What are some popular phrases regarding "effort" in the Christian life?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This brings me to a question that has bothered me for a long time,

Can afflicting yourself make you appreciate the affliction of Christ more?

Only if it is the sort of affliction Christ imposed on himself (e.g., fasting, watching in prayer, and neither done so much as to unfit us for other labors). God can take care of afflicting us as we need; we lack the wisdom to do that properly.
 
I'm going to be dropping out of the conversation for a while because I'm spending today at church and fellowshipping with believers, and then Monday morning I start a week of Bible camp teaching at a remote site with no connectivity. So although I appreciate the interaction here, I'll be mostly off the grid, and I will really need to focus on the job at hand anyway. Thirty-some 9- and 10-year-olds. Many have never been to church.
 
I'm going to be dropping out of the conversation for a while because I'm spending today at church and fellowshipping with believers, and then Monday morning I start a week of Bible camp teaching at a remote site with no connectivity. So although I appreciate the interaction here, I'll be mostly off the grid, and I will really need to focus on the job at hand anyway. Thirty-some 9- and 10-year-olds. Many have never been to church.

We pray that God's Word to them will be implanted in their hearts and will bear fruit.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
I do believe we fear to let the full measure of God's methods of motivation take their course because we don't exegete His Word and want to soften the disciplining Hand of God
But is it really softening to include a strong emphasis on all Christ has done for you? I find that being "gospel-driven" allows a teacher at the same time to be much more forceful about commands and warnings... because he doesn't have to worry his teaching might be taken as legalism, because there's a culture of openness in confession of sin, and because the contrast between godliness and sin has been made stark. Contrary to softening anything, a strong emphasis on all Christ has done sharpens everything. At least that's how it worked for the Puritans, and how it has worked in the best "gospel-driven" churches I've known.
"gospel-driven" is a shibboleth. It's like saying "born again" Christianity. It adds no content. It's a pet peeve of mine that we keep adding new phrases because we think "missional" actually means something.

What's frustrating is that someone is apt to simply read your post and conclude: Why in the world would Rich ever avoid having people remembering what Christ has done?

Have I not written sufficiently to avoid that concern? It goes to Derek's point that a faithful minister can be placarding Christ in worship and Word regularly but unless he qualifies rebuke and reproof with what others consider real Gospel content then he's not preaching the Gospel. If Paul can write Romans 12-16 without having to re-state everything he just wrote then I think we can too.

When God intends for His discipline to be really painful to us for a holy end then the preacher needs to let the text loose on that point. He does not need to hold back the arm of the Father (read: not punitive Judge) on the fear that the Father really doesn't understand that His Word might be construed as a bit hard-hitting. No correction seems pleasant and it's not our job to make it seem so. What we do is give context to the discipline so the hearer recognizes its benefit. Consequently, I want men and women to understand that their children first before they start hearing what the Lord will say to them as children when He is addressing them as children.

I don't hang around many Pentecostals or Word of Faith or many Pelagian folk. My context is legitimate ministry. I've preached the Word and been the man through whom some dear friends first heard the Gospel after decades in Pentecostal circles. That said, I think I can safely say that the broad context of American Christianity is allergic to the pursuit of holiness. Even those who put on the show of true holiness by prohibiting smoking, drinking, and the like are in decline in some of the bastions of those places. There's so much more than getting a balance in content correct for some Christian communities. The entire system needs to be uprooted and replaced.
 
Rich,
After this evening's worship, from Judges, the story of the sometimes fearful Gideon, this thought came to mind.

What is missing in the discussion of "balance" between legalism and grace is teaching of the holiness of God, and His commandment that His people be Holy. That gets lost in the way the discussion about contemporary grace is being framed.

The avoiding legalism side (and of course legalism is a real and serious biblical error) does not present the holiness of God in a way relevant to the life of the believer.

Westminster Confession of Faith
[emphasis added]

Chapter XIII
Of Sanctification

I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,[1] by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]
[6]Scripture Proof

2CO 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. HEB 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
 
What's frustrating is that someone is apt to simply read your post and conclude: Why in the world would Rich ever avoid having people remembering what Christ has done?

