In a blog post of mine the other day I quoted Tim Keller who
said that some people claim that to constantly be striking a ‘note of
grace, grace, grace’ in our sermons is not helpful in our culture today
because legalism is not the problem, license is. But Keller points out
that unless you critique moralism, many irreligious people won’t know
the difference between moralism and what you’re offering. He contends
that non-Christians will always automatically hear gospel presentations
as appeals to do more and try harder unless in your preaching
you use the good news of grace to deconstruct legalism. Only if you show
them there’s a difference–that what they really rejected
wasn’t real Christianity at all–will they even begin to consider
Christianity.” Do you agree with this? And how does this square with the
idea that non-Christians will never be able to hear the good news of
the gospel unless they first hear the crushing blow of God’s law?
Again, I’m not sure that the problem is either legalism or license:
those are categories of a largely Christian culture, that thinks in
theological categories. Our default setting is always legalism: the
assertion of our own goodness. However, the reference point in our world
today is no longer God, much less heaven or hell. It’s the “heaven” of
personal peace and affluence and the “hell” of meaningless nihilism.
“Legalism” in our culture today often takes the secular form of climbing
the corporate ladder while trying to raise a family and own three
homes, with anxiety about which call to return and which song to
download. It’s nihilism: the life of vanity described in Ecclesiastes.
Go back and read (or listen to/watch) R. C. Sproul’s “The Holiness of
God.” Now there you can’t help but be faced with a person rather than a
principle. Your questions, not just answers, change. The vertical
dimension is recovered. Sure, you’d like to have a better marriage and
family, but a deeper set of questions emerges—questions you never had
before. Then you find that God is not a prop or resource for your life
movie, but your problem. Only then does the question, “How
then can I be saved?” arise. Only then is the gospel really good
news—namely, that in Christ the Judge has become your father.
So I agree wholeheartedly that a renewed proclamation of the law in
its full force and threat is needed today, but that means a renewed
proclamation of the Triune God. People need to be stopped in their
tracks, no longer measuring “god” by their own sense of morality,
goodness, truth, and beauty. They need to encounter the God who is
actually there, judging and justifying sinners. If we start with the
Bible’s answers, we’re too late. We need to allow God’s Word to give us new questions
first. There is a massive place for God’s holiness, justice, goodness,
and righteousness in the law to do that. Apart from the holiness of
God, neither the law nor the gospel makes any sense.
At the same time—and I take it that this is Tim Keller’s point—the
gospel is just as necessary. Otherwise, what we have is what the
Puritans called “legal” rather than “evangelical” repentance: that is,
fear of the law without gospel-driven hatred of sin. It’s one thing to
run from a judge; it’s another thing to hear the surprising announcement
from the Good Father that he welcomes the sinner, wraps him in his best
robe, puts a ring on his finger, and kills the fatted calf for the
celebration. Many of our contemporaries have never met anyone like that.
Some say that union with Christ is the integrating structure
for both justification and sanctification. In other words, we’re
justified “in Christ” AND we’re sanctified “in Christ.” Sanctification
doesn’t depend on justification, but both depend on union with
Christ. How would you respond?
There’s a long and noble history of “the marvelous exchange” in
patristic and medieval theology that the Reformers picked up. Bernard of
Clairvaux had an especially significant impact on Luther and Calvin,
and both Reformers gave a lot of space to this theme of union with
Christ as an analogy not only for justification but for all of the
saving benefits we have in Christ.
Like Paul (think especially of the transition from Romans 6 to 7),
Calvin emphasized that we cannot embrace Christ for justification
without at the same time embracing him for our sanctification. We don’t
just receive a gift, or even many gifts, but Christ himself by faith. We
are united to him. He is the eschatological forerunner, head, Vine, and
source for the new creation to which we now belong. The Spirit unites
us to Christ by the gospel and the gospel is not only the good news that
we are justified, but the good news that the Lord Christ has conquered
the dominion of sin and we have been baptized into his death and
resurrection. So the gospel is always the source of our sanctification,
but the gospel includes freedom from both the guilt and tyranny of our
sins.
But some among us suggest that because we receive justification and
sanctification in union with Christ, there is no logical dependence of
the latter on the former. I don’t find that anywhere in the relevant
scriptural passages or in the exegesis offered by the Reformers, the
confessions and catechisms, and the Puritans. Reformed theology
certainly teaches that justification provides the secure legal basis for
our growing and maturing relationship with Christ (i.e.,
sanctification). At the same time, we’re always returning to Christ for
both. So we have to resist the false choice between union with Christ
or justification. As much as Calvin referred to the former, he still
calls justification “the main hinge on which religion turns,” “the
primary article,” etc.. That runs straight through all of the great
spiritual writings, sermons, and treatises of the Reformed tradition.
In the recent discussions at the Ref21 blog, Rick
Phillips clarified that “Justification is logically prior to progressive
sanctification.” When you say that justification is logically prior to
sanctification, are you speaking of definitive or progressive
sanctification?
The idea of definitive sanctification (distinct from regeneration or
progressive sanctification) was first proposed by John Murray. I agree
completely with his interpretation of the passages that lead him to this
position, but think it can still be covered under the new birth. If
that’s the case, then yes, the new birth precedes justification
logically. However, sanctification in no sense (however defined) is
logically prior to justification, which would lead basically to Rome’s
position (justification as the outcome of sanctification).
Tullian Tchividjian
No comments:
Post a Comment