Did Jesus preach the Law or the Gospel?

[alwaysreforming]

In considering certain aspects of Jesus' teaching, I am confused about what His true message was on more than one occasion.

Was He preaching the Law in the sense that what He was saying was perfectly right and true, and if anyone wants to be found blameless before God that he must act in strict accordance with the Law?

Or-
Was He preaching how His true followers were to follow Him?

For example, He said that "our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees." He said "blessed are the pure in heart."

The reason it is confusing for me is because so much of the time it seems as if what He was implying was that "only those with inherently good natures" would ever be worthy of being saved, which I know is impossible and in direct conflict with so much of the NT.

When He told the rich young ruler, "One thing you still lack: go and sell everything you have and give the money to the poor," it seemed as if He was showing this man where he was not in compliance with the Law, but at the same time He did not offer "Himself" as being this man's only hope (as if He was not "calling" him to salvation).

Did Jesus preach the Law "publicly" and the Gospel only "privately" (meaning to those to whom it was ordained)?
I'm getting this sense of disconnect in His message as I read through the Bible because His message was often "hard", and I'm having trouble reconciling that with the "free" offer of the Gospel.

Who can help me out???

 

[Puritan Sailor]

He preached both. And we must also. The law is the standard all must live by, both believers and unbeleivers. Our failure to keep it drives us to Christ for forgiveness, repentence, and grace to keep the law from the heart. As unbelievers, the law condemns us befor our rightoues Judge. As believers, the law teaches us how to please our Father, a relationship, which only Jesus' perfect obedience and atoning death on our behalf could secure for us.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The Sermon on the Mount is both an exposition of the law ('you have heard it said...but I say unto...') and a gracious invitation ('Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find;...how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?').

The One who said 'Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect' also said 'with men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.'

He who said 'Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' also said 'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.'

 

[Puritanhead]

The law brings us to knowledge of sin... it's integral to the Gospel.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Both.

 

[LawrenceU]

Jesus was the emboidiment of both the Law and the Gospel.

 

[alwaysreforming]

Thanks for the replies so far, Gents.
But when Jesus preached the Law, except for perhaps a couple of examples, He did not do so in a way which said to the people, "Now I know that you'll never be able to pull it off, so trust in my perfect completion of the Law for you!"

It seemed that He didn't even so much as hint at the above. He just gave strict exposition and left the people to attempt it. For example, with the rich young ruler, he went away sad. Jesus did not apply the Gospel at that point, even though the man was shown his sin through the Law.

Why such a mixed message? Was it simply because to those He was speaking was not given to be part of the Kingdom?

 

[youthevang]

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
Thanks for the replies so far, Gents.
But when Jesus preached the Law, except for perhaps a couple of examples, He did not do so in a way which said to the people, "Now I know that you'll never be able to pull it off, so trust in my perfect completion of the Law for you!"

It seemed that He didn't even so much as hint at the above. He just gave strict exposition and left the people to attempt it. For example, with the rich young ruler, he went away sad. Jesus did not apply the Gospel at that point, even though the man was shown his sin through the Law.

Why such a mixed message? Was it simply because to those He was speaking was not given to be part of the Kingdom?

One must understand that the law does not state what a man, in and of himself can do, but it states what a man ought to do. This is the fact that Jesus was always pointing. The rich man went away saddened because he had many riches that he did not want to give up. He viewed the treasure on earth as more important that the heavenly treasure.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Don't you know that Jesus' teaching on the Law was for the Jews in the kingdom age? OOOPS! Sorry, some of my former dispensationalism coming back to haunt me.

It seems to me that Jesus' point was the same as the point of the original giving of the Law - to show the standard of God's righteousness. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." The result would be that we would recognize that we fall short. This is step 1 in gospel preaching.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Douglas,

Though I think you mean differently I would disagree with your choice of wording. Preaching the Law is step 1 and necessary, but it is not step 1 in preaching the Gospel as the Law is NOT the Gospel. That is to say the Gospel does not contain the Law, hence the term "Good News", proclaimation of an event, broadcasting something that happen outside of me for me, declaration of what Jesus did rather than "you do this". WWJD for example is law, What Jesus did is Gospel.

