# Is this the Pilgrim's regress being taught?



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 2, 2011)

I just read this blog. 
The Pitfall Of Perfectionism – Tullian Tchividjian

This was referenced on Facebookand it totally shocked me. 



> Christian, please remember that Jesus plus nothing equals everything. That,
> 
> Because Jesus was strong for you, you’re free to be weak;
> 
> ...



This is antinomianism at it's best. I understand the pain of not living up to Christ and His expectations. This was meant to comfort people who are struggling. But it isn't biblical in the least. 

Let me set the field up and show you the situation. 

Someone commits suicide and the author is speculating this person who had a strong testimony for Christ became despondent because they couldn't live the life. This is assumed by the author first off because he doesn't say that that is the reason the girl gave for her suicide. At least the blog doesn't say that is the revealed reason. 

The next person wants to leave his wife because he is tired of living up to others expectations. He is tired of living or pursuing holiness in his life. 

The third person in the blog referenced is desiring prayer because he feels like God has abandoned him. 

After the three situations are placed in front of us the assumption is that Perfectionism is the problem. The blogger states that most Christians would say that they should try harder. Others would try to help them trace their despair back to some unconfessed sin in their lives–drawing a straight line between their spiritual depression and their spiritual failure. And still others would tell them to have faith.

Then the author concludes:


> But what would Jesus have told them? We don’t have to guess: “Come to me, all you who are weary and heavy burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
> 
> Perfectionism (or performancism) is a horrible disease. It comes from the pit of hell, smelling like rotting flesh. Someone convinced these folks that they were called to measure up to an unattainable standard. They couldn’t do it and each in his or her own way simply quit trying.
> 
> ...



This is some of the worst stuff I have seen on a blog by a supposedly confessional Pastor. I agree perfectionism is bad but I am not free to be a no one. I am called to be something and for a purpose. I am not called to be ordinary but a part of a peculiar people. I am not free to fail. I am called to be conformed to the image of Christ.

Jesus did tell one woman to go and sin no more. Jesus did talk about repentance and living right before God and man. St. Paul said he strove to live with a right conscience before God and man. This bit of advice from this Pastor is shocking to me and sounds more like an antinomian fundamentalist Pastor than a Biblically Solid Pastor of the Word of God. 

Please, Please, Please, understand that I am not a perfect person. I struggle with Sin and do not believe anyone can be perfect. But I believe the advice of this Pastor is very dangerous and hurts the Body of Christ. It does not shed light on what Grace is and it does not reveal the will of God and the beauty of it. 

I understand the need to combat Perfectionism as did J. C. Ryle and many other good men of God. But this is an over reaction and very unbiblical.


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 2, 2011)

Did you say something (or would you be able to) to the original poster in order to make sure that wasn't what he was getting at?

Admittedly, and I may be being a bit overly judicious here, but things written don't always convey the complete intended sentiment.

And for the record, you're right: perfectionism is impossible. But Antinomianism is destructive.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 2, 2011)

Read the blog..... It is short. He put it out there for public consumption. 

It just sounds like a spirit of antinomianism of has been resurrected. One radio talk show ministry use to promote this same kind of thinking by saying, "God isn't concerned about your habitual sin. He is only concerned that you see that you are in a state of grace and you only need to rest because you are in Christ. You are free! If Christ has set you free, you are free indeed."

Now I am pretty sure Pastor Tullian wouldn't go that far and say that God isn't concerned about habitual sin. At least I would hope not. And maybe he is being hyperbolic in this blog. But he is being dangerously hyperbolic if he is.

I am adding this as an addition and more thought after I commented last.

The blog post as a stand alone and the comment...



> Because Jesus was strong for you, you’re free to be weak;
> 
> Because Jesus won for you, you’re free to lose;
> 
> ...



... is very false. Especially the part about being free to fail. We are set justified and can't earn our salvation but we have never ever been given the permission in freedom to fail. We have never been given permission to lose. And the weakness comment Paul makes in 2 Corinthians 12:9 is not related to our sinning but a weakness in infirmities and not iniquities. To much is wrong contextually with all of this.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 2, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Because Jesus was Someone, you’re free to be no one;



I would think Tullian is trying to say we don't have to be the star player, we don't have to be this corporate mogul,etc.... our identity is in Christ and that is where we find our worth not in our accomplishments, but in His. Maybe I am wrong but that is how I would understand it.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 2, 2011)

As always, the problem with man is his own sin. Obviously none of us are perfect and we never will be, but we should always strive to be more like Christ everyday even though we will fail miserably. As Paul said in Romans 6:1-14

1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3 Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. 7 For he who has died has been freed from sin. 8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. 
12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. 13 And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 2, 2011)

Bill The Baptist said:


> but we should always strive to more like Christ everyday even though we will fail miserably.



