Negative Holiness

Holiness—this word has been twisted and misunderstood more than many in the biblical lexicon. Modern society finds the concept of “holiness” unsavory at best—something akin to lima beans: you realize it might theoretically be good for you, but it still triggers your gag reflex. If the term is used at all, it’s usually only as an accusation or an insult. “Oh, he's so holy!” is not generally a compliment on someone’s spiritual maturity, but rather intended as an indictment against an obnoxiously self-righteous person.  Sadly, when we hear the word “holiness", we’re more likely to picture the Pharisees than Jesus. Even as Christians, the word often carries for us a vague feeling of burden and drudgery. And to be honest, most of the reason holiness has gained this distasteful reputation is probably the fault of Christians. 

Beginning in the 19th century, the so-called “holiness movement” started gaining popularity among certain groups of believers. Of course, Christianity has always had an ascetic fringe. But in modern society, it is largely this movement that has led to the association of the word “holiness” with moral prudishness, extreme and extra-biblical rules, a fixation on “avoiding the world”, and making oneself “perfect”. It’s important to note a couple things about these “holiness clubs”. First, they were born out of a theological underpinning which believed that man could, through rigorous moral effort, actually attain a state of sinless perfection—“total sanctification”. The power of the Holy Spirit in our lives can and should make significant changes. But a movement that says we can attain a state of sinlessness in the present life essentially denies the total depravity of man and claims for its proponents a level of spirituality that event the Apostle Paul did not ascribe to himself. (Php. 3:12)

Second, these holiness societies often demanded complete abstinence from even moderate alcohol use, tobacco, dancing, playing cards, the theatre and other “worldly” forms of entertainment. Of course, the fact that the Bible knows no such prohibitions didn’t dissuade the “holiness” advocates from insisting on them. They, apparently, wanted to be holier than God Himself—an endeavor which never works out well. And as with the Pharisees of old, it has ultimately done more to push people away from God than bring them near. Despite their misguided methods, the earliest groups were generally motivated by a desire for a deeper experience of God. But the modern residue of this movement—which still lives on in quite a few fundamentalist and Evangelical groups—clings to the self-imposed prohibitions yet with little real thirst to experience God. In addition, it’s notable that the “sins” these groups focused on were usually the more visible and “carnal” sins, rather than things like pride, gossip and unforgiveness which the Bible condemns at least as much as the others.

This is all tragic because, though the Bible calls us to holiness, this sort of pharisaic prudishness is not at all what God invites us to. Scripture speaks of the “beauty of holiness” but too often Christians have turned it into something grotesque. The word “holiness” in Scripture literally means to be “separated” or “set apart”.  We tend to think of this as being separated from sin, from the world, from fleshly habits, etc.  There certainly is that aspect to true holiness.  But it would be better to understand the meaning of holiness as “dedication”.  Scripture presents the “separation” of holiness not as primarily separation from something, but separation to something—or to Someone in the case of the Christian.  Holiness as the Bible defines it is, first and foremost, being wholly given to God, and only separated from those things which would hinder our intimacy with Him. 

Many Christians see holiness like celibacy: primarily concerned with what you abstain from. No wonder holiness seems so unattractive to modern society! But the picture of biblical holiness is that of a marriage, not of celibacy. Yes, the holiness of a marriage does include vows to separate yourself, to “abstain” from all other lovers, but the point of marriage is not in abstaining from something. The purpose of marriage is to fully devote yourself to your spouse—to cleave to them exclusively, to delight in one another and be one with them.

For too many Christians, the focus of “holiness” is in giving things up, avoiding this, or not doing that. They define holiness in almost completely negative terms.  But that’s not the point of holiness. Biblical holiness is not about self-denial for its own sake.  Biblical holiness is about complete union with Christ, cleaving to Him. And only as a consequence of the primary purpose do we deny those things that hinder our closeness with Him.  Holiness is not about what you give up, it’s about what you gain: intimacy with Christ. 

Defining holiness as avoiding sin is like defining marriage as avoiding adultery. While a marriage cannot be healthy when either spouse is involved in adultery, the lack of adultery in a marriage is no guarantee of a good marriage. There are plenty of marriages that, while no adultery is present, are still cold and loveless. Fidelity is a necessary condition for a good marriage, but it is not sufficient by itself to ensure a good marriage. And just as a good marriage is more than avoiding adultery, true holiness is more than avoiding sin—never less, but definitely more. This is the mistake of the Christian who defines holiness as primarily what he avoids, rather than Whom he enjoys.