Both:

Law and Gospel. Yet, we are NEVER justified by keeping the Law but Grace alone, AND much to the shock of modern evangelicals sanctification is rooted in grace ALSO. Sanctification is not a "to do", it is not "my work to do" or else - but rather a precious promise and thus encouragement. It is impossible for sanctification to not occur from justification. That is an encouragement not discouragement, some will hear that statement as discouragement because they are displeased with their Christian walk. But the displeasure is the best sign that you ARE being sanctified. So be encouraged!

One must come to realize that all good works are God's even in me/you as through a grossly imperfect instrument. You can never lay claim to "good works" as yours but only God's else you must fear that you are not of the kingdom for such robbery of God's glory - IF you really think they are your own. Children of the Law will hate that statement.

The Law in its accusing force drives us fleeing to Christ. For the Christian under grace the Law then becomes the content, imperfect in this life, of the Christian life. Never do we in and of ourselves before or after conversion fulfill the Law. Christ alone fulfills it and in Him we are righteous.

As Calvin like Luther rightly observes, "The Law is the content and guide for the Christian but if you begin to hear the Law accusing you must set the Law aside and flee to the cross immediately where true power and true rest is given." (paraphrased) The Law NEVER gives what it demands and thus the Gospel is the power. Hence the distinction (contra arminianism, pelgianism, pietism and some dispensationalism) must always be maintained yet without divorcing the two (contra other dispensationalism). Those who preach Christ as a "new lawgiver" (again many forms of man centered religions, arminians, dispensationalist and other glory religions) in opposition to Moses as the "old lawgiver", defile Christ. Yes, Christ preached both but His OFFICE is that of Redeemer not lawgiver. Moses' office was that of Lawgiver, yet Gospel was in his mind too.

The Law is natural to all men in a sense and all seek vainly to become righteous by it. The Gospel is alien and must be declared, redeclared and redeclared.

If one thinks they "really" keep the Law "from the heart" and this for the purpose of "pleasing God" as to justification either explicitly or implicitly or functionally, then one has violated the Law for the Law is Love and Love is altruistic toward others and God - and such "keeping of the law" is really infinitely selfish and supremely arrogant by placing one's self above God and in the end utterly against the Law or in short sin.

Driving the heart of the Law/Gospel distinction lies is not so much commands and promises (though the reason for this is apparent in why the distinction is absolutely necessary), but rather suffering, trial and cross versus religions of glory. Always take it to suffering. Test the doctrine at suffering. For the Law will be of no comfort to you on your death bed or when Satan accuses. Then and only then under suffering will one realize the true Gospel and the necessity of the Law/Gospel distinction. Those who have not suffered cross as cross inwardly or outwardly cannot grasp this as it is infinitely beyond them though they may speak at great length about the subject. But God will not be mocked and Christ will not be denied His glory.

In suffering the one suffering under the suffering comes to realise his/her true need and hence true prayer, true faith, true cross, true God and true mankind. Then the Gospel will be sweet for in suffering crosses the reality of theology is brought to bear for real upon the believer.

Then one will see why Paul damns all who fail to proclaim true Gospel and true Christ, mingling Law and Gospel, and not seperating the two without divorcing them.

Ldh

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Larry Hughes]

 

[alwaysreforming]

Larry,
Thanks for such a lengthy and well-thought-out reply.

I am STILL uncertain, however, if what Jesus was preaching was Law OR commands to His followers as believers. Certainly the two cannot be the same thing because if one could fulfill the latter he could fulfill the former.

If His sayings were commands to His followers, then it seems His yoke was not all that "easy and light", and it causes me anquish of soul to see how far short I fall (shouldn't I be filled with peace and joy instead).

