1 John 3:4-10 (ESV)
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. [5] You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. [6] No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. [7] Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. [8] Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. [9] No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. [10] By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness… Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. I want to hone in on this word practice of. I think if this phrase was not used here I might just give up and make a practice of sinning. What I am saying is I know of myself that I am a sinner, and being a sinner I sin. I hate this sin. I hate the fact that I am short with people at times. I hate the fact that I can’t love others with the love that Christ has shown for me. I see sin inside of me. And these are not little sins to be ignored, especially when you are a pastor! Patience is a virtue that a pastor needs to develop, because it will be required of him if any are to hear the gospel in the midst of their sin. But though I sin, I do not practice sin. (Quite frankly, I don’t think I need to practice it as I have already perfected that art, as much as I care to anyway.) I gather here that practicing sin is a bit different than sinning. It is to know that something is a sin, and yet to continue to do it with glee, to know the right thing but do the wrong thing. It is to excuse sin, and make the gospel an excuse for sin. It is not to be bothered at all by sin. And I hereby do not want to lessen that guilt that comes with sinning vs. practicing sin. Sin is bad. Sin destroys. Sin needs to be repented of, so that it can be forgiven. There is forgiveness. Always forgiveness. But forgiveness comes with faith in Christ, as does righteousness. And faith, so fear, loves and trusts in God that faith hears also his law and practices it. That is practices righteousness.
Practices righteousness, now here you have something a bit odd, that is often misinterpreted. To practice righteousness is not the same as to have it perfected. I need to practice righteousness. The Christian needs to practice righteousness. Why? Because this side of glory the righteousness that he has will never be perfectly manifested in his practice of it. If one stops practicing righteousness one begins to practice sin. But the practice of righteousness is predicated on the fact that with faith in Christ we are righteous already. It is loving with the love with which he first loved us. And to practice righteousness is not just a matter or cleaning up our lives from outward vices which the world sees, but to confront the sin within us with the forgiveness of Christ. It is to swim in our baptism, and constantly return to the means of grace where by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit constantly works anew in our heart the saving faith in Christ who saved us from sin death and the power of the devil, not with silver or gold, but with his holy precious blood and innocent suffering and death. To practice righteousness is to lay hold on the death and resurrection of Christ day in and day out. To do anything else would be to practice sin.
12 comments:
1 John 3:4-10 (ESV)
Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. [5] You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. [6] No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. [7] Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. [8] Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. [9] No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. [10] By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
I don’t know, I go back to the definition of sin. Because this passage all too often gets acquisitioned by pietism into a practice good things rather than practicing bad things. The key verses seem to 9 and 10. Sin being that inward curved man and that can appear as overtly visible evil as to the outward deed (I rob a liquor store) or I will do good to that which I call my neighbor under the guise of “sanctifying myself (I’ll help you because I need to know I’m elect or more crassly “I’ll shove my good works down your throat whether you want them or not, then look with disbelief when you don’t want them”). To practice being inward turned can take on a negative or positive exterior. If in verse nine we see “born again” as baptism and all that goes richly with that, a man is thus pulled out of himself, the reversal of the inward curved man and thus he is freed to love his neighbor for real, that is to say, he does not account or count or assess his good works nor will they look necessarily spectacular but rather spontaneous.
E.g. He continues to practice overt evil is in a sense obvious. But he who practices outward good in a pious way with the notion that “this is growth, sanctification, proof of election, assurance, etc…” practices just as much if not more evil than the overt sinner. So he shows up when the “cameras are on” or in a way in which a show of works can be made, high end disasters, etc… But he who has been turned to the Cross by the objective reality of forgiveness of sin, he is there when the “cameras are off”, at the low moments and continually. He is there when the baby’s diaper needs changed, and as well doing a good work and bearing witness to Christ even when he just eats or sleeps. He loves his neighbor spontaneously. A practice is made of not being curved inward upon himself as opposed to a practice of inward turning.