I certainly hope they don't. I don't think that of you, and I wouldn't want anyone else to. I was just responding to one of my pet peeves: the accusation that teachers who make a point of always mentioning God's love in Christ must be doing so because they wish to soften the Bible's warnings and/or commands. Maybe some do it for that reason, but it's surely not why I mention God's love in Christ. I think speaking of God's love only makes the warnings and commands sharper and more potent and urgent.

Again, I hate to post and run. It seems unfair to comment and then leave for a week. But it seemed like maybe I owed it to you to state that in no way would I ever mean to suggest that you want to avoid having people remember God's goodness in Christ. Clearly you do. Of course.
 
If Paul can write Romans 12-16 without having to re-state everything he just wrote then I think we can too.

I was just responding to one of my pet peeves: the accusation that teachers who make a point of always mentioning God's love in Christ must be doing so because they wish to soften the Bible's warnings and/or commands.

These kinds of choices depend largely on the audience. A preacher who preaches mostly to the same audience week after week, and is systematically going through Romans might make different choices than a preacher who preaches mainly to the unchurched.
 
I think speaking of God's love only makes the warnings and commands sharper and more potent and urgent.

Yes.

But so does His Holiness.

And both are spoken of in great length in Scripture and we have no right to represent otherwise.
 
It would be interesting if someone has done a study of all the ways (because there are many) that the Lord uses to "motivate" His children to obedience.

In Derek Thomas' recent address (which I had linked on another thread), he recommended Kevin DeYoung's book "A Hole in our Holiness" which outlined at least fifty (50) scriptural motivations for holiness.
 
It would be interesting if someone has done a study of all the ways (because there are many) that the Lord uses to "motivate" His children to obedience.

In Derek Thomas' recent address (which I had linked on another thread), he recommended Kevin DeYoung's book "A Hole in our Holiness" which outlined at least fifty (50) scriptural motivations for holiness.

Thanks. I think I heard him mention 50 but I was also multi-tasking when I was listening to it.
 
If Paul can write Romans 12-16 without having to re-state everything he just wrote then I think we can too.

I was just responding to one of my pet peeves: the accusation that teachers who make a point of always mentioning God's love in Christ must be doing so because they wish to soften the Bible's warnings and/or commands.

These kinds of choices depend largely on the audience. A preacher who preaches mostly to the same audience week after week, and is systematically going through Romans might make different choices than a preacher who preaches mainly to the unchurched.

Agreed. Let's just say that if I had an opportunity to preach to people in an IFB or Pentecostal or otherwise Pelagian context, I would begin with justification. We need to lay a foundation upon which a person can properly understand justification and sanctification.

"Believe upon Christ and you will be saved" can actually be a "work" if a person is actually convinced that he is the author of his own faith.

Incidentally, with our TE on vacation, I preached on Hebrews 12:1-13 yesterday. Since we were not in that text, I spent some time in some foundation building. It's not that the minister fails to preach the Gospel but that I'm jumping into Hebrews 12 and I needed to provide some context.
 
I'd be interested in hearing your sermon on "effort" when it is all said and done, Rich.
 
Thomas Boston put his finger on the problem (Works, 3:536):

How were the ten commandments given on mount Sinai? Not bare exactions of duty, but fronted with the gospel, to be believed in the first place: “I am the Lord thy God,” etc. And so Solomon, whom many do regard rather as a moral philosopher than an inspired writer leading to Christ, fronts his writings, in the beginning of the Proverbs, with most express gospel. And must we have it expressly repeated in our Bibles with every moral precept, or else shut our eyes, and take these precepts without it? This is the effect of our natural enmity to Christ. If we loved him more, we would see him more in every page, and in every command, receiving the law at his mouth.
 
Thomas Boston put his finger on the problem (Works, 3:536):

How were the ten commandments given on mount Sinai? Not bare exactions of duty, but fronted with the gospel, to be believed in the first place: “I am the Lord thy God,” etc. And so Solomon, whom many do regard rather as a moral philosopher than an inspired writer leading to Christ, fronts his writings, in the beginning of the Proverbs, with most express gospel. And must we have it expressly repeated in our Bibles with every moral precept, or else shut our eyes, and take these precepts without it? This is the effect of our natural enmity to Christ. If we loved him more, we would see him more in every page, and in every command, receiving the law at his mouth.

:up: Love it!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top