A good and timely reminder to me.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 2, 2011)

Goodcheer68 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Because Jesus was Someone, you’re free to be no one;
> ...


 
If Tullian was truly promoting antinomianism, he'd be saying "Because Christ paid for your sin, you're free to sin." He (and the blogger I don't think) is NOT saying that. If you look at all the things that are in the list, NONE says "you can sin all you want as long as you're in a state of grace." 

In addition, Randy, the "do more, try harder" mentality IS rampant in the church, and IS a problem. In some churches, admittedly this is not the problem - but is it not possible to imagine a situation in which it was, a situation into which Tullian might be speaking?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 2, 2011)

I am discussing this somewhere else also. Here are a few more of my thoughts. 

The first example is purely assumption. Their is no reason given for the girls suicide. It may have been a mental laps. A medical condition or some other situation that caused despair. It might not have even been related to some view of perfectionism. But the possibility is there. The second about wanting a divorce was not something about perfectionism even though the gentleman justified his desire for that reason. I have seen a lot of divorce in the Church and I can't say that perfectionism was ever a reason for it. That is laughable. The third example I see as being plausible. Especially if one is involved with 
Wesleyan Perfectionism.

But to tell someone they are free to fail and free to be weak (ie sinful, at least that is how I am taking the implication of weakness) is so unbiblical that we shouldn't even have to have this discussion. Can you show me where in the Scriptures where it is true that we are free to fail or be weak (sinful)? Can you tell me that 2 Cor 12:9 is implying iniquity instead of infirmity? In the context of weakness wouldn't you say that this is gross eisegesis. Where in the scriptures are we told we are free to fail or be weak in a sinful way? Is this not dangerous?

Yes, we should comfort each other knowing we have an advocate with the Father. But this man is a Pastor and shouldn't be so sloppy with his counsel. Perfectionism is easy to deal with in my estimation without stooping to this level or kind of counsel, especially if one looks at Romans 7. But to do it by declaring the freedom that is being promoted here is not the way to do it Pastorally nor from a biblical perspective.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jun 2, 2011)

What is meant by weakness, I am most certain, is NOT sinful. I don't know how you could thrust that interpretation onto those words unless somehow you were predisposed to hear it that way. 

What I am sure is meant is that you are free not to have to achieve personal righteousness sufficient for salvation on your own doing. You are free to fail when trying to uphold the standard of righteousness set before you - why? because you are complete in Christ. Hence we aim to please our Lord - but knowing all the while that our strength is in the Lord as Paul says repeatedly. The weakness Paul speaks of in 2 Cor 12 IS frailty of flesh, not impiety or iniquity! I really don't understand where the "weakness = habitual sin and sinfulness" is coming from, Randy. I don't get it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 2, 2011)

I don't think Pastor Tullian would go so far as to say that God isn't concerned about habitual sin. But I do believe he can thoroughly be misinterpreted.

What is the context he is stating we are free to be in Todd? I understand he is trying to combat perfectionism. I am also linking his comments to sinful behavior (iniquity and not infirmity). At least that is what I am pulling from his three examples Todd. 

Free to be (whatever) in the context of what he wrote had to do with sinful behavior. It wasn't my wording. I was just quoting what he said and in context with what he said. Free to fail is what he quoted and wrote. Free Indeed. Yes, I believe that Jesus said the Truth would make us free but I don't necessarily believe Jesus meant it the way it is being presented here. Yes, we are free from guilt and sin but we are not free to fail. And that is something totally different and can be taken differently even if he meant to speak about freedom correctly. Free to Fail were the words in the blog.


----------



## he beholds (Jun 2, 2011)

I think everything that you quoted, at least, is spot on. I think the words are true and comforting. I am free to be weak because nothing depends upon my strength. Sure, this is un-American, but it is not un-biblical. He is strong in our weakness. And it is definitely true that the Gospel, plus anything, is NOT the Gospel.

---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yes, we are free from guilt and sin but we are not free to fail. And that is something totally different and can be taken differently even if he meant to speak about freedom correctly. Free to Fail were the words in the blog.



