sanctification specifically, but if you tie in the Bard’s reference to Col 2:6…..

NO part of this process is enhanced by our works. Nothing.

Jerry (Aug 01, 2008)

Grant, I will try to get a copy of the book you mentioned. Sounds interesting. My wife and I discussed what you wrote last night. Incidently it is one of the most wonderful thing in the world to have a wife to discuss spiritual things with=) It seems like you and Camille have that relationship as well.

Just a little background, so maybe you can understand where I am coming from. I came from a very fundamental background. My parents were Christian school teachers. I was always considered the “leader” in youthgroup etc. (alot like many people I met at BJU). After two years as a Bible major at BJU, I grew so frustrated by myself and what I saw in Christianity. People saw me as Christian example, but inside I knew I was wicked, and that even the things I was doing “works” for Christ were motivated by pride and the recognition I received. I saw many other Christian leaders at BJU were motivated by the same things. I even rose to the ranks of “hall leader” my junior year, even though I was yet unsaved.

My junior year my frustration grew to the point where I decided Christianity wasn’t real, and changed my focus to business, where I decided to just make money and live for myself. As my attitude towards Christianity deterioriated, I was consequently “de-hall leadered” for not following the rules.

It wasn’t til after graduation that a friend invited me to a Bible study. I was realizing that business wasn’t the answer to my heart’s desires either. We spent 6 months meditating on different verses on the attributes of God, which really blew me away. I had no idea my God was so great, and compared with what God was showing me about my own sinful heart, it was only natural for me to give Him everything. I realized the reason I had rejected Christianity was because I was looking at other Christians and seeing the hypocrisy and legalism I saw there and in my own heart. But Christianity was about worshipping a “perfect” God.

So, Grant, what you were saying about service and works flowing from a heart that loves God and is freed from “having to earn His love” is something I have experienced.

I still have some questions that I am wrestling with that I would like to post in a moment…

Jerry (Aug 01, 2008)

As my wife and I were talking, we came up with a 2 thesis statements we wanted to throw out there and see what you thought=)

The first is a statement from a book I have seen referenced on this site.

1. “There is nothing you can do to make God love you more, and nothing you can do to make God love you less. (Philip Yancey: What’s so Amazing about Grace.”

I wholeheartedly believe that statement, but here is another statement we thought of last night, that I want to throw out.

2. “There are things “works” we can do to make God more “delighted” or “happy” with us after we are saved.”

My question is, While Romans clearly teaches us that “Nothing can seperate us from God’s love”, can disobedience cause us to be seperated from relational fellowship and from God’s happiness with us? I don’t know the answer to this question from Scripture, but I do have an earthly example.

In a parenting relationship, aren’t “love” and “delight” with your child different? When your child responds in a beligerant manner, or disobeys you for the 50th time, you may not at the moment “delight” in your child, however, you still “love” him, and out of that love you chasten him in some manner to correct his behavior. Hebrews certainly seems to indicate that “God chastens those He loves.”

The father with the prodigal son probably did not “delight” in his son’s wayward behavior, yet “loved” him when he repented and came back.

So my question is while God will always love me, and His love can not be earned…

Is God more delighted in me when I am faithful to my wife vs. committing adultery. Is he more delighted when I am content vs. covetous? Is he more delighted when I work my full shift at work vs. leaving 15 minutes early. Is he more delighted when I give cheerfully at church, rather than hoarding my money? I know He doesn’t love me more by good behavior, but is He more “happy” with me.

These are certainly all commands He has given me to follow. Do I receive God’s delight when I obey Him? Obviously many people do these “works” that are not saved. But when I do a “good” work out of a good heart motivation of love towards God, is He more delighted with me, than if I were a disobedient Christian? He certainly “loves a cheerful giver.”

Is God “happier” or “more delighted” with one believer over another because they are “obeying” and “submitting” more.

I would love to hear your thoughts! This post is not a response or an argument to any one else’s posts, just honest questions that we have been wondering about.

