In Defense of Steve Brown

[RumpleSnat]

Just wanted to say that I was a member of the church he served on Key Biscayne for many years. I recently listened to the video posted over in the "Is Tullian Antinomian?" thread in the Covenant section.

I can tell you that Steve believes very passionately in sanctification. Until I went to Key Biscayne I'd never met anyone who wanted to get better more than Steve. And that is the honest truth. Still haven't and God saved me over 40 years ago.

He has never said that one ought not get better and be more holy. He has merely said that the best motivation for doing so is grace.

There is a great difference between believing "you don't have to do anything after salvation" (which is very much antinomianism) and "of course you are supposed to get better, and the best way to do that is by being motivated by grace rather than obligation".

In listening to the video, I couldn't help but thinking "of course you have to do something - sanctification is synergistic, but the 'grace guys' I know have never said anything different - they are only speaking to what motivation is driving your works." I couldn't help but feel that the arguments were good but against a straw man that doesn't exist. (Well, it probably does exist, but it isn't Steve Brown).

I've never heard Steve say you don't have to do anything. Ever.

I heard him say this in a class at RTS: "of course you have to get better, God's commands are not suggestions, we've just been going about motivating people to do so in the wrong way - they've forgotten the gospel, the good news, and as Jack Miller said "you are a lot worse than you think you are, but grace is a lot bigger than you think it is" and in our performance oriented culture it is so easy to forget the heart of the gospel.

This is one of the reasons Tully says "it isn't that we've haven't made the gospel good, it's that we haven't made it good enough."

Once I let myself be motivated by grace rather then obligation, I finally started seeing real progress in sanctification. I sat under so many pastors who preached obligation as a motive for sanctification and got I nowhere. It was only after realizing that I should do it because God loves me and not because "I have to" that I started really nailing the spiritual disciplines, for example.

Steve spent a lot of time trying to get people to obey the commands - and he'd always get frustrated because he couldn’t get them to. Until he discovered that he was using the wrong motivation. Hence his statement: "people that get better are people who know that if they don't get better God will still love them and once you realize that you are loved that much, then getting better becomes a joy rather than like pulling teeth".

Tully teaches pretty much the same thing as Brown in my experience. His way of saying something similar what Brown says is: "what will you do now that you have to do nothing?" He's not saying you have to do nothing literally, but rather that you will do a whole lot better at 'doing something' if you realize that that you don't need to do anything out of obligation and drudgery.

Those that understand the gospel have no trouble with having the right motivation, but those like me needed to hear the 'grace thing' over and over before we finally 'got it' . There are others like me believe me. And none of us are antinomian.

I think the guys on the other side and those on Tully and Steve's side talk past each other a lot. I wish that would stop. And I would rather see all of them sit down and have a discussion than a formal debate, because most debates end up the same way - two people talking past each other.

The 'grace guys' and the 'legal guys' aren't what each other think they are in my observation. I wish they'd both say things with more clarity and I've told Steve that many times.

One other example about how I've told Steve he should be clearer. He always says "God isn't angry at you". So I asked him in front of an audience to clarify that. He said (paraphrasing): "When I say that you have to remember that I am saying that to those who God has saved. If you are an unbeliever then God is very clear - you are at enmity with God and that is a very dangerous place to be. But if you belong to Him He will never be angry at you again. And when I say angry I am referring to punitive condemning anger - all of that was poured out on His Son at the cross." Afterward I told him, every time you say "God isn't angry at you, you ought to say what you just said because without that clarification you really do sound antinomian and so I can get where people would think that".

So I wish these guys would be clearer.

Anyway - I like this board, haven't posted much but enjoy reading here - I've learned so much. Thanks for letting me in.

 

[earl40]

One other example about how I've told Steve he should be clearer. He always says "God isn't angry at you". So I asked him in front of an audience to clarify that. He said (paraphrasing): "When I say that you have to remember that I am saying that to those who God has saved. If you are an unbeliever then God is very clear - you are at enmity with God and that is a very dangerous place to be. But if you belong to Him He will never be angry at you again. And when I say angry I am referring to punitive condemning anger - all of that was poured out on His Son at the cross." Afterward I told him, every time you say "God isn't angry at you, you ought to say what you just said because without that clarification you really do sound antinomian and so I can get where people would think that".