We are certainly free to fail! Christ never calls us to succeed or be successful! We are called to live for him and do all for him, but if I, even in all my trying, fail an endeavor, that is not a spiritual failure.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 2, 2011)

Randy,

In some ways, there is really nothing wrong with this post, especially if it were made more clear that it is basically aimed at people who do not understand the gospel and who trust in their own efforts. (In other words, people who are probably not saved.) That being said, as a general pattern it appears to me that the issue here is closely related to the Frank Turk vs. White Horse Inn thread from a few months ago. 

I haven't read everything Tullian posts. I like a lot of what he posts and think his ministry at Coral Ridge is likely a healthy corrective to what could be called the excessive flag waving that characterized the place in recent decades. I've seen him affirm the third use of the law but haven't seen a post in which it was applied. (Maybe I've missed something as I've read a lot more of his tweets than blog posts and haven't listened to any sermons.) Instead, it's a steady stream of this kind of stuff posted to twitter, etc. No doubt it is in reaction to various forms of legalism and the kind of performance based religion that characterizes much of professing Christianity in the USA. But there is a danger in over correcting and putting the car into the opposite ditch. 

I don't see much real difference between this and the milder form of the old Dallas Seminary "free grace" teaching (i.e. Ryrie and Lightner as opposed to Hodges, who eventually moved into outright heresy.) True, they don't teach the Carnal Christian doctrine. But from what I've seen, the view of assurance that you are questioning here is barely any different. Thus the antinomian whiff in the air. There is doctrinal antinomianism and there is practical antinomianism. 

Are we "free" to build with wood, hay and stubble? Yes, but if we do, our work will be burned up and we will be saved yet so as by fire. On the other hand, "If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward." We are not saved by our performance, but it does nevertheless have eternal consequences. 

As you note, Randy, large doses of Ryle, Bunyan, etc are needed here. As Ryle notes in _Holiness_, you have both the indicative and the imperative in Paul's epistles in particular. Legalism and moralism are all imperative and no indicative. With some contemporary teachers it seems that all we get is the indicative. We need both.

Edit: Now I see he was quoting Steve Brown. (I wonder if that was the radio ministry you had in mind.) Near as I can tell, Tullian wrote "Because Jesus was strong for you" part.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 2, 2011)

We must consider the pastoral situation...

It seems Pastor Tchividjian is speaking to people who're feeling pressure to measure up and to somehow prove themselves worthy of God's favor, or worthy of respect within the church. Such people need to hear exactly what he wrote. Those are good words to them. Start adding on a bunch of qualifiers and they'll just fall back into trying to prove themselves.

Now if he were pastoring people who're looking for a free ride and trying to avoid having to obey Christ, then that's a different pastoral situation and he would have to give important qualifiers to what he wrote. So if you come at this from the perspective of "how might an antinomian take this?" then, yes, qualifiers are needed. But I think it's clear he isn't addressing people with that particular pattern of sin.


----------



## jayce475 (Jun 3, 2011)

Jack K said:


> We must consider the pastoral situation...
> 
> It seems Pastor Tchividjian is speaking to people who're feeling pressure to measure up and to somehow prove themselves worthy of God's favor, or worthy of respect within the church. Such people need to hear exactly what he wrote. Those are good words to them. Start adding on a bunch of qualifiers and they'll just fall back into trying to prove themselves.
> 
> Now if he were pastoring people who're looking for a free ride and trying to avoid having to obey Christ, then that's a different pastoral situation and he would have to give important qualifiers to what he wrote. So if you come at this from the perspective of "how might an antinomian take this?" then, yes, qualifiers are needed. But I think it's clear he isn't addressing people with that particular pattern of sin.


 
Blogs are put out there for the whole world to read and we can end up with all kinds of people reading it. In a pastoral letter to a congregation, sure, perhaps the lack of qualifiers is possibly appropriate. However, as it stands, I agree with Randy that this blog entry lacks balance and veers into dangerous territory.


----------



## mvdm (Jun 3, 2011)

"Free to fail" is no comfort to anyone. It sounds little different from the mantra of "Jesus loves you just the way you are" found in broad evangelicalism, which does encourage an antinomian spirit. While Tullian rightly condemns perfectionism as "smelling like rotting flesh", his blog post has its own distinct stench.

