# Is Tim Keller Tweet Confessionally Valid



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 5, 2015)

This is a recent Tweet by Tim Keller. Is this confessionally valid, per Westminster? Obviously sanctification is imperfect in this life,and obviously our good works are imperfect. But to me, and I'm sorry to sound harsh, but this sounds like so much "maudlin piety". I respect the man, but...

_The Christian understanding of sin is different than what most people think. I can't preach a sermon or say a prayer without sinning._


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 5, 2015)

> (emphases added)
> 
> Larger Catechism:
> *Q. *24. What is sin?
> ...




Yes, I contemplated those citations before posting. I think Chapter 16 is woefully neglected. However, taken to it's logical conclusion, then we cannot even confess our sins without sinning; so should we confess that our confession was tainted, and then repeat the process ad infinitum?


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 5, 2015)

> If, by _ad infinitum_, you mean spending all our seconds and minutes in perpetual confession, _No_. Obviously that is impossible since God requires of us many other duties. However, if you mean, day by day, ought we to repent of our half-repentance? Pray for our poor praying? Confess our inadequate confession of sins? Sure. That is by design. The point is that we'll never repent well enough, nor confess our sins as we ought, etc. This drives us to Christ and His righteousness alone, and then from a thankful heart, pleading the Lord's help, endeavor toward new obedience, picking up where we have left off, rising where we have fallen, making progress where we have not yet made progress, etc. It is a life-long cycle of being rid of all vestiges of self-righteousness->Driven to Christ and His Work alone->Forsaking Sin->Endeavoring to New Obedience, etc.
> 
> If sin is any want of conformity unto _any_ of God's laws, what commandment has any man (other than God-man) perfectly kept?
> 
> ...



Do you think LC 149 is referencing every thought, every word, and every deed--or does the term "daily" imply the general tenor of our lives as sinners in need of constant and continual grace.?


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 5, 2015)

And I agree that we need to be driven continually to Christ, and continually progressing in our sanctification.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 5, 2015)

It seems that Keller was simply echoing what Whitefield said so many years ago. https://books.google.com/books?id=D...ge whitefield i cannot pray but i sin&f=false


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 5, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> so should we confess that our confession was tainted, and then repeat the process ad infinitum?



Yes, something like that. At least that has been true of me. I call it prayer regression. You keep going deeper until you get to some level of reality and honesty before God. And even then it is tainted. At least that is what I think.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 5, 2015)

...hence the need for the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit Who perfects our imperfect worship. We are not called to worship with the idea that God accepts our prayers and praises and acts of worship in themselves but, because they are in Christ, we are accepted. I think we need to think of the exchange that occurs between us and Christ as ongoing. Christ is He Who has offered and offers perfect obedience and worship and His becomes ours as we are brought into union with Him by the Spirit. The Spirit, Himself, groans with our spirit to perfect what we cannot accomplish. We don't become Pelagian in worship but are still in recognition of our unworthiness except that Christ ever lives to perfect what we offer.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 5, 2015)

There is sin in our motives when we worship, but we would hope we are not necessarily engaging in "particular sins" when we worship, but even wandering thoughts could be viewed as particular sin.

We ask God to forgive us for sin in engaging in "holy things" and carry out all our worship "for Jesus' sake".


----------



## bookslover (Oct 6, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> This is a recent Tweet by Tim Keller. Is this confessionally valid, per Westminster? Obviously sanctification is imperfect in this life,and obviously our good works are imperfect. But to me, and I'm sorry to sound harsh, but this sounds like so much "maudlin piety". I respect the man, but...
> 
> _The Christian understanding of sin is different than what most people think. I can't preach a sermon or say a prayer without sinning._



I think Keller is merely emphasizing that, although genuinely saved, we still suffer from total depravity and the sin nature, so that even our best efforts in the best areas are tainted by sin.


----------



## Jack K (Oct 6, 2015)

bookslover said:


> I think Keller is merely emphasizing that, although genuinely saved, *we still suffer from total depravity* and the sin nature, so that even our best efforts in the best areas are tainted by sin.