So I wish these guys would be clearer.

The above is the EXACT same thing I spoke with to my Pastor and he is Steve's pastor also. In other words, I attend the same church Pastor Brown attends. Of course my pastor agree's this is what Steve means but I have heard pastor Brown a lot over the years, and unfortunately he never once qualified his statement which is mildly distressing. I think the problem is that we are a tad to charitable in the state of many of our members souls. Maybe we need to speak with "no horns" and speak the truth in love and say that if one is not struggling against the sinful nature at all one is not a Christian. For make no mistake the kingdom is something to be reached for and the violent take it by force, by His grace.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The 'grace guys' and the 'legal guys' aren't what each other think they are in my observation.

Perhaps the problem is defining one group as the "grace guys" and others as "legal guys".

When the charge of antinomianism really applies, it's not because a person is over-emphasizing grace too much but has typically abridged the grace of God in what fruits union with Christ procures for the elect. It is actually possible to believe fully in the imputation of Christ's righteousness for our justification and get one aspect of theology correct and then abridge other areas of our salvation so much as to strip bare all the things that Christ accomplishes for the elect as their Mediator in the New Covenant.

While I would love to see some more fundamental dialog, I don't agree that people are just saying the same things. These kind of exchanges have a historical precedent and we can learn from them. One cannot read Owen on Sanctification and come away thinking that everybody is saying the same thing but just needs to come to the table and realize it. Nobody denies that, in a certain sense, those who seem to emphasize grace by repeating the word over and over, believe that the Law has abiding validity for a believer. It's just what they believe about what the Son, through Word and Spirit, accomplishes in the life of the believer not merely out of gratitude instilled in the believer but by the fruits of their obedience as they battle indwelling sin.

Analogies are always perilous but let's just say that my kids know that I love them. They never doubt that I'm their father. They do certain things out of gratitude for their status as my children. Nevertheless, they sometimes have to go through the hard task of obeying in situations in which they really don't want to do things and their obedience has a good effect on them. They learn that, in the moment, not getting what they may want in a certain situation has a maturing effect on them. The act of obedience has a beneficial effect upon them. If they had to rely upon the varying levels of "gratitude" that they felt (Boy, dad really loves me so I'll give up the desire I have for this cookie in this moment) then that gratitude won't move them forward. It's not enough to impel them. Thankfully for them, they have a father that loves them and he disciplines them. The Scriptures even repeat (in Deuteronomy and Hebrews) that a child is known to be loved by a father because he disciplines them and so it is with our heavenly Father. He is not content to let our level of gratitude (especailly since we battle indwelling sin) to be the reason we will ultimately stand or fall in any given situation.

I don't merely continue to tell my children: "Believe that your dad loves you" as if this will be enough to move them on the path to wisdom. Neither does our heavenly Father. My children never earn the right to be my children or lose it based on obedience. It is because they are my children that they are blessed to have a father who (imperfectly) is committed to see them grow in wisdom and stature.

So let's look at why my kids might obey in any given situation:
1) They are grateful for who they are as my children and what they've received based on nothing they've done.
2) They know that their father has said that obeying a father's command is good for them and so they obey.
3) They heard from dad that they could be killed in a given situation and so they fear to do something that might be perilous.
4) Their father is standing nearby and so they fear to do something wrong in that situation.
5) Their father is physically stronger than they and he literally keeps them from their folly in a given situation.

Now, speaking "spritually", some will say that only 1) is real grace. It's the only way in which a child ought to obey and it still be "gracious" because it's based solely on "pure", interior motives.

I would say that all of the above, taken together, represent an aspect of "grace". The child is protected from danger and may learn obedience and wisdom. They all move the child along in the journey.

As I noted in another thread, simply pressing 1) over and over is a form of law. You MUST learn to be grateful for who you are in Christ! When we see Christ as our Mediator, anything He does to cause me to become more holy and protect me from my foot slipping is seen, ultimately, as gracious.