Larry
Larry,
Yes this is why this passage cannot afford to be interpreted merely as "do good works." Our righteousness is our baptism, our baptism is our righteousness.
Larry says: "But he who practices outward good in a pious way with the notion that “this is growth, sanctification, proof of election, assurance, etc…” practices just as much if not more evil than the overt sinner."
What bothers me with this is, that Luther does talk that way sometimes. I wonder if what Larry says can be overstated. ???
When I need to be sure that all good deeds are "spontaneous", I am also trapped in myself. There is really no way out AT ALL, except Christ himself. Spontaneous works won't do it either.
Just a thought. (I'm at the public library waiting for my friend and the bloody Weigh Watcher's meeting. I can't quote you anything. I'm pretty sure they'd have no book I'm looking for.)
"Practicing righteousness" does mean trying to do the right thing, spontaneous or not, so HELP US GOD.
I'm of the opinion it can be overstated, Brigitte. But I am not sure Larry was doing so.
Here is the thing, when we look to our good works as the measure of our righteousness we are wrong. It is sin. Spontaneity I doubt makes the difference either. I can sin just as much with a spontaneous good work as I can with a deliberate good work. The only thing the ever makes any difference in our lives is the forgiveness of Christ. Knowing that we have that we can be bold to do good works, deliberately, spontaneously, and sinfully. That is what Luther gets at with his "sin boldly" comment so often misunderstood. Realizing the depths of our sin we know that we sin doing good works. Luther says do them any way, Christ forgives even those. Our righteousness is in Christ, in the forgiveness of sins, so do the right thing anyway. We can practice doing good without shame.
Part 1 of 2
Brigette,
“Realizing the depths of our sin we know that we sin doing good works. Luther says do them any way, Christ forgives even those. Our righteousness is in Christ, in the forgiveness of sins, so do the right thing anyway. We can practice doing good without shame.”
This is exactly what I’m getting at.
Can it be over stated? Yes! Sometimes it needs to be! It depends on who you are talking to, because Luther also spoke this way. Ask yourself, “How does Luther on one hand speak so utterly harsh concerning good works (e.g. HD) and yet so highly of them?”
The great irony is that I’m never speaking against good works, but laude them indeed! But its not going to “sound” the same as the pietistic lingo concerning good works.
Here’s the problem, if you came from evangelicalism in any form (Baptist, Reformed, etc…) it is helpful in grasping this (I suppose Lutheran pieitism as well but I cannot speak from experience on that). Men have long learned the art of the “right answer to the question”. Ask any protestant, any baptist if we are saved by our works you’ll get a no answer and most will then proceed to say that Rome believes that. But what do they really believe? At length we find that there is zero difference from such confessions as Rome and baptist. Rome believes in grace but then she has her “but”, as do the baptist, as do the Reformed. Rome formerly calls it “faith formed by love”. Rome gets the brunt of “you believe you are saved by works” because she dares to confess what she thinks. Baptist and the Reformed “get a pass” because out of one side of their mouths they say “Christ alone” and out of the other side of their mouths (usually more implied than anything), they confess “but when all is said and done you better get to working”. THAT is hard to ferret out because “they know the right answer to the salvation question”. IF you ask, “how are you saved” they’ll answer like Luther, but if you probe “does baptism save you”, they’ll say, “no”; how are you assured you are elect (which means ‘saved’), they will say “these pile of works over here”…etc… So you cannot just ask the easy greasy test question that every school boy knows the answer too.
Thus, one can reveal, sometimes, one’s love affair with themselves or their works by assaulting good works. Don’t you find it rather odd for a Christian who confesses Christ alone and glory to God talks nearly endlessly and defends with the same zeal as a Muslim “good works” rather than Christ alone.
