The Indicatives and Imperatives of Scripture: Series on Sanctification Part Four

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.

Healthy Christianity: Its Root and Foundation. Series on Sanctification (Part Three)

Healthy Christianity:  Its Root and Foundation (Series on Sanctification part Three)

Series Part One            Series Part Two

What does healthy Christian growth look like?  I would like to believe that all professing Christians were on the same page on this concept.  This is especially true when applied to the category of Christian growth (think: progressive sanctification).  Let's assume for the sake of argument that people have passed through the doorway (the right door, and there's only one), and now being in the room how will they live while in the house?  Yes, I know this is just an illustration but if a person claims to be a Christian (let's give the benefit of doubt, assuming they have true saving faith), what does or should their life look like?  Are they bearing fruit?  Are they producing good works?  Are they making any effort to obey any command period actually found in the scriptures? (Just for sake of acknowledgement: Christians bear fruit in various degrees, times, and appearance).

Let's reconsider some concepts mentioned above.  What is a professing Christian?  What is true saving faith?  Who defines these terms?  Of course whatever your answer it has something to do with a Biblically-informed content but what content (even cults can do this)?  Will it be so minimal that it basically avoids the offense of nearly every self-proclaimed church or believer (even cults can mention the name of Jesus or believe something)?

We will revisit these ideas much later down the road but let me highlight two words again, "professing" Christian and "saving" faith?  Hope you caught it earlier but these are huge concepts and areas of division among evangelicals.  Who are these people?  Eventually we will have to discuss terms like assurance, perseverance, and preservation but for now the general topic is sufficient.  So who is this person and how does this topic related to the series on sanctification?  Let's consider some options from systematic theology (which may or may not include all the available biblical data).  For sake of familiarity (I'll use the phrase, "Perseverance of the Saints").  Historically this is the the "P" from the acronym TULIP (please note I am not commenting on whether the phrase is correct or not but simply a point of reference for illustration).

1.  Why do we use the adjective "professing" Christian?  Are there fake Christians or people that only look like Christians on the outside?  Consider some phrases you've probably heard before: they have head knowledge but not heart knowledge, they are professors but not possessors, or they have religion but not a relationship.  I would suggest these phrases are all struggling with the same kind of issues (and they all have their own trumping proof texts which they believe solves the issue).

2.   Why do we use the adjective "saving" faith?  Are there Christians who have unsaving faith or a faith that doesn't save anyone?  James tells us that even demons believe and tremble.  Does hiding in the content or object of faith help any?  Can you faith increase or grow?  Again, why the need for the adjective?  Just like point one, there is a struggle here....................

3.  Why does the "P" of the TULIP use the word saints?  Why does it not say, "Perseverance of all believers"?  Why not perseverance of everyone that walks an aisle, prays a prayer, raises their hand, fills out a card, becomes a member of a local church?  If you carefully look at the text of the epistles, the audience is always addressed as "saints" or "brethren," so the writers don't seem to make the distinction we do (just to be fair, we will address spiritual/carnal later).  

4. Does God's character change if it doesn't match my interpretations of the text?  Is God not keeping his promises according to my theological boxes?  Am I creating a God of my own making who allows me to live and do whatever I want?  Is it the same God that promises both blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (or do we only want to emphasize one part)?

All these areas questions are part of progressive sanctification (health Christian growth).  Eventually we must deal with issues such as fruit bearing, good works, or obedience.  But these will come in time as we actually address specific texts in their context (especially how they get used and abused).  I would like to suggest that a great deal of misunderstanding comes from dealing with certain texts individually and then treating them alone as though they are the sole voice on this particular issue.  Struggling through multiple texts on an issue may produce brain sweat but they both are true whether we can harmonize them or not.

Hope this helps some.

Comments encouraged.

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy: Series on Sanctification (Part Two)

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy, and Orthopathy

Series Part One

You may or may not have experienced these terms before but they are crucial to understanding a healthy view of Biblical Christianity.  Consider their three simple definitions:

First, orthodoxy is correct doctrine/teaching.  The content is right.

Second, orthopraxy is correct living.  The lifestyle is right.

Third, orthopathy is right emotional and/or affections.

To deny a right doctrine or teaching at worst case could produce a false teacher or false preacher.  Church history preserves this pillar for us through creeds, confessions, and doctrinal statements, all of which show that certain beliefs are correct and others are not.  But the scriptures do not stop identifying a healthy Christianity with beliefs alone, there is more.  Even those who adopt a minimalist view of core beliefs for the sake of fellowship or defining what a Christian is are in fact admitting that certain beliefs do matter.

To deny a right lifestyle is essential and many times may have its own motives: avoidance of confrontation, refusal to address a known sinful lifestyle, refusal to obey clear commands found in scripture, avoidance of ad hominems such as "legalist," etc....  In recent evangelical history, primarily in writing and preaching, this has been an issue of divide.  Consider the terms indicative and imperative.  The orthodoxy (point one above) has this one nailed down.  They believe in right doctrine however when it comes to the imperatives then we have a new ball game.  Actually its kind of ironic that the same ones accusing others of Pharisaism, legalism or any other self-defined position turn around and make up their own lists (usually from a minimalist position).

But in the end there are too many action verbs (regardless of verb tense) orchestrating the lives of every believer.  You could also view this through the lens of bearing fruit and good works repeatedly demanded of true believers.  If this were not enough, right doctrine and practice is still not enough to produce a truly desirable Christianity.  Even as I write this I am looking at the mission statement of a our church our family attended years ago.  Their statement ends with this clause, "glorifying God our Father in all we do and say."  Here's a test case question: when you hear or read someone use the phrase sola scriptura, what do they really mean (maybe sounding reformed is cool, relevant,  or trendy)?  Do they mean the Bible is sufficient or the only source of authority for doctrine alone?  Very interesting that sola scriptura doesn't apply to how we actual live (think: right beliefs, but wrong lifestyle).
      
Lastly, to deny that right emotions or affections are necessary leaves you open to influence from a plethora of external sources (all of which of course are neutral and unbiased, as some will claim).  These last two are commonly denied to make it convenient for focusing only on correct doctrine and practice (that is right living and affections don't matter).  There are many doors to the human heart changing and/or affecting our desires (eyes, ears, touch, etc...).  I'll be blunt to end this section.  If the sounds going into your head are producing emotions and affections that do not correspond with scripture, then the sound is not aiding in your sanctification.  If what is placed before your eyes, is producing horrible images and thoughts in your mind and heart, then what you are viewing is not helpful.  Or worse any of these gates to the heart produces sinful thoughts (followed with sinful actions), then don't claim it is aiding in your personal growth.

In recap as this series on sanctification begins there are multiple aspects to a healthy view of Biblical Christianity.  

History through careful Biblical exposition, creeds, and confessions has repeatedly defended that orthodoxy (right beliefs), orthopraxy (right living) and orthopathy (right affections) are all necessary for a correct view of Biblical Christianity.

Hope this is helpful to your personal daily walk with the Lord.

Comments encouraged.