 

[MW]

Speaking to the issue rather than the individuals involved, this is just another form of perfectionism. Although it goes under the name of "grace," this "grace" is perfectionist in nature because it requires "grace" as the sole motivating factor in obedience before the obedience can be acceptable. The reality is, motives are always mixed because sin continues to exercise its influence over the whole man. God accepts the believer and his obedience on the basis of the perfect righteousness of Christ, even though it is offered with mixed motives. Grace is no more grace when the works have to be motivated from purely gracious motives in order to be acceptable. A person would be endlessly questioning his motives and paralysing himself before he lifted a finger to do anything or even thought about doing anything. In contrast, the Scriptures testify (especially Hebrews 11) that the saints obtained a good report by faith, and that notwithstanding the imperfection of their faith and obedience. Faith issued in obedience as imperfect as it was and God accepted both the believer and his works which were done in obedience to the commands of God.

In opposition to Antinomianism, which set forth a paralysing view of grace, the Westminster Confession of Faith teaches (chapter 16, section 6), "Yet notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him, not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God's sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections."

 

[RumpleSnat]

When I was a kid there were several occasions where my friends wanted to do something bad and all the time they would say "boy if my dad catches me he will tan my hide and blister my butt". I can remember thinking whenever that happened I thought to myself "if I get caught my dad won't do anything of the kind - he'll weep over my disobedience and it will break his heart." Many times I didn't join in with my friends (although I did sometimes - I wasn't perfect) because I knew what it would do to my dad.

And of course God disciplines his children. But that's not the same as a condemning punitive measure. If God's discipline is condemning and punitive then something was left undone at the cross.

And it could very well be that they aren't talking past each other. But I couldn't help when I was watching that video thinking "but that's not what Steve believes - I know it's not because I've heard him preach for nearly 40 years since the mid-70s. The gentleman speaking at Gen. assembly doesn't have that same experience".

And again, since he didn't name names, I have no idea who exactly he was referring to. All I'm saying here is it's not Steve Brown. Almost makes me wish she had name names because if he had and he had mentioned Steve then he definitely would've been wrong.

The points about Owen are very well taken. We are definitely to be putting to death sin at all times.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Semper Fidelis]

And of course God disciplines his children. But that's not the same as a condemning punitive measure. If God's discipline is condemning and punitive then something was left undone at the cross.

I don't see how that's relevant to anything I wrote. I stated God disciplines His children. I didn't say that His wrath was poured out on them.

The author of Hebrews notes that this is how we know that we are His children - because He disciplines the one He loves and chastens all He accepts as sons.

Hebrews 12:3-11

3 Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary or fainthearted. 4 In your struggle against sin you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5 And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons?
“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord,
nor be weary when reproved by him.
6 For the Lord disciplines the one he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.”
7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits land live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Thus we see a combination of gratitude, chastisement, and Spirit-wrought effort toward the end that we might share in Christ's holiness. For the same author notes that even Christ learned obedience from the things He suffered and commands us to consider the same.

Perhaps you were writing an aside but I wrote nothing about condemning, punitive measures. One should not even have to make such qualifications when another quotes the discipline of the Lord and articulates what he means by it.

Incidentally, I know virtually nothing about Steve Brown and am speaking broadly to the issues you raised in the OP.

 

[RumpleSnat]

Perhaps you were writing an aside but I wrote nothing about condemning, punitive measures. One should not even have to make such qualifications when another quotes the discipline of the Lord and articulates what he means by it.

Rich,
It was indeed, an aside. And one shouldn't have to make those qualifications, unless one is speaking to someone who, like me, thought God really was angry at me because of the legalistic upbringing I had. There are many of us out there.

I think we agree.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It was indeed, an aside. And one shouldn't have to make those qualifications, unless one is speaking to someone who, like me, thought God really was angry at me because of the legalistic upbringing I had.

I grew up Roman Catholic and certainly do not relish the lack of true religion I was exposed to for so many years but I can say with Jacob that the Angel of the Lord was good to me through those years. My "legalism" restrained me from sins that would be of grave consequence to my life. They may have served no purpose in justifying me but they were, in the hands of a good Father, ultimately for my good.

If you haven't read portions of Augustine's Confessions, he is thankful to God even for the teachers he had that disciplined him sharply as it made him the scholar he became to God's service. It's all a matter of perspective I think. When we see ourselves under the Providence of God, even the legalists in our lives serve a good purpose toward God's holy ends for us.