If His sayings were Law, then it strikes me as odd that the very embodiment of the Gospel would be preaching Law and not following it up immediately with a Gospel of hope. (Again, the rich young ruler was not told to place his faith in Jesus, but to FOLLOW Jesus, and even then not until he adequately repents of worshipping his possessions).

I can't articulate the exact point of unclarity in my thinking on this issue (as it is so unclear in my mind that I can't formulate it precisely enough), but hopefully someone will be able to decipher exactly what I'm trying to get at.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Larry,

You are correct in your understanding of what I meant. Although, I don't think its bad to call preaching the Law step 1 in preaching the gospel. Paul did this very thing in Romans 1-3. He proclaimed the gospel (1:16-17) precisely by starting with the fact that mankind has sinned against God. This step 1 included the breaking of the Law (both to those who had it and those who did not).

If I remember correctly, which I may not, did not Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, and others promote the proclamation of the Law when preaching the Gospel?

 

[Calvibaptist]

1 more comment because I just thought a little bit more...

The gospel is not something that is preached to unbelievers alone. If it were, then you would always begin with the Law to leave them speechless and guilty before God before you proceeded to the good news.

But when preaching the gospel to believers (which is something we should do often) you focus on the grace of the cross. Too often we think of the gospel as a "Four Spiritual Laws" type of presentation (God help us!). But it is much more than that. It is, to a believer, how the cross affects every area of our lives.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

How are the Law and Gospel different things?

 

[Poimen]

Zacharias Ursinus. In What Does The Law Differ From The Gospel? The exposition of this question is necessary for a variety of considerations, and especially that we may have a proper understanding of the law and the gospel, to which a knowledge of that in which they differ greatly contributes. According to the definition of the law, which says, that it promises rewards to those who render perfect obedience; and that it promises them freely, inasmuch as no obedience can be meritorious in the sight of God, it would seem that it does not differ from the gospel, which also promises eternal life freely. Yet notwithstanding this seeming agreement, there is a great difference between the law and the gospel. They differ, 1. As to the mode of revelation peculiar to each. The law is known naturally: the gospel was divinely revealed after the fall of man. 2. In matter or doctrine. The law declares the justice of God separately considered: the gospel declares it in connection with his mercy. The law teaches what we ought to be in order that we may be saved: the gospel teaches in addition to this, how we may become such as this law requires, viz: by faith in Christ. 3. In their conditions or promises. The law promises eternal life and all good things upon the condition of our own and perfect righteousness, and of obedience in us: the gospel promises the same blessings upon the condition that we exercise faith in Christ, by which we embrace the obedience which another, even Christ, has performed in our behalf; or the gospel teaches that we are justified freely by faith in Christ. With this faith is also connected, as by an indissoluble bond, the condition of new obedience. 4. In their effects. The law works wrath, and is the ministration of death: the gospel is the ministration of life and of the Spirit (Rom. 4:15, 2 Cor. 3:7) (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 92).

See more at: http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/LawGospel.html

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Ursinus

 

[alwaysreforming]

This might seem like such a basic and elementary principle to some of you, and you might wonder how a seasoned Reformed person could even pose a question of the sort. In an email earlier today, I told one person:

"I've also been dealing with confusion in areas which I once thought were sealed tight in my mind. That's the way things go on our journey with God, it seems. We learn truth and we run so far with it, and after we get over one hill we can suddenly see a lot farther all at once, and what we were carrying in our arms now seems so inadequate for the long journey we can suddenly see is still left to go."

Has anyone else ever struggled with this? Its like you learn the basics, then you come to find out that you've learned most of them somewhat wrongly, then you move to the opposite side of that error (usually to an unhealthy extreme), then you try to balance yourself back to what you're finding out is orthodoxy, and then as you ponder these (new?) truths and wrestle with them, suddenly even the most elementary things are again filled with mystery.

It usually happens when after you've got a certain point of doctrine "tightened up" in your mind, you come across a Scripture or two that doesn't seem to fit with it and "even though its just one Scripture", it necessitates questioning your whole foundation that your belief was built upon.