Jerry (Aug 01, 2008)

Also… back to my spiritual leadership question. While God certainly doesn’t love a pastor more than He loves me… He seems to place more responsability for those who are more mature in their “works.” (hospitality, governing their families well, not given to wine etc.) While being good at these things doesn’t help anyone earn God’s love, they do seem to “promote” you to leadership as an example. Is God more “delighted” with a Christian leader who is obeying out of a right heart, than a believer who has been saved 20 years, but shows little change?

How would anyone know if a pastor was doing these “works” out of a right heart motive or not? Sorry, I have so many questions that keep popping in my head?=) Any answers would be appreciated.

The Bard (Aug 01, 2008)

Jerry, as Grant said, your raise some fair questions. I’m a lawyer, not a theologian or even a former professor at a Christian college. Add that to the fact that Camille and I have gone back and forth on the human side of sanctification a bit. So, what I say may not be helpful, but I will take a shot.

On the subject of whether God is more delighted when we sin than when we do not, look at Jesus’s own interactions with Peter. When Peter makes his famous confession of faith, Jesus calls him “blessed.” When Peter tells Jesus not to go to the cross, Jesus says “get behind me Satan.” Looks to me like one statement delighted Jesus, and one did not. Elsewhere, Jesus called the disciples “dull” and expressed exasperation at their lack of faith. Thus, if follows that Jesus is not equally pleased with each action of His children.

But, note what Jesus does not do. He does not excoriate Peter, lecture him to “try harder,” or react like your typical BJU administrator or hall leader. Look at the night of Peter’s betrayal. Jesus knows what is coming, but He tells Peter that He has prayer for Peter, that He will not let Satan destroy Peter, and that *when* Peter is restored, Jesus has work for Peter. Note the “when.” To me, that is one of the more encouraging passages in Scripture. Jesus already plans to restore Peter, despite His sorrow over what Peter will do, and He will not stop loving or stop changing Peter. That is the kind of Divine love that makes one react the way Grant talks about in his post.

So, in a sense, yes, God is more delighted when we do what is right. Yes, God (in the person of the Holy Ghost) can be “grieved” when we do wrong. But He “knows our infirmities,” and instead of lecturing us to try harder, He is already planning to restore us and He is already at work changing our hearts like He promised back in Ezekiel. When we understand this, we will have a far more joyful, fruitful Christian life than we did back when we were trying keep God happy by being good. Just ask Peter what happened at Pentecost.

Jerry (Aug 01, 2008)

Thanks for your feedback. I haven’t had a forum before to ask these questions, so this has been very helpful.

Your statement “how many times have you either heard from a sermon or inferred from it that, in order to be used by God, you had to be a clean vessel?” Your are right I have heard that a hundred times, and been discouraged each and every time=)

Jerry (Aug 01, 2008)

Another one of your statements: “someone who is preoccupied with what he can do for God rather than “riding the tide” of God’s work in his life, synergistically participating in cultivating the fruit that God wants him to bear.”

Can you better explains how do I “synergistically paricipate in this”?

Jerry (Aug 01, 2008)

Can’t argue with that=) You are right. It is a subtle difference in philosophy, but a much more liberating way of looking at it. I may have more questions, but I appreciate your time.

dan keller (Aug 02, 2008)

I’ve been out of the loop this past week. I’m a liberal Christian and work in a mainline denomination. I think you would be hard pressed to find any mainline protestant theologian or pastor who would say that sanctification is a human process. It’s always about what God does. My personal measure is where I am in my faith journey. And that’s not something that can be determined by anyone other than me and God.

Sherrybell (Aug 02, 2008)

Thanks for this blog. I know it started out addressing a somewhat different question, but these responses are important to get to that answer. I’ve read Galatians a couple of times in the last couple of weeks and am currently meditating over it and asking God to show me things I haven’t seen before. This blog has also helped, especially with the citing of corresponding Scripture and quotations from various theologians.

One thing I wanted to add as I’m thinking about sanctification. We often forget that holiness is God’s gift to us. He has it in full measure and when we receive the first gift of his grace, the forgiveness of sin, we also have the great opportunity to pursue a life of holiness. It’s as much a gift from God as forgiveness is.

A Singer, A Song » “An Even Deeper Concern” (Aug 09, 2009)

[...] Hm. [...]