I think of Jesus' prayer in Luke 22: 31 where he tells Peter that _"I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail"_. Also, consider the Thomas Manton quote posted by Rev. Winzer in a separate thread today. It is a beautiful balanced antidote to both perfectionism and Tullian's "free to fail" fuzzy nonsense.

Here's the link to the Manton quote:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f25/heaven-we-look-68037/


----------



## baron (Jun 3, 2011)

I do not see anything wrong with this article. If you come from a background that teaches striving to be perfect then there is great joy and release in those words. Always trying harder and harder while being depressed because you can't meet those standards. I remember a pastor always telling us you do not read the bible enough. No matter how many hours you read the bible it was never enough. Nothing you ever did or will do is good enough. I knew a brother who was always striving and never able to meet his goals who did take his own life. Now he also had other mental problems but his intorspection of him not being good enough helped him along the path he choose.

How liberating when I came across the truth it's not what we do but what Christ did.

Quote the last paragraph. 

Preaching the gospel is the only thing that helps us take our eyes off ourselves and how we’re doing and fix our eyes on Christ, the author and perfecter of our faith. Jesus fulfilled all of God’s perfect conditions so that our relationship to God could be perfectly unconditional.

You’re free!

This sends my spirit soaring to new heights when I relize this truth afresh.

Also he is refering to an article by Steve Brown who in some circles is refered to as Mr. Antinomianism. Due to those laying that charge against Steve Brown, I think are not truly listening or understanding what he is saying. 

Was it not Luther who said, if when you preach the Gospel if you do not sound like an Antinomian you have not preached the Gospel? I could be wrong my brain does not function as good as it once did.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jun 3, 2011)

baron said:


> Was it not Luther who said, if when you preach the Gospel if you do not sound like an Antinomian you have not preached the Gospel? I could be wrong my brain does not function as good as it once did.



Luther may have said that, but he also wrote a book entitled _Against the Antinomians _, so I don't think he was exactly a fan.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 3, 2011)

mvdm said:


> "Free to fail" is no comfort to anyone. It sounds little different from the mantra of "Jesus loves you just the way you are" found in broad evangelicalism, which does encourage an antinomian spirit. While Tullian rightly condemns perfectionism as "smelling like rotting flesh", his blog post has its own distinct stench.
> 
> I think of Jesus' prayer in Luke 22: 31 where he tells Peter that _"I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail"_. Also, consider the Thomas Manton quote posted by Rev. Winzer in a separate thread today. It is a beautiful balanced antidote to both perfectionism and Tullian's "free to fail" fuzzy nonsense.


 
Well said Mark. I have been cogitating on this quotation since reading it yesterday:



> Because Jesus was strong for you, you’re free to be weak;
> 
> Because Jesus won for you, you’re free to lose;
> 
> ...



...and the more I read it the more it sure _reads_ like Antinomianism. I would recommend reading John Henley Thornwell's work on Antinomianism (found here on Google Books) for some more on why this sounds like Antinomianism.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 3, 2011)

baron said:


> Was it not Luther who said, if when you preach the Gospel if you do not sound like an Antinomian you have not preached the Gospel?



Something like that. Yet as Bill points out, Luther was not antinomian. Rather, Luther understood that only the Gospel (which _does_ sound antinomian) can free us from the burden of the law. This in turn frees us to actually keep the law out of gratitude in Christ, the way it was always intended to be kept.

Pastor Tchividjian's blog post deals only with the first half of that. But if you've heard him speak or read more of him, you'll know he strongly believes the second part as well.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 3, 2011)

Free set in the understanding of Liberty in the Christian life will not fit. Will you agree with me on this? I know you guys do. This conversation only illustrates how people will read this differently. Something still just grates me about free to Fail (sin). Especially when the word bondage is mostly related to sin and to the failures this blog is talking about contextually. I think it would have been a bit better had he put some small qualifies in the blog. For those in Christ, Free From the Eternal Consequences of...... That would have been better. We are not free or at liberty to fail (sin). And I really don't think Pastor Tullian thinks failing is a good thing nor something we are free or at liberty to do. Praise God we have an advocate with the Father.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 3, 2011)

Perhaps it is being overlooked that "failing" and "losing" are not attractive concepts, not in the way that, "indulging yourself" is attractive, certainly. Given the language it seems clear that this is directed to people who are exercised over their failures and losses, who would gladly triumph and succeed but who are distressed and discouraged about their own wretchedness. To one in such a condition "freedom to fail" seems unlikely to strike the note "go and sin more" - they want to sin less: I would suspect that it would come across more as "There is no condemnation for believers." And I think that this is a useful and necessary message, that is essential to fruitfulness. 