For me it happened most recently when I pondered Jesus' "unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees, you will no wise enter into Heaven." He made no mention of His fulfilling the Law in your place after that. It just sits, like an immovable rock.

Can anyone relate? Why did Jesus preach the Law? If it is said, "to drive us to Himself", well, that seems to fit our theology, but it doesn't often fit the context in which He said it. In reading it, I don't at all come away with the conclusion, "Oh, Jesus is telling me that it is impossible and I must look to Him." Even though this is what I believe, sometimes I feel like I'm dealing dishonestly with the text in order to continue my belief.

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Douglas,

Though I think you mean differently I would disagree with your choice of wording. Preaching the Law is step 1 and necessary, but it is not step 1 in preaching the Gospel as the Law is NOT the Gospel. That is to say the Gospel does not contain the Law, hence the term "Good News", proclaimation of an event, broadcasting something that happen outside of me for me, declaration of what Jesus did rather than "you do this". WWJD for example is law, What Jesus did is Gospel.

Both:

Law and Gospel. Yet, we are NEVER justified by keeping the Law but Grace alone, AND much to the shock of modern evangelicals sanctification is rooted in grace ALSO. Sanctification is not a "to do", it is not "my work to do" or else - but rather a precious promise and thus encouragement. It is impossible for sanctification to not occur from justification. That is an encouragement not discouragement, some will hear that statement as discouragement because they are displeased with their Christian walk. But the displeasure is the best sign that you ARE being sanctified. So be encouraged!

One must come to realize that all good works are God's even in me/you as through a grossly imperfect instrument. You can never lay claim to "good works" as yours but only God's else you must fear that you are not of the kingdom for such robbery of God's glory - IF you really think they are your own. Children of the Law will hate that statement.

The Law in its accusing force drives us fleeing to Christ. For the Christian under grace the Law then becomes the content, imperfect in this life, of the Christian life. Never do we in and of ourselves before or after conversion fulfill the Law. Christ alone fulfills it and in Him we are righteous.

As Calvin like Luther rightly observes, "The Law is the content and guide for the Christian but if you begin to hear the Law accusing you must set the Law aside and flee to the cross immediately where true power and true rest is given." (paraphrased) The Law NEVER gives what it demands and thus the Gospel is the power. Hence the distinction (contra arminianism, pelgianism, pietism and some dispensationalism) must always be maintained yet without divorcing the two (contra other dispensationalism). Those who preach Christ as a "new lawgiver" (again many forms of man centered religions, arminians, dispensationalist and other glory religions) in opposition to Moses as the "old lawgiver", defile Christ. Yes, Christ preached both but His OFFICE is that of Redeemer not lawgiver. Moses' office was that of Lawgiver, yet Gospel was in his mind too.

The Law is natural to all men in a sense and all seek vainly to become righteous by it. The Gospel is alien and must be declared, redeclared and redeclared.

If one thinks they "really" keep the Law "from the heart" and this for the purpose of "pleasing God" as to justification either explicitly or implicitly or functionally, then one has violated the Law for the Law is Love and Love is altruistic toward others and God - and such "keeping of the law" is really infinitely selfish and supremely arrogant by placing one's self above God and in the end utterly against the Law or in short sin.

Driving the heart of the Law/Gospel distinction lies is not so much commands and promises (though the reason for this is apparent in why the distinction is absolutely necessary), but rather suffering, trial and cross versus religions of glory. Always take it to suffering. Test the doctrine at suffering. For the Law will be of no comfort to you on your death bed or when Satan accuses. Then and only then under suffering will one realize the true Gospel and the necessity of the Law/Gospel distinction. Those who have not suffered cross as cross inwardly or outwardly cannot grasp this as it is infinitely beyond them though they may speak at great length about the subject. But God will not be mocked and Christ will not be denied His glory.

In suffering the one suffering under the suffering comes to realise his/her true need and hence true prayer, true faith, true cross, true God and true mankind. Then the Gospel will be sweet for in suffering crosses the reality of theology is brought to bear for real upon the believer.