Put another way they speak fundamentally thus:
1. “I’ll die for my good works doctrine”
2. “Christ alone, well of course…now back to good works”
Luther speaks thus:
1. “I’ll die for Christ alone”
2. “Good works, well of course…now back to Christ alone”
Part 2 of 2
So they speak little of Christ or relegate Him to the means toward the end of good works, unless asked the test question they know the answer too because that fits into their “well of course” caveat, and glory (i.e. make very very very famous and known) their good works.
Thus, they speak ultimately and make glorious not God or Christ but themselves, “I thank you God…”. Their speech is constantly, incessantly, relentlessly about themselves with “a tip to God” so its not obvious. “Boy the spirit convicted in that, I really need to get better at that…I need to, I need to, I could use some improvement there, we as Christians need to…ad nausem”. It’s ALL about them. The OT was right in likening such a religion to prostitution, because its exactly like prostitution and they ‘show a little leg’ to draw people’s eyes to them and their belly gods. And they will shove their good works down your throat, in the kindest of ways of course…they are always doing it primarily for themselves, for their sanctification. You smell a fake a mile away. Often a fake will look prettier than the genuine article actually helping you out in their vocation. Because the fake has to remove it from simple vocation and put it in the church yard box of works to be done.
Forde says it well once when he identified that God, that is to say GOD, may cause a man to do NO GOOD WORKS his entire life so that at last He may save His soul. That statement is utterly incomprehensible to all theologies of glory.
It’s another reason Luther says in his treatise on Good Works (my paraphrase), “If you ask them if eating or sleeping is a good work they will say no”. Why? Because their god and savior is themselves even though they speak much of faith and good works, they actually know nor have neither.
Such good works lovers condemn people who speak against them, like Lutherans and Luther, as if such are doing know good works and that they themselves are wonderous good works workers. Such utter arrogance and pride! That’s because they love good works, their god.
Why is it, for example, men remember John Wesley as “a fine man” and they recall him and his works? But when you hear of Luther you hear of Christ? Whose REALLY getting the glory in these two scenarios? When one huffs and puffs about me/you and our good works, whose REALLY getting the glory, caveating “for the glory of God” is merely the Pharisee’s “I thank you God…now onto talk of me”. But how was the overall speech of the justified man? The sinner and tax collector, how did HE speak? “As for me a sinner…have mercy on me oh God” (head down cast).
Yours,
Larry
I don’t often recommend Puritans but one thing they were very good at and that was analyzing something to death. In that they produced some profound thought. I believe, I cannot recall exactly right now, it was Thomas Hooker in his book “the poor and doubting Christian drawn to Christ” gives some good advice. I wouldn’t overly advise navel gazing, but it can be helpful if it’s a form of the Law so as to then make way for the Gospel. I think it can be used rightly this way.
Basically he was trying to get people to analyze who is really their god and savior (getting past the ‘right answer to the question’ to ‘what do you REALLY trust in’). He advised the next time you feel like you need to do “X” religious or good works thing (it could be any good thing from prayer to a good work) don’t do it and see how your heart reacts to it. If it cannot stand to “not do it” the heart is not really trusting in Christ alone.
To me this is similar to Luther’s advice he gives in which he says he himself often does opposite of what the devil tells him to do. For Luther sometimes that was drinking stronger drink and a nice serving of it too. Luther was the first to recognize this temptation of the devil, the white devil, and its more deadly reality. He realized that the devil does not most often nor primarily tempt men with the negative sins, say, “go steal that you deserve it or look at that scantly dressed woman” (the black devil). Rather he more often tempts men with very pious things, the devil so in this way breeds “scruples”. And this HAS to be opposed or Christ is lost.
E.g. back around 1800 something there was a reformed Presbyterian pastor who HATED the taste of whisky. Nothing against it just hated its taste, it was for him a matter of flavor and nothing else. Then one day the Methodist came to town (this is a true story) and he said, “For the sake of the Gospel I am going to have to now drink some whisky which I hate the taste of”. Now there’s a man who understood the Gospel and the temptation of the white devil well.
You will RARELY if EVER get that kind of advice from a pastor now day, but there are some good 200 proof Gospel exceptions.