Of course, when Paul made that point he then raised the possibility that this led to antinomianism and repudiated it with indignation. It is therefore obviously wise in a thorough treatment to include a similar disclaimer; but a heart that loves the law will rejoice to think that it is set free to serve without the burdens of guilt and doubt.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 3, 2011)

Sounds as if Tullian/Brown were reading Lloyd-Jones, who wrote:

First of all let me make a comment, to me a very important and vital comment. The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge [antinomianism] being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean.
If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man’s preaching is ‘If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so regularly and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God, and you will go to heaven.’ Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, ‘Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?’ because the man’s whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise.
Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome, but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther, indeed that was precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of Martin Luther. They said, ‘This man who was a priest has changed the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust,’ and so on. ‘This man,’ they said, ‘is an antinomian; and that is heresy.’ That is the very charge they brought against him. It was also brought against George Whitefield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity – if there is such a thing – has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly.’
That is my comment: and it is a very important comment for preachers. I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you really are preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament to the ungodly, to the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of God. There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation.
- D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, _Romans: The New Man, An Exposition of Chapter 6_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), p. 8-9.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 3, 2011)

> Steve “I haven’t told anybody in the world what I’m going to tell you. I have decided to leave my wife and I told God that if I get through to you, I would do whatever you told me to do.”
> 
> I asked him what prompted him to decide to leave her.
> 
> ...



This doesn't sound like someone is battling perfectionism. It sounds like this persons motives are just plain messed up. He was evidently looking for praise in the wrong place and his motives were in the wrong place. This doesn't sound like someone who is battling perfectionism. Would you honestly tell this person the same thing this blog is purporting? Personally it sounds like he still has the same problem because he says he will listen to Steve Brown. What ever happened to listening to what Jesus Christ Said. This poor man is till seeking to be a man pleaser. He will obey Steve. Isn't that sweet? What a poor soul. He prays to God and tells Him I will do whatever Steve says to do. Sounds like this man has an idol problem with man's counsel instead of looking to God's word and what God says. This isn't a perfectionism problem. 

I call this blog mostly misdiagnoses. Poor Counsel. This man needs a relationship with God and not another man.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 3, 2011)

I just got back home from cutting my Mom's grass. I did a lot of thinking and praying. 

I call this blog mostly misdiagnoses. Poor Counsel. The man with the problem that I quote above needs a relationship with God and not another man. I am saddened by the poor application that a physician of the Soul would make to such a problem. This is not a perfectionism problem to which the application of this blog is addressed. I am almost certain that if we looked at the Physician's of the Soul of yesteryear we would see a better diagnosis. And I am obviously referring to the Puritans. Many good physicians of the soul today would point this man to the correct remedy. This Dr. of the Soul has missed the mark and it will bare eternal consequences maybe. I am glad we are free from the consequences of such failure. I imagine Dr. Tullian will be glad also when he stands before God and sees this misdiagnoses also. I am grateful that all of my misdiagnosing will be covered by the blood of Christ. But I don't have a license to be free to fail. Especially when so much is required of me by him. 

Please know I am not trying to throw Rocks in a Glass shop. In fact the good Pastor Andy Webb called me out a few months back. He didn't smooth over anything. He saw I was in the gall of bitterness. He told me that he was worried about my soul. He issued a warning shot over my bow and pointed out Christ and His Holiness. It shook me back into reality. We all need that. 

Yes, I have prayed for Pastor Tullian. I think it would be a good idea if we all did. He is not a perfect man and needs our prayers. I am sure he covets them. Now I need to remember to take heed lest I fail. Good luck on that one.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 3, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am glad we are free from the consequences of such failure. I imagine Dr. Tullian will be glad also when he stands before God and sees this misdiagnoses also. I am grateful that all of my misdiagnosing will be covered by the blood of Christ...





> Because Jesus succeeded for you, you’re free to fail.



I ask in all humbleness because I am trying to understand where you are coming from, but what is the difference between your statement and Tullian's? They seem to be saying the same thing, granted they are coming from different angles but they both arrive at the same point.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 3, 2011)

I am not free to fail. I am free from the eternal consequences of my failures if I am found in Christ. God never gives us a pass to fail. That is why 1 John 1:8,9 are recorded for us. That is why King David wrote Psalm 51. 