Then one will see why Paul damns all who fail to proclaim true Gospel and true Christ, mingling Law and Gospel, and not seperating the two without divorcing them.

Ldh

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by Larry Hughes]

Larry-

You articulate this subject so well in all your posts. You are a tremendous help in understanding (and applying!) this core issue.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[Poimen]

I think it might be helpful to see the relationship between the law and the gospel like that of the relationship between election and reprobation.

Predestination contains two parts:

1) election 2) reprobation

They both are related insofar as they are decrees of God, but they do not function in the same way or bring about the same result. The first functions to save, the second to harden.

The Word of God contains two parts:

1) gospel 2) law

They both are related insofar as they are messages from God, but they do not function in the same way or bring about the same result. The first functions to save, the second to harden.

The only difference is that there is no third use or category of predestination. The law shows us our sins and misery and cannot save, but the gospel does and drives us to Christ who fulfilled the law for us. However, the law continues to function as way of thankfulness. After being embraced by our Savior in unconditional love, He sends us forth to do His will out of our love to Him.

 

[Poimen]

For an excellent treatment of this issue, read "The Pearl of Christian Comfort" by Petrus Dathenus.

http://www.heritagebooks.org/item.asp?bookId=452

"For the instruction and consolation of all troubled hearts who are not properly able to distinguish between the law and the gospel."

Dathenus (1531-1588) was a Reformed pastor in the Netherlands who began the tradition of preaching through the Heidelberg Catechism for our continental kerken. Unlike our modern adherents to the Reformed faith, Dathenus had not yet been purged from this Lutheran plague that yet still threatens to destroy our churches.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
Larry,
Thanks for such a lengthy and well-thought-out reply.

I am STILL uncertain, however, if what Jesus was preaching was Law OR commands to His followers as believers. Certainly the two cannot be the same thing because if one could fulfill the latter he could fulfill the former.

If His sayings were commands to His followers, then it seems His yoke was not all that "easy and light", and it causes me anquish of soul to see how far short I fall (shouldn't I be filled with peace and joy instead).

The moral law does not change. The requirement to obey it does not change. But our relationship to God does change thanks to the obedience and death of Christ. As unbelievers, we only know God as a judge, and hence His law condemns us. As beleivers, the curse of the law has been removed in Christ, the righteous requirements of the law have been fulfilled in Christ, so we are justified in God's sight. But the law still functions as our guide for righteous living, not becasue we can be condemned, but because it displeases our Father. When we sin, it will bring the chastizement and discipline of our Father, but not condemnation. His discipline is there to conform us to Christ. SO the law still remains the righteous standard of conduct for both beleivers and unbelievers.

The yoke is "easy and light" because as beleivers we are no longer burdened to obey the law in our own power. We are given new hearts, united to Christ, and empowered by the Spirit to live righteously. We have the ability to obey, where as unbelievers we are in bondage to sin.

If His sayings were Law, then it strikes me as odd that the very embodiment of the Gospel would be preaching Law and not following it up immediately with a Gospel of hope. (Again, the rich young ruler was not told to place his faith in Jesus, but to FOLLOW Jesus, and even then not until he adequately repents of worshipping his possessions).

I can't articulate the exact point of unclarity in my thinking on this issue (as it is so unclear in my mind that I can't formulate it precisely enough), but hopefully someone will be able to decipher exactly what I'm trying to get at.

You have to understand Jesus' teaching in light of the people He was ministering to. Jesus was extremely harsh with the self-righteous, and made certain to drive them to the law, not because they could inherit life by it anymore, but to teach them that their standards of obedience were not high enough. Their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees. They must be perfect to inherit eternal life. He did this so that the people would quit depending upon their own righteousness, covenant faithfulness, or ethnic identity and instead trust in the Person and work of the Messiah on their behalf. Jesus taught that we must believe on Him. He had the authority to forgive sins. And He had the authority to dispense the Spirit to renew hearts and write the law on people's hearts. John's Gospel best illustrates this out of all the gospels, but Paul is even clearer. The standard remains high for us. But now we are enabled to obey it from the heart, unlike the Pharisees. Hope this helps.

