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.

Christian Growth: Misnomer or Personal Necessity? (Series on Sanctification) Part One

Christian Growth: Misnomer or Necessity? (Series on Sanctification) Part One

Believe it or not every form of religion teaches and practices some form of growth or maturing process (even if dying, rebirth, or rituals).  It is not my intention nor purpose to encourage or teach on the belief and practices of what I consider to be false religions.  It is however my intention here to discuss the differing views of sanctification within what is called Biblical Christianity (yes many use the name but have dramatically different definitions for the term).

So before we can dive into this topic I need to elaborate on several specific terms (mentioned already above).

(Caveat: I am well aware of many textbooks (written or electronic), systematic theologies, creeds, confessions, lectures, sermons, etc.  that begin their topics with definitions.  Many times their entire argument is a defense of their own definitions, which have been carefully crafted, whether they be self-derived straw men, either/or,  or other fallacies is another question entirely).  So with that in mind let me craft some straw-men, how well they burn is up to others.  I will list some recent publications at the end of this article.

Click link here to review the previous article on informal fallacies.     Informal Fallacies Article

First, in reference to the term Christian growth.  I am referring to what is known in broader evangelical Christian circles to what we call progressive sanctification.  I wish it were true, but not all Christians actually believe sanctification is progressive (chances are, you've got some of their books and aren't aware of what they actually say--a hidden danger).  We will address this issue in time.

Second, in reference to sanctification.  I am referring to the traditional three-part division.  It commonly is divided with the use of adjectives (you should be concerned if the speaker/author denies one of these three).  Consider the terms, you'be probably heard before: (1) initial (maybe even "definitive" sanctification perhaps chronological placed near justification), (2) progressive sanctification (actual daily Christian growth and maturing), and (3) final sanctification (related to issue of glorification).  These three terms can also be identified with actual Greek verb tenses.  Many verbs related to this topic occur in the past tense (both aorist and perfect tense).  In a similar way a vast selection of verbs appear in the present tense (now).  Lastly, verbs associated with this issue occur as future tense verbs (things that will happen).

Third, many polarizing terms appearing under this theological umbrella have multiple meanings (equivocation, see blog post on Informal Logic).  These different meanings have actually changed over time.  Someone can be accused of one definition of the term but not the other definitions of the term.  Let's consider one example here of a term which does not appear in scripture: antinomianism.  Does this mean only "against the law" or "no law" (easy bullet to dodge if definition is restricted only here)?  Does it mean that part of the Mosaic law doesn't apply today or all the mosaic law doesn't apply today?  Is there a sanctifying or even teaching purpose for the law?  Does it mean obedience to NT commands/imperatives is not necessary or required of believers?  Does it mean I should use the term grace in every other sentence so that I'm not accused of being a legalist (whatever this term means)?   Can it be both a theological and practical concept?  You decide.

Lastly, when I use the term Biblical, I am referring to the idea that all of our theology and practice must find its source within the scriptures.  Much disagreement happens with people who don't agree on acceptable proof texts, exegetical methodology, or systematic theology grids.  This is just my opinion but I would challenge you if you claim to believe sola scriptura (then do you actually believe it includes every area of life (theology, daily living, morality, ethics, music, culture)?  Or is it only the convenient to believe this when I can self-create adiophora boxes (think: "things indifferent").

Let's take one of these terms just as an example to show the varying degrees of difficult grappling with this topic.  Consider the term: believe.

It appears as both a substantive (think: noun or subject) and as a verb.
The verb can appear as a command and as past, present, and future verbs (including infinitives and participles).
The verb for believe has varying relationships to the word repentance (vast groups disagree here).
The verb has multiple chronological and theological positions in relation to the ordinance of baptism (both with water and spiritually).
The verb even has moods and motivations (this is a key area where ad hominems emerge--think name-calling).

And yes, all these examples for this one term are related to the concept of Christian growth.  How it starts, presently occurs, and finishes.  Even the continued concepts of prescriptive and descriptive verses comes into play in this conversation.  Consider some abuses (even informal fallacies) made from the above data:

1.  I could present sanctification as though it is completely past tense (making no reference to present or future verbs)?  This turns it into a indicative only form of sanctification (little room if any for obedience).

2.  I could present sanctification as though it is completely present tense (making no reference to past tense verbs)?  This creates a imperative only form of sanctification with what motive?

3.  I could take a verse here or there and create a mood or motivation that trumps even direct biblical statements in many other places (then call others names for disagreeing with my motivations).

4. I could accuse others of not being Christians for not seeing all the specifics of salvation just the way I do (insert terms like faith/repentance, faith/regeneration, faith/baptism, etc...).

5.  I could make up my own list of tasks and/or beliefs for sanctification then evaluate my progress based on my own list (even worse I could evaluate others sanctification based on my list).  Principles derived either through a descriptive and/or prescriptive means have dramatic implications in this area.

Please consider a sample listing of the following recently published books directly addressing this issue in relation to progressive sanctification.  Most of these were written directly or indirectly to address an error they perceive on this subject--some more helpful, others less (listed in alphabetical order).  I have deliberately selected broader conservative or new evangelical sources to show they are struggling with this issue as well as Biblical Fundamentalists.

Bridges, Jerry. The Pursuit of Holiness: Run in Such a Way as to Get the Prize 1 Corinthians 9:24. (NavPress, 2006).

DeYoung, Kevin. The Hole in Our Holiness: Filling the Gap between Gospel Passion and the Pursuit of Godliness. (Crossway, 2014).

Ferguson, Sinclair.  The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance--Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters.  (Crossway, 2016).

Jones, Mark. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? (P&R Publishing, 2013).

Piper, John. Acting the Miracle: God's Work and Ours in the Mystery of Sanctification. (Crossway, 2013).

Ryle, J. C. Holiness: Its Nature, Hindrances, Difficulties, and Roots (Multiple Printings).

Tchividjian, Tullian. Jesus + Nothing = Everything. (Crossway, 2011).

Hope this helps some.  Hope you are growing (whatever this means).

There will be much more to come in this thread.

Thoughts and comments encouraged.

God cares how we actually live.

This phrase would seem rather obvious but it is not in many Christian circles.
There is a version of evangelicalism today emphasizing what Christ did "indicatives" (fancy word) and then almost ignoring of downplaying that fact that we must "live" (presently) as Christians.
The Christian life is more than just sitting around and preaching the gospel to yourself and living however you want.  This doesn't even take into account hundreds of commands found in the New Testament alone addressed to believers.

Please consider the following if you are tempted or think you can live however you want and it doesn't matter to God.  The topics of liberty, license, legalism, antinomianism and flat out worldliness will have to wait for another article (or lots of them).

All taken from Ephesians (could have gone elsewhere too):

Eph 4:1 "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called"

Eph 4:17 "ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk in the vanity of their minds"

Eph 5:1 "walk in love as Christ also hath loved us"

Eph 5:9 "walk as children of light"

Eph 5:15 "See then ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise"

Hopefully  these are enough to help see that walking as Christians matters.
It is a simple expression of how we conduct our daily attitude and action.
How you live can substantiate your claims or it can discredit what you claim to believe.
If you claim to be a Christian and live like the world may you should stop and consider.
Perhaps on your knees might help.  Trust me I have four kids and mess up a lot.

Hope this is a blessing, encouragement, or perhaps even challenge to some.

Please feel free to comments (especially those of you with kids).