BTW, I am not necessarily free from the consequences of failure on this side as St. Paul warns. 



> (Gal 6:7) Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
> 
> (Gal 6:8) For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
> 
> (Gal 6:9) And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.



As I noted above I believe there was a misdiagnoses concerning this man who was a Teacher and on staff at a Church.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 3, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am not free to fail. I am free from the eternal consequences of my failures if I am found in Christ. God never gives us a pass to fail.



I 100% agree that God never gives us a pass-A Green light- to sin. Having said that we must take comfort (freedom) in the fact that when we do fail, and we will- 1 John 1:8-10, that Christ is our righteousness. This means I can pursue righteousness wholeheartedly without fear that I will blow it and make my pursuit in vain.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 3, 2011)

I agree with Pat.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Jun 3, 2011)




----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jun 3, 2011)

Is failure always a sin? Is it a sin if I fail an exam? a job interview? a driver's test? In a success driven culture many people struggle with the failure to be as successful as their parent/sibling/neighbor. As someone who knows this reality I am profoundly grateful for Pastor Tullian's wise and pastoral counsel. Didn't David also write: 
As for me, I am poor and needy,
but the Lord takes thought for me.
You are my help and my deliverer;
do not delay, O my God!
(Psalm 40:17 ESV)
Our identity is found in Christ (Eph. 1:3-14) not in our successes or failures.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 3, 2011)

Donnie.. Context is very important. I believe you are missing the context in your defense. Read through this again if you don't believe you are.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jun 3, 2011)

Yes Randy, context is very important. Pastor Tullian's blog post is about perfectionism, is it not? He addresses readers who suffer from this. What then am I missing?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 4, 2011)

Read through this thread again. In posts 24 and 25 I show that the example doesn't warrant a response for perfectionism. It needs a different diagnosis. I also discuss the other examples in one of the earlier posts. If you have time read through the whole thread. It kind of sounds like you just jumped in without really reading the discussion. If you have read the thread a bit more carefully. Maybe I need to spell it out a bit more specifically, even though I don't think I can be any more clearer.


----------



## 21st Century Calvinist (Jun 4, 2011)

Rest assured I have read through the whole thread- more than once.
I understand the difficulty in seeing perfectionism in the 2nd scenario presented in the blog post. In fact, I didn't notice it on first reading either.


PuritanCovenanter said:


> Steve “I haven’t told anybody in the world what I’m going to tell you. I have decided to leave my wife and I told God that if I get through to you, I would do whatever you told me to do.”
> 
> I asked him what prompted him to decide to leave her.
> 
> ...



This man is a failed perfectionist. The bolded words point to this. At its root perfectionism is about control. He is also very concerned about what others think and say about him. This guy hasn't managed to achieve the control in his life that he wants/needs. The perfect marriage and perfect Christian life that he strives for hasn't materialized, despite his best efforts. So his reaction is to throw in the towel and regain control by putting himself first. So yes, he was looking for praise in the wrong place and yes, his motives are messed up. 
This is why Pastor Tullian, rightly, directs this man to Jesus- the only perfect man. What you, I and everyone on this planet needs is the perfectness of the God man. The only way to find freedom from our sins, perfectionism and personality foibles is by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ.


----------



## timmopussycat (Jun 4, 2011)

Why title the thread ". . . the Pilgrim's Regress"?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 4, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> > Steve “I haven’t told anybody in the world what I’m going to tell you. I have decided to leave my wife and I told God that if I get through to you, I would do whatever you told me to do.”
> >
> > I asked him what prompted him to decide to leave her.
> >
> ...


 
Randy, 

I agree. This sounds like a man who simply loved sin more than he loved the Lord and was more concerned with what others thought about him than what the Lord thought of him.


---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:36 PM ----------




kainos01 said:


> Sounds as if Tullian/Brown were reading Lloyd-Jones, who wrote:
> 
> First of all let me make a comment, to me a very important and vital comment. The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge [antinomianism] being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean.
> If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man’s preaching is ‘If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so regularly and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God, and you will go to heaven.’ Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, ‘Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?’ because the man’s whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise.
> ...



I am familiar with this quote. I think it's right on. But I think it's somewhat inapposite here since the assumption (especially with Tullian's remarks at the end) is that the people were Christians who haven't been taught right. (Much of what Brown wrote was ok as far as it goes if what he means by perfectionism coming from the pit of hell equates to these folks believing a false gospel and "come to me" is given as a gospel call to lost sinners.) 