"Total depravity," used in that context, is phrasing that sometimes gets folks in trouble, and Keller was smart not to actually put it that way. Though it sounds at first glance like good, Reformed-ish theology, it too easily becomes understood as saying there is nothing at all that is good about a believer's worship of God. But in the newness of life given us by the Spirit, there _is_ good there; we are no longer totally depraved and unable to do good as we once were. "Total depravity" is a phrase that traditionally has been used to describe the state of a person _before_ regeneration, not after. For speaking of indwelling sin _after_ regeneration, the "still tainted by sin" language results in fewer headaches for the speaker.

As for the original question... the tweet is good theology provided "still tainted by sin" is what the writer means, which I trust is the case. I also agree with the tweet that most people don't understand this; they tend to think only of particular, conscious, and visible sins.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 6, 2015)

Jack K said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > I think Keller is merely emphasizing that, although genuinely saved, *we still suffer from total depravity* and the sin nature, so that even our best efforts in the best areas are tainted by sin.
> ...



Agreed on the response to "total depravity"; believers are not totally depraved. See _Gal. 5.24--And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts._; _Col. 3:1-3--If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God._; _Eph. 2:4-6 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved; ) 6 and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:_


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 6, 2015)

For the record, I've no idea how that winking eye emoji got inserted near the end of the Ephesians quote in my previous post. Ugh.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 6, 2015)

Back to my original question. Yes, the Tweet is confessionally valid; I thought as much. Thanks Joshua for confirming my reading of those Westminster Standard texts, and for everyone's input. The Puritanboard is a great blessing in that "iron sharpens iron" category. I'll likely start a new thread in a day or so regarding what I think is an ancillary topic that the Tweet and some responses got my mind rolling upon.  THAT emoji was intentional.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 6, 2015)

"The best prayer I ever prayed had enough sin to damn the whole world." --- John Bunyan


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 6, 2015)

Pergamum said:


> "The best prayer I ever prayed had enough sin to damn the whole world." --- John Bunyan



Heavy quote from a Puritan heavyweight!


----------



## timfost (Oct 6, 2015)

The sentiment is also echoed in the Heidelberg:



> 62. But why cannot our good works be the whole or part of our righteousness before God?
> 
> Because the righteousness which can stand before the judgment seat of God must be perfect throughout and entirely conformable to the divine law, but *even our best works in this life are all imperfect and defiled with sin*.



So we should petition God this way:



> Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Your sight, O Lord, my strength and my Redeemer. (Psalm 19:14)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 6, 2015)

From the Directory for Publick Worship:



> The congregation being assembled, the minister, after solemn calling on them to the worshipping of the great name of God, is to begin with prayer.
> 
> "In all reverence and humility acknowledging the incomprehensible greatness and majesty of the Lord, (in whose presence they do then in a special manner appear,) and their own vileness and unworthiness to approach so near him, with their utter inability of themselves to so great a work; and humbly beseeching him for pardon, assistance, and acceptance, in the whole service then to be performed; and for a blessing on that particular portion of his word then to be read: And all in the name and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ."






> AFTER reading of the word, (and singing of the psalm,) the minister who is to preach, is to endeavour to get his own and his hearers hearts to be rightly affected with their sins, that they, may all mourn in sense thereof before the Lord, and hunger and thirst after the grace of God in Jesus Christ, by proceeding to a more full confession of sin, with shame and holy confusion of face, and to call upon the Lord to this effect:
> 
> "To acknowledge our great sinfulness, First, by reason of original sin, which (beside the guilt that makes us liable to everlasting damnation) is the seed of all other sins, hath depraved and poisoned all the faculties and powers of soul and body, doth defile our best actions, and (were it not restrained, or our hearts renewed by grace) would break forth into innumerable transgressions, and greatest rebellions against the Lord that ever were committed by the vilest of the sons of men; and next, by reason of actual sins, our own sins, the sins of magistrates, of ministers, and of the whole nation, unto which we are many ways accessory: which sins of ours receive many fearful aggravations, we having broken all the commandments of the holy, just, and good law of God, doing that which is forbidden, and leaving undone what is enjoined; and that not only out of ignorance and infirmity, but also more pre sumptuously, against the light of our minds, checks of our consciences, and motions of his own Holy Spirit to the contrary, so that we have no cloak for our sins; yea, not only despising the riches of God's goodness, forbearance, and long-suffering, but standing out against many invitations and offers of grace in the gospel; not endeavouring, as we ought, to receive Christ into our hearts by faith, or to walk worthy of him in our lives.
> 
> ...