[Edited on 9-27-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Christopher,

Consider these two texts:

Luke 10:25-26. '"Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?"'

Acts 16:30. '"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved."'

Here are two seemingly different replies to very similar questions. I think you're wondering why the Lord Jesus refers this man and others to the law, when Paul and Silas cut to the chase and tell the Philippian jailor straightaway to trust in Christ.

The reason is that the first man was not convicted of his sin. He was 'testing' Jesus. Our Lord's reply, which includes the Parable of the Good Samaritan, was to show this man that he didn't and couldn't keep the law. When the man asked, "And who is my neighbour?" He was trying to reduce the demands of the law (cf. Matt 5:43-44 ), so Jesus told the parable to shut him up to the law and convict him that he didn't keep it.

The case of the jailor was quite different. He was already convicted. He ".....ran in and fell down trembling before Paul and Silas." He had seen God's power in the earthquake and knew himself to be a sinner (cf. perhaps Luke 5:4-8 ).

I hope that helps.

Martin

[Edited on 9-28-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Larry Hughes]

For an excellent treatment of this issue, read "The Pearl of Christian Comfort" by Petrus Dathenus

Amen, amen and amen to that - a wonderful treatment of the issue at hand that Daniel turned me onto.

Douglas,

Yes, I'm not saying not do the Law and only Gospel, just maintain the distinction as does Paul in Romans and especially Galatians.


Christopher,

You are very welcome, I do understand the struggle and anything God may choose to use me to lift up a brother I will do.

I am STILL uncertain, however, if what Jesus was preaching was Law OR commands to His followers as believers. Certainly the two cannot be the same thing because if one could fulfill the latter he could fulfill the former.

If His sayings were commands to His followers, then it seems His yoke was not all that "easy and light", and it causes me anquish of soul to see how far short I fall (shouldn't I be filled with peace and joy instead).

This is not necessarily bad for the Law does function this way. By the wrath of God (which the Law in full force points out to us) we are driven to the cross from trial to trial, but do not stay stuck on despondancy. Stop looking inward as some misguided teachers would have you do for sanctification, especially when "anguish of the soul" is occurring. The thing if a pastor or teacher is paying attention at all is to recognize in that situation - is that the Law has/is doing its killing work and to then turn you strictly to Christ's cross. The Law's work is ultimately only good for the sinner if the Good News follows behind else we run the danger of despairing ultimately. If you are struggling focus on the Gospel, Good News. I don't know who or what your church situation is, but if your main diet is Law or Law confused with Gospel or moralism or reading Jesus as an example or sanctification driven by law terror - then one might consider finding a church where true Gospel is being declared so your soul can receive some rest and peace. The thing about the Gospel is - is that we are so inwardly driven and magnetized toward law and works righteousness that we NEED EVERY WEEK the Good News redeclared to us afresh by someone else in word or the Lord's Supper.

As Dr. Rod Rosenbladt said once concerning true Reformed preaching, "Jesus should be presented/offered/preached such that the hearer would hear Jesus in His saving office and reply, 'You mean even if I don't clean up my life I will still get to go to heaven?' And the reformation and biblical answer to THAT question is...you bet". Brother that is the Gospel and it is sweet and it is the power for living faith.

If His sayings were Law, then it strikes me as odd that the very embodiment of the Gospel would be preaching Law and not following it up immediately with a Gospel of hope. (Again, the rich young ruler was not told to place his faith in Jesus, but to FOLLOW Jesus, and even then not until he adequately repents of worshipping his possessions).

The RYR is a Law passage. Note that Jesus is showing the RYR his failure to the Law by taking him to the heart of the Law, Sell all you have and give to the poor (love of neighbor as self) & Come and follow me (As God, love God with all your heart, mind and soul). Jesus is showing him the heart of the Law so that it might kill him and then he would come to Jesus AS Christ, that is to say Redeemer. Don't let piestic interpretations of that passage deceive you.