See also ML-J's sermons on chastening and related issues in _Spiritual Depression_. You rarely hear that kind of message from the YRR types. (Maybe it's just me, but I have not heard it.) I've read a lot of ML-J and have never heard anything like "free to fail" etc. I think it's fair to say he had a higher view of regeneration than that. 

I can't speak for Randy, but what drew my attention was the idea that these folks just need to be better taught, etc. If those people misunderstood the gospel so badly, I see no biblical warrant for having any confidence that they are real Christians. Comforting them or assuring them in that regard is no better than the revivalistic "soul winner" giving assurance to everyone who comes down the aisle because they prayed the "sinner's prayer." Both perfectionism and decisionism are false gospels and they often go hand in hand. 

It seems to me that the folks in the examples given don't need to be pointed to the cross for sanctification but instead need to be exhorted to repent and believe. The examples in the letter were more indicative of the Roman Catholic or legalistic Pentecostal/Holiness works "gospels." Should those kinds of folks simply be told they are "free to fail" and so on?


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 4, 2011)

It may behoove us to recognize our stations and limitations before indicting a called and qualified minister of the gospel. Me, I'm not astute enough to declare the motives of such a man to be errant. I suppose if you believe yourself to be so qualified, you can have at it. To be honest, I don't bear witness to that qualification in most of the criticisms I've seen in this thread.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 4, 2011)

Brad said:


> It may behoove us to recognize our stations and limitations before indicting a called and qualified minister of the gospel. Me, I'm not astute enough to declare the motives of such a man to be errant. I suppose if you believe yourself to be so qualified, you can have at it. To be honest, I don't bear witness to that qualification in most of the criticisms I've seen in this thread.



Brad, can you give a specific example(s) of anyone "declaring the motives" of Tullian and/or Brown to be errant? If so, please point such example(s) out specifically rather than using a scattergun approach and indicting the actions of unnamed persons. 

Are you sure you're not confusing personalities and principles? Unfortunately, raising a question is too often interpreted as nothing more than a personal attack when oftentimes the one raising questions holds the other in high esteem but sees something wrong with WHAT is being said and not necessarily WHO is saying it. 

If I hadn't "indicted" the false gospel preached, I'd still be in the United Methodist Church. If others here hadn't done the same, they'd still be Roman Catholic or mired in legalism and other false gospels and false churches. 

We should give proper respect, honor and deference to whom it is due. But with all due respect, the approach you articulate here is more in line with Roman Catholic thinking or legalistic fundamentalist or Pentecostal thinking in which questioning the RCC or "the Man of God" is equated with rebellion against God.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 4, 2011)

Chris, the very title of this thread alone is an indictment against a called and qualified Teaching Elder of an orthodox Presbyterian denomination. That ain't the RCC or some loopy pentecostal denom.

But I digress. Those who feel their theological and intellectual capacity qualifies them to call the man's teaching aberrant are welcome to do so. I don't esteem myself so qualified, and am not too impressed with that of some posted. Us stoops should accept our station and refrain. And so I sheepishly retire from the thread.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 4, 2011)

Brad said:


> Chris, the very title of this thread alone is an indictment against a called and qualified Teaching Elder of an orthodox Presbyterian denomination. That ain't the RCC or some loopy pentecostal denom.
> 
> But I digress. Those who feel their theological and intellectual capacity qualifies them to call the man's teaching aberrant are welcome to do so. I don't esteem myself so qualified, and am not too impressed with that of some posted. Us stoops should accept our station and refrain. And so I sheepishly retire from the thread.



The title is clearly a question about the teaching and not the teacher. It's not a general indictment of the teacher, as you continue to assert. I posted some good things about Tullian, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose. If anyone here raised questions about motive, I didn't see it. I happen to think that his motives appear to be good but that what he posted didn't fit with the examples he gave and is therefore liable to be misinterpreted. Since you seem to be unwilling or incapable of seeing the difference then, with all due respect, perhaps it is indeed best that you retire from the thread. If the mods thought the thread was inappropriate, I'm sure it would have been shut down by now. 

As far as "stoops" accepting our station and refraining, that is indeed good advice, especially in questionable cases. But if we were to follow your approach outlined in your last two posts, then the Puritanboard would have to either be radically modified if not shut down altogether. A good many of the moderators and admins are "stoops" who at times have to moderate the posts of church officers and ordained ministers of the gospel. 