Larry, sorry to make you have to explain it all again. I know and respect your thoughts, which are not your invention but truth.
As far as living much among fake holy people, I don't suffer through that as much, though I have two that I would put into that camp and they feel free to put down everyone else, which makes it so much worse. Really insufferable and they have no friends, at all, and alienated most of the relatives.
I think Bror got at what I meant by saying:
"The only thing the ever makes any difference in our lives is the forgiveness of Christ. Knowing that we have that we can be bold to do good works, deliberately, spontaneously, and sinfully. That is what Luther gets at with his "sin boldly" comment so often misunderstood."
An older lady at church, whom I really respect, (she came to church as a young adult by just phoning up the pastor and saying she thought she ought to be baptized. Amazing gal.) always says who cares if it is because of the commandment, or because you feel like it, or whichever, your neighbor has a need and so you go ahead and do it, and she is a good example. That's all.
Of course, everyone would agree.
Which leaves Luther's "pulse-checking" passages. He does this sometimes. The one that comes to mind most immediately is on confession: "if you can't find any sins in you, see if you're still alive..."
But that's the opposite. He will also say it the other way around, though. For immediate example of course, the "if you don't go to communion, you're not a Christian" thing.
Neither of those, however, deal with deeds for the neighbor.
Don't have time to look for the others right now. Will look, though.
Brigette,
You’ve hit on a key difference with your quote of Luther’s "if you don't go to communion, you're not a Christian". An evangelical would NEVER say that. They always base their “are you a Christian” searching and implications on, “are you doing X, Y and Z”. And we can never forget that in Reformed & baptistic circles the entire paradigm of “can’t fall away”, however it is stated. That’s why, and I know I beat this dog to death, one cannot take Luther or Lutheranism and just interpret it over to Reformed or Baptist. The paradigms, which are based on the sacraments, which in turn is the root of the Gospel make all the difference in the world. That’s why they ultimately see the Gospel serving the Law and not vice versa, sometimes directly, sometimes under “third use of the Law”.
Why would an evangelical NEVER say that? Not just the immediate sacrament issue but at the very heart of it? Because fundamentally they will never say that the problem is “you really don’t believe you are forgiven when in fact you are”. That issue “you really don’t believe you are forgiven when in fact you are” drives EVERY SIN WE DO. Both the outward overtly negative sins and the pious ones, the overt sinner and false saint in us all.
Two examples: The stunning similar reality between an extremely overtly in your face unbelieving homosexual (I pick that because in our society that’s near the highest end of the ‘negative sin list’ for most) and exceedingly very nice well spoken churchy pietist (don’t make the mistake that the ‘legalist’ looks like the church lady of SNL) is that at the end of the day both ‘justify themselves’. The inward turn. Why? The fundamental of ALL sin is the idolatry (violation against the first commandment that begets the later violation against the neighbor commandments OR Paul’s entire point starting at Romans 1:18 that begets the sin list in the following verses). Thus we have BECAUSE I/anyone does not really believe they are forgiven I might (a) shove my good works down your throat or (b) rob you blind.
This is what Luther gets at in the Lord’s Prayer and the commandments regarding daily bread and not to be led into temptation to the right or the left, to gross sin, or despair of hope either way. In a related prayer of Luther’s we see this. It goes something like this, its one of my favorite: “…let us not be led into the deceptions of the devil but be kept in the true faith by giving us our daily bread. Lest we have too much and deny Thee saying, ‘who is the Lord our God’, violation of the first commandment, or lest we go in want and profane your name by stealing”, violation of the second commandment. The reason a man steals, a gross sinner, is he doesn’t believe he’s forgiven and resurrection really awaits him, so he doesn’t wish suffer loss. The reason a man performs good works in order to “sanctify himself” or “make sure he’s elect” is the same reason. The reason the new man can suffer loss either way IS when the Gospel is richly working in him (and this waxes and wanes), he neither needs to steal nor prove he’s elect by not stealing.