----------



## BGF (Oct 6, 2015)

It's confessionally valid if, as others pointed out, understood properly. Without the proper frame of reference the tweet is useless as it does not explain anything. How is sin commonly misunderstood? What is the proper way to understand sin? How does his example illustrate this? Unless this is just one part of a series of related tweets, not much is really said here. Such are the limitations of Twitter.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 6, 2015)

BGF said:


> It's confessionally valid if, as others pointed out, understood properly. Without the proper frame of reference the tweet is useless as it does not explain anything. How is sin commonly misunderstood? What is the proper way to understand sin? How does his example illustrate this? Unless this is just one part of a series of related tweets, not much is really said here. Such are the limitations of Twitter.



If one is looking for ways to be uncharitable and to pick nits then the same can be said of the statement: "Jesus saves"


----------



## BGF (Oct 6, 2015)

Rich, I can see how that comes across as uncharitable, and for that I certainly apologize to any offended. My nitpick wasn't with Keller, but with twitter in general. That said, I was probably better off not commenting rather than causing offence. Or perhaps confessing my inability to find twitter edifying.


----------



## tantely (Oct 6, 2015)

Well, I am not a Tim Keller fan but I think he is right on that point

T.A


----------



## bookslover (Oct 7, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> ...believers are not totally depraved.[/I]



Total depravity means that every part of a person - his thoughts, his speech, and his actions - are tainted by the sin nature. Since Christians still sin with their thoughts, their words, and their actions, how are Christians not totally depraved?


----------



## earl40 (Oct 7, 2015)

bookslover said:


> Clark-Tillian said:
> 
> 
> > ...believers are not totally depraved.[/I]
> ...



By the gift of faith.


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 7, 2015)

bookslover said:


> Total depravity means that every part of a person - his thoughts, his speech, and his actions - are tainted by the sin nature. Since Christians still sin with their thoughts, their words, and their actions, how are Christians not totally depraved?



In the context of the Doctrines of Grace this expression especially has to do with the fact that all of the human faculties are depraved to the point that they cannot seek or obtain salvation. But with the gift of regeneration and faith believers are made new creations and given a new nature (though still tainted with sin). That, and they are now truly united to a Perfect Intercessor who stands in their stead.

Here is a link to a recent thread on this topic.


----------



## Edward (Oct 7, 2015)

tantely said:


> Well, I am not a Tim Keller fan but I think he is right on that point



Agree.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 7, 2015)

Phil D. said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Total depravity means that every part of a person - his thoughts, his speech, and his actions - are tainted by the sin nature. Since Christians still sin with their thoughts, their words, and their actions, how are Christians not totally depraved?
> ...



Phil is correct. If we are sticking with the notion historically, the heading at Dordt has to do with man's inability in the Fall to seek or obtain salvation in themselves. We are still beset with indwelling sin but those who are in Christ are not "totally depraved". Total depravity and indwelling sin are different categories.


----------



## Clark-Tillian (Oct 7, 2015)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Phil D. said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



Absolutely. This highlights the importance of striving for precision with our words (Matt. 12:36ff). As a pastor, I can tell you there are a great number of Christians in the pews whose souls have been damaged by the misuse of this category; they think they're dogs begging for crumbs rather than the redeemed people of The Holy One (Eph.1-2; 1 Peter 2 et al) 

BTW Mr. Zuelch, in saying this I'm not implying that you are guilty of this.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 8, 2015)

Clark-Tillian said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Phil D. said:
> ...



Not to worry, Kevin. I didn't take it that way.


----------