As far as an orthodox Presbyterian denom. there are many people in the past, both officers and "stoops" who were in previously orthodox Presbyterian/Reformed denominations. By remaining silent for too long, they eventually facilitated the takeover by the unorthodox. The teaching in the blog post referenced in the OP certainly doesn't rise to that level but nonetheless it's not above criticism, especially criticism that is set forth in a respectful manner.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 4, 2011)

And yet we are still called to assume the best rather than the worst when we presume to consider the motives of others, and to afford such men as Tullian double honor.


----------



## he beholds (Jun 5, 2011)

Brad said:


> Chris, the very title of this thread alone is an indictment against a called and qualified Teaching Elder of an orthodox Presbyterian denomination. That ain't the RCC or some loopy pentecostal denom.
> 
> But I digress. Those who feel their theological and intellectual capacity qualifies them to call the man's teaching aberrant are welcome to do so. I don't esteem myself so qualified, and am not too impressed with that of some posted. Us stoops should accept our station and refrain. And so I sheepishly retire from the thread.


 
Brad, I totally agree with you. This is one of those threads where I feel a little sheepish to be a part of a group that goes around critiquing pastors' blogs while looking for the worst possible scenario. I honestly had the thought, "Oh my. I hope Pastor Tullian (whom I don't know at all) doesn't read this thread. And if he does, I hope I never meet him and he knows that I'm on the PB." I mean, I feel like we sound just wrong. I guess it is mainly because I can't see, at all, the OP side of things regarding this blog. The words "free to fail," are not only true, but they're not related to sin at all. So for us to be like, "Oh, so-and-so is crossing a line," makes me feel really...anxious or something. 

And I don't mean to be harsh and criticize the PB. I often love the discussions here. And I know, I don't have to come here. But I just feel awkward and bully-like, sometimes. Especially as I have done it myself; often, I'm sure (and once, in a backtracking manner, I even started a thread trying to apologize for talking about what I did not understand with Tim Keller/women deaconesses). I don't know if these pastors come here to see who is criticizing them (and saying that someone is saying that it's OK to sin *is* criticizing more than just their specific words), but I'd feel a little sheepish if they did!


----------



## AThornquist (Jun 5, 2011)

I appreciate and agree with what you are saying, Jessica. When a thread comes across as too strong (one would need to judge for him or herself regarding this thread), I fear that someone who isn't more familiar with the PB would get the wrong impression of what the board is about. There have been people I've talked to at church who read a thread or two and got a bad taste of the PB, and I had to reassure them that it is not generally like that. I'm too often a culprit of adding a harsh edge to things, unfortunately; there have been many times when I have needed to repent of that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 8, 2011)

Brad said:


> And yet we are still called to assume the best rather than the worst when we presume to consider the motives of others, and to afford such men as Tullian double honor.



I have thought and prayed about this. As I said I don't want to be throwing rocks in a glass shop. I agree with what Chris (Pilgrim) wrote in his responses prior to this post. Thanks for your help Chris. I wasn't considering that Pastor Tullian had any ill motive. In fact his motive seems to be what mine would be. That motive being that we want others to know Jesus Christ the sin bearer. Where did I attribute motive? I admit I have a motive here. I want people to know the grace of God as something that causes perseverance. Now that doesn't mean one lives sinlessly nor has victory upon victory in their daily lives. In fact I have gone through many long dark seasons. I don't know a Christian who hasn't. But by God's influencing grace we all grow up and persevere. And might I add it looks somewhat different from person to person but God's grace always leads to holiness. In fact I have heard it said that dark seasons and trial are where our theology is tested and proven. My prior studies on Grace and God's sovereignty were definitely proven and found to be true in past hard times and I am sure they will be in future times. God's grace (power) is sufficient even in our weaknesses. God is faithful and full of Authoritative Control. 

This was not an attack on Dr. Tullian's Character at all. This was a critique of what I see as a big mistake and misdiagnoses that happens in Christianity far too often. I am saddened this thread made such a brew of discontent. I meant to place no ill motive on anyone. If I did I sincerely hope I can see it. If I did I do need to repent. It was not my intention to attribute ill motive upon Dr. Tullian.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 16, 2011)

Here is a recent post from Kevin DeYoung that from my perspective presents a more balanced and biblical view of things: 

Gospel-Driven Effort – Kevin DeYoung


----------