Good point, Larry. Thanks.
I did not find any pulse-checking Luther quote. But found much nicer things, which you might like.
Luther seems quite pastoral in dealing with people who don't get this faith business, of trusting yourself completely to God's mercy. He himself has so much trouble after 20 years of trying to earn God' favor.
Volume 51, p. 284, Luther's Works. I like it because Luther makes it very clear in this first sentence that pure doctrine must distinguish between justification before God, versus before men, and how similarly faith and love, and life toward God and toward man should not be mixed up. He also explains how very difficult this is for our nature and in opposition to false teaching, to have faith in the one Mediator and cling to the mercy seat. The whole sermon is an excellent exposition of faith and love, based on the verses 1st Timothy 1 (5-7) "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith. Certain persons by swerving from these have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make assertions."
"This, then, is the right, pure doctrine, which should be cultivated and in which the people should be instructed so they can tell how they are to be justified both before God and before men, and so that they will not interchange and mix up faith and love or life toward God and life toward men. This is what those vainglorious preachers should be doing, since they want to be regarded as masters of the law, in order that it may be well known and observed in Christendom. For even when it is taught in the best possible way it is difficult enough to learn it well, especially for us, who have been so habituated and trained in the doctrine of works and pointed only to the law and ourselves. And besides this add our own nature, which is itself inclined in this direction. It is thus so rooted and strengthened by habit and the heart so strongly influenced that we cannot get away from it or think anything except that, if I have lived a holy life and done many great works, God will be gracious to me. Thus we must contend both with our nature and with strong habit. And it will be exceedingly difficult to get into another habit of thinking in which we clearly separate faith and love for the muck still sticks and clings to us, even though we are now in faith, so that the heart is always ready to boast of itself before God and say: After all, I have preached so long and lived so well and done so much, surely he will take this into account. We even want to haggle with God to make him regard our life and for our sake turn his judgment seat into a mercy seat. But it cannot be done. With men you may boast: I have done the best I could toward everyone, and if anything is lacking I will still try to make recompense. But when you come before God, leave all that boasting at home and remember to appeal from justice to grace.
Let anybody try this and he will see and experience how exceedingly hard and bitter a thing it is for a man, who all his life has been mired in his work righteousness, to pull himself out of it and with all his heart rise up through faith in this one Mediator. I myself have now been preaching and cultivating it through reading and writing for almost twenty years and still I feel the old clinging dirt of wanting to deal so with God that I may contribute something, so that he will have to give me his grace in exchange for my holiness. And still I cannot get it into my head that I should surrender myself completely to sheer grace; yet this is what I should and must do. The mercy seat alone must prevail and remain, because he himself has established it; otherwise no man can come before God.
On page 282 we also had a nice summary:
I say that, if we are ever to stand before god with a right and uncolored faith, we must come to the point where we learn clearly to distinguish and separate between ourselves, our life, and Christ the mercy seat. but he who will not do this, but immediately runs headlong to the judgment seat, will find it all right and get a good knock on the head. I have been there myself and was so burnt that I was glad I was able to come to the mercy seat. And now i am compelled to say: Even though I may have lived a good life before men, let everything I have done or failed to do remain there under the judgment seat as God sees fit, but, as for me, I know of no other comfort, help, or counsel for my salvation except that Christ is my mercy seat, who did no sin or evil and both died and rose again for me, and now sits at the right hand of the Father and takes me to himself under his shadow and protection, so that I need have no doubt that through him I am safe before God from all wrath and terror. Thus faith remains pure and unalloyed, because then it makes no pretensions and seeks no glory or comfort save in the Lord Christ alone."
So if you are trying to show you are elect in any way other than your hope in Christ, you are dealing with the law.
However, before men, he explains elsewhere, the Christian must justify himself by decent, loving conduct, as far as he is able; where he is not able he is to show good will and ask for forgiveness and make amends, etc.
Post a Comment