The Indicatives and Imperatives (Series on Sanctification Part Five)
Series Part One Series Part Two Series Part Three
So what does right doctrine look like (orthodoxy)? Or what does right living (orthopraxy) or right feelings and affections (orthopathy) look like? I would again like to suggest all three are necessary for healthy Christianity. I would also like to suggest (this is not unique to me) that these concepts mirror the truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Let's reword these to help elaborate: God has made direct promises and/or statements which are both positive and negative (think: divine sovereignty) and believers have obligations to obey/practice/do/applications (human responsibility). Throw into this formula doing everything with the right biblical motive/feelings, affections (orthopathy). To emphasize one of these and neglect the others is dangerous. Consider some options in quick recap (does not exhaust every possible arrangement of the three variables):
Right beliefs but with a wrong daily lifestyle or with wrong motives and/or affections.
Wrong beliefs but with a right daily lifestyle or with wrong motives and/or affections.
It is probably easiest to believe all the right doctrinal truths. Just pick up a theology text or read a creed and/or confession and its not to hard to see some overlapping categories of doctrinal truth. Its hard to pass by consistent categories such as Bible, God, Creation, Sin, Salvation, Church, etc.... However, consider the vast number of sermons or text which simply explain the truth of scripture and then make no applications to daily living. Consider in your own mind the dangers of people obeying a list of rules (applications) without scriptural motivation either by command or well-derived principles.
The emphasis on this indicative and imperative framework appears in many large sections within the scriptures (sometimes even shaping the content of entire epistles). Consider some indicative and imperative texts in near context relation. They both are necessary. Having all the Christian doctrine by itself leaves your Christianity incomplete. On the other hand, Christianity is also incomplete trying to obey or practice without a basis or foundation. So let's compare some texts (some technical words will be used):
Romans 6:2 and v. 12.
"God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" The verb "are dead" appears in the aorist tense. This generally refers to a past action. It appears in the indicative mood stating a past fact. Compare this with verse 12, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof." "Let not sin .... reign" is a present tense (continually) command or imperative. So the facts don't stand alone without an obligation placed upon the reader. Based on a particular fact or reality (think promise made by God), you need to obey now.
Col 3:3 and v. 5.
"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Again "ye are dead" is a past tense verb appearing in the indicative mood and "is hid" is a perfect tense verb. The perfect tense contains an idea/active that happened in the past but has ongoing results/benefits. We could easily identify surrounding imperatives in this context, both before and after. "Set you affections" is an imperative from previous verse (drawing from reality of verse one) or "mortify ... your members" from the following paragraph (v. 5). Both appear as imperatives placing an obligation upon believers (think human responsibility).
Gal 5:24 and v. 25-26.
"And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts" (v. 24). Consider the following verses (v. 25-26), "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. "let us not be desirous of vain glory,..." Here as well, we a verse reminding the reader of a fact/reality "have crucified" appearing in the aorist tense and indicative mood. This is followed by a different nuance for a verb (the subjunctive mood). Both verb appearing as commands or exhortations in the English text are what we might call a hortatory subjunctive or if negative a prohibition.
Eph 4:21-23 and v. 25.
"If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: that ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, ... and that ye put on the new man." These verbs are little more tricky than the previous references. "Put off" and "put on" are infinitives. However they both are elaborating on the claim of vs. 20, "But ye have not so learned Christ ... as the truth is in Jesus." The verb learned is in the indicative mood. The putting off and putting on are realities for a believer. But where's the command for believers? Keep reading. "Speak every man truth with his neighbour" (v. 25). This imperative "speak" is followed by a string of imperatives all for believers.
We could apply this pattern to hundreds of other indicative and imperative references throughout the scriptures. I hope this is enough to show several key concepts in relation to the topic of progressive sanctification. We will touch more on the subjunctive mood in another post in relation to conditional clauses (for now think: "if ... then" clauses) in relation to progressive sanctification.
1. God has made promises to all believers (divine sovereignty) and believers have commands still made to them today (human responsibility). We still need to address the relationship of obedience to progressive sanctification. The epistles call believers "saints," people who are holy and sanctified already.
2. Denying the promises God has made leaves you with a self-defined religion of self-righteousness. History shows this is definitely not orthodoxy. It is very easy to see how a works-righteousness can emerge: obey to be saved or bear fruit so you can be saved. Late we will need to address a plethora of texts placing fruit-bearing as a result of justification not the means of justification.
3. Denying the hundreds of commands God has still placed upon believers produces a religion of license and liberty that history shows is definitely not orthopraxy. Even this cuts cross grain to many church discipline passages explicitly written to correct/confront/discipline sinful practices (of professing believers). How we live and obey scripture does matter to God.
4. We will have to wrestle with obeying the imperatives based on the motivation provided from the indicatives. This will also need to tie in at a later date motivations based on "love of God" "love of Christ" and "love of neighbour." In time we will also need to address the means by which these motivations are made possible.
We will have to address in a later post the claims of legalism and antinomianism in relation to these above points, especially how they relate to Christian growth (progressive sanctification) and assurance/perseverance issues for believers.
Much more to come. Hope this helps some in your daily walk.
Comments encouraged.
No comments:
Post a Comment