We need to learn to see holiness not so much as a state of behavior, but as a state of relationship. The truth is that some Christians are so interested in “holiness” that they care nothing for Jesus. That is, their “holiness” consists primarily in looking at themselves and making sure they are up to par, rather than looking at Christ and delighting in Him. All of their “holiness” amounts to little more than glorified navel-gazing. This is like the husband who is fixated on being a good husband. He wants so much to have a good marriage—if only his wife would get out of the way and quit messing it up! Of course, the truly good husband is the one who is not hung up on how good of a husband he is, but who is fixated on loving, serving and being one with his wife. Similarly, the truly holy Christian is the one who thinks very little about his achievements in holiness, but thinks a great deal about loving and enjoying Jesus.

Of course, there are things we must deny in pursuing intimacy with God.  That is part of holiness, just as forsaking old lovers is part of marriage.  Jesus said in Mk. 8:34, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.”  There is an obvious element of self-denial in these words. But the end of the phrase is the point of everything that comes before it: to follow Jesus, to be with Him. We must realize that anytime the Lord calls us to “deny self”, it is not so He can deprive us of something, but so He can give us something so much better—Himself.  He asks us to let go of the stone in our hand only so He can fill it with bread. 

So let’s stop defining holiness primarily by what we give up and realize that the essence of true holiness is intimacy with Christ. If we have made the keeping of rules the measure of holiness—especially extra-biblical, self-imposed rules—let us repent of neglecting our Bridegroom. May we begin to define holiness not in terms of what we avoid, but of Whom we enjoy.

This article is based on an excerpt from my sermon on 1 Peter 1:13-16 “Holiness vs. Religion” available in Russian here. If you enjoyed this article and want to catch future posts, don't forget to subscribe to the blog.

Why You Don’t Believe in Free Will

This article is the first in a series on man's free will and God's foreknowledge.
Be sure to subscribe here to make sure you don't miss the rest of the series.

One of the big issues in discussing soteriology (how salvation works) is the question of man’s “free will”.  Let me start right out with this plea: please stop saying that people have free will!  Not because you’re a Calvinist, but because you’re a Christian and you don’t really believe in “free will”.  Let me explain why.  During the Reformation era, a group of theologians formally made this statement:

“Man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: "Without me ye can do nothing." 

This grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of a good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ.”

You might be thinking, “What extreme, Calvinist theologians laid out these words denying the free will of man and his innate ability to believe in the Gospel?”  Answer: the followers of Jacob Arminius.  That’s right, these words were laid out in the third and fourth Articles of Remonstrance, which became the foundational statement for the soteriological system we call Arminianism.

So first, realize that when a Christian says that we have “free will”, not only would the Calvinist adamantly disagree, but any self-respecting Arminian would as well, and so should everyone in between (which is where my own position falls.)  The problem is the term “free”.  The dictionary defines “free” as “unfettered, unrestrained, the state of not being enslaved.”  Is that what we believe? That we are not enslaved?  Jesus said that we are slaves to sin. (Jn. 8:34) Do we really believe that our will was unaffected by the fall, such that we are able to come to God on our own?  Again, Jesus counters, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him.” (Jn. 6:44) In other words, man’s will is not free to choose God in its own strength.

In the history of the Christian Church, there was a man who promoted the idea that humans have free will.  His name was Pelagius and he was justly condemned as a heretic in the 5^th century.  He taught that man, in his own natural ability, has the power to attain moral perfection and choose to obey God, thus attaining salvation.  A later revision called semi-Pelagianism (also condemned as heresy in the 6^th century) stated that while man could not attain perfection without the addition of God’s grace, he was yet capable of making the first steps towards God in his own power.  The Apostle Paul takes exception to this, saying, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God.” (Rom. 3:10-11) No man, in his own strength, seeks for God or wills to come to Him.  Rather, God must graciously initiate and draw us to Christ, or we simply will not come. 

I remember reading Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will a number of years ago.  What struck me was the problem of terms.  I had heard many Christians defend “free will”, but as I read, I recognized that the “free will” Luther was arguing against was something most Evangelical believers would also reject.  Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to hear Christians today affirm that man has “free will”.  In all honesty, I’ve heard a number of pastors from my own tribe say this, though I doubt they really mean what the term implies.  As we have just defined it, we don’t actually believe in “free will”.  My guess is the majority of Christians who say they believe in “free will” don’t really believe that man can come to God on his own, or be the initiator of his own salvation.  I believe that when many Christians speak of  “free will”, they mean “real will”.  We do have a will.  It is real, but it is not free.  It is in the bondage of sin.  And, left to itself, it never chooses God.  For that we need the work of grace, the drawing of the Father upon our will to lead us to Christ.  That does not mean that the will is unimportant, but that it has no ability of its own unless God imparts it.