I've got to go for now, but will check back and talk as much as you need - I understand your struggle personally. I can also give you great reference material that can much better articulate this. Daniel's above is great, I devoured that book and reread it as I need.

Yours in the Sufficiency of Christ.

 

[Larry Hughes]

Christopher,

Here is a great short piece on the Law and the Christian that may be very helpful to you.

Blessings - Larry

Richard Lovelace, The Dynamics of Spiritual Life (IVP, 1979)


Justification and Sanctification

In the New Testament...justification (the acceptance of believers as righteous in the sight of God through the righteousness of Jesus Christ accounted to them) and sanctification (progress in actual holiness expressed in their lives) are often closely intertwined...However, they are quite distinct: Justification is the perfect righteousness of Christ reckoned to us, covering the remaining imperfections in our lives like a robe of stainless holiness; sanctification is the process removing those imperfections as we are enabled more and more to put off the bondages of sin and put on new life in Christ...



Justification reversed with sanctification

Only a fraction of the present body of professing Christians are solidly appropriating the justifying work of Christ in their lives. Many have so light an apprehension of God's holiness and of the extent and guilt of their sin that consciously they see little need for justification, although below the surface of their lives they are deeply guilt-ridden and insecure. (On the other hand), many others have a theoretical commitment to this doctrine, but in their day-to-day existence they rely on their sanctification for their justification...drawing their assurance of acceptance with God from their sincerity, their past experience of conversion, their recent religious performance or the relative infrequency of their conscious, willful disobedience. Few know enough to start each day with a thorough going stand upon Luther's platform: you are accepted, looking outward in faith and claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the only ground for acceptance, relaxing in that quality of trust which will produce increasing sanctification as faith is active in love and gratitude...


A conscience which is not fully enlightened both to the seriousness of its condition before God, and to the grandeur of God's merciful provision of redemption, will inevitably fall prey to anxiety, pride, sensuality and all the other expressions of that unconscious despair which Kierkegaard called "the sickness unto death"...(So) we start each day with our personal security resting not on the sacrifice of Christ but on our present feelings or recent achievements...Since these arguments will not quiet the human conscience, we are inevitably moved either to discouragement and apathy or to a self-righteousness which falsifies the record to achieve a sense of peace.


Justification as the basis for all sanctification

Much that we have interpreted as a defect of sanctification in church people is really an outgrowth of their loss of bearing with respect to justification. Christians who are no longer sure that God loves and accepts them in Jesus, apart from their present spiritual achievements, are subconsciously radically insecure persons-much less secure than non-Christians, because of the constant bulletins they receive from their Christian environment about the holiness of God and the righteousness they are supposed to have. Their insecurity shows itself in pride, a fierce defensive assertion of their own righteousness and defensive criticism of others. They come naturally to hate other cultural styles and other races in order to bolster their own security and discharge their suppressed anger. They cling desperately to legal, pharisaical righteousness, but envy, jealousy and other branches on the tree of sin grow out of their fundamental insecurity...


It is often said today, in circles which blend popular psychology with Christianity, that we must love ourselves before we can be set free to love others...But no realistic human beings find it easy to love or forgive themselves, and hence their self-acceptance must be grounded in their awareness that God accepts them in Christ...(There is much evidence in our experience against the idea that we are children of God, but) the faith that surmounts (over comes/conquers -ldh) the evidence and is able to warm itself at the fire of God's love, instead of having to steal love and self-acceptance from other sources, is actually the root of holiness...


Presented in this context, even the demand for sanctification becomes part of the Good News. It offers understanding of the bondage which has distorted our lives and the promise of release into a life of Spirit-empowered freedom and beauty. Ministries that attack only the surface of sin and fail to ground spiritual growth in the believer's union with Christ produce either self-righteousness or despair...