When the Reformed believer hears a non-Reformed believer talk about “free will”, he likely thinks we mean what’s called libertarian free will.  That is, absolute, innate freedom and power to make any possible choice, including coming to God.  It should then be no surprise that all our careless talk of “free will” makes the Reformed believer concerned that we are in serious, Pelagian-style error.  That would be a serious problem if we actually believed it!  But chances are we simply mean that we have a real will, that our will, enabled and illuminated only by the effective working of God’s grace, must respond to God’s call.  It would be helpful if we just said that, rather than tossing about the misleading term of “free will”.  While the Reformed and non-Reformed brother or sister would still likely disagree as to the exact nature of the gracious work God must do in drawing us to Himself, at least both would clearly understand that no one is promoting the heretical position of semi-Pelagianism.  We do possess a real will, but without God’s interference it will always exert itself in opposition to God.  As the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, “Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”  Our wills are only “free” to act in accordance with their nature, but that nature is fallen and our will cannot choose what it ought (to come to God) without His initiative.    

So first, let’s realize that the differences between Reformed and non-Reformed brothers are probably not as great as we often make them seem by using improper terms.  Realize that when you say, “I believe in free will,” the Reformed believer hears “man is not completely fallen”.  And when the Reformed believer says, “Man does not have free will”, you probably hear something scary like fatalism where man’s will is completely unimportant or violated.  Don’t.  Because that’s not what either side means.  Stop speaking like semi-Pelagians, since that’s not really what you mean.  Even Arminius would scold you for affirming “free will”.*   

In reality, it is the unbelieving world that is essentially Pelagian.  Modern, western culture tells us that man is basically good and “you can do anything if you put your mind to it”.  I wonder if the modern church in the west hasn’t let its terms be dictated more by our culture than Scripture.  And if we have indeed begun to attribute any small part of our coming to God to our own ability, spiritual openness or insightfulness, rather than to God’s patient and relentless drawing of our hardened hearts to Himself—let us repent and return to a position where God gets all the glory, for He alone is the Author of salvation.

*Note: Some have suggested using the term "freed will" instead of "free will" to clarify this important distinction that man's will must be graciously acted upon by God to be free.  This term, while not clarifying exactly to whom and how that action of God applies, is still a significant improvement.  

john tetzel is not dead

i know, it sounds like the title of an episode of LOST, but it's not. :) john tetzel, as some will know, was an indulgence seller for the catholic church in the early 16th century, promising forgiveness of sins for money. it was said that he even claimed that the indulgence offered by pope leo x for the building of st. peter's basilica could pardon the violation of the virgin mary. martin luther, the great reformer, wrote his 95 theses largely in response to the practice of selling indulgences, and especially to the tactics of john tetzel. one of tetzel's "ad jingles" for selling indulgences is enshrined forever in scathing rebuke in the 95 theses. his line was: "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs."

well, while we were in kiev to give birth to isaac (see pics here), i was in some of the shopping centers and realized that john tetzel was not dead, he had just moved to ukraine (and aparently switched allegiance from the roman catholic church to the ukrainian orthodox church). this is a "coffer" that stood by the entrance of the shopping center in downtown kiev for donations towards the construction of a new church in kiev, and i saw many identical ones in other shopping centers:


the translation of the inscription is: "place your brick in the foundation of the holy habitation and in her walls prayers will sound for you eternally". guess tetzel hasn't lost his knack for jingle-writing even after almost 500 yrs.! it's truly heart-rending that men would gladly sell out the truth of the Gospel of grace to finance their programs (and no, it's not limited to the catholic or orthodox churches!) luther also had a slogan of sorts which, while perhaps not as catchy, certainly rings loud even to this day with the great truth of the Gospel:

"Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria"
(by Faith Alone, by Grace Alone, by Scripture Alone, by Christ Alone, to the Glory of God Alone)

happy reformation day!

that's right, not only is it halloween (the most ridiculous holiday of the year), but its more importantly "reformation day". on oct. 31st in 1517 ad, martin luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church in wittenberg, thus marking the beginning of the protestant reformation. now there's a real holiday! here's thesis number 62 for you to chew on today:

"the true treasure of the Church
is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God."