The Pursuit of Holiness is not Legalism

The prevailing attitude towards the pursuit holiness in the modern Church is unfortunate and unbiblical. Modern theology often touts freedom in Christ as a veil for license and labels as a legalist anyone who has a genuine desire to be holy. We hear sermons about how we are weak and broken (nice words for sin), and that's pretty much where the discussion is left off. We're basically told to admit that we can't earn salvation by works, so we shouldn't even try to be holy. It reminds me of when Homer Simpson, responding to Lisa's consolation that admitting you have a problem is the first step to overcoming it, said, "Is it also the last step?"

The New Testament attitude towards holiness is incredibly far-removed from the one espoused by modern evangelicalism. The inspired authors of the New Covenant revelation conceive of no faith-based salvation that frees the believer from a life of pursuing holiness. Far from removing the need for obedience, faith-based salvation motivates and obliges us to obedience. Paul, after setting forth God's covenant promises, says, "Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God." The covenant response to God's gracious salvation is voluntary consecration. Having been set apart by the work of God, we work to live a life that reflects that separation. That is, after all, the etymological significance of the terms holy and holiness.

Peter proclaims a similar admonition in 1 Peter 1:14ff. Quoting multiple passages from the Old Testament, he says, "...but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct." He calls us to a life of holiness on the basis of a) our divine calling and b) our divine paternity. Because we have been set apart by God as His children, we should bear that family resemblance by living a life set apart to God.

As if the words of Peter and Paul were not weighty enough, consider these striking words of our Savior. After asserting the continuing validity of the Law and the Prophets (exactly what He means by that is a conversation for another time) and warning against those who would encourage licentiousness, He says, "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." This passage has received nearly as many interpretations as there are commentators interpreting it. There are those who say that Jesus was referring to imputed righteousness received by faith. Others say it is an infused, New Covenant righteousness imparted by the Holy Spirit. Both of those types of righteousness are Biblical enough, but is that what Jesus is talking about in the Sermon on the Mount? If we look at the context, Jesus is repeatedly taking commands and showing how shallow, outward obedience is not true obedience at all. True obedience requires sincerity. God wants the heart. God demands the heart! Our behavior must be dictated by appreciation to and love for the God who saved us.

This is not a new principle revealed by Jesus, but a revitalization of the consistent Old Testament ethic that was obscured by the legalism of the Judaism of His day. God saved Noah, and then called him to separation. God saved Abraham, and then called him to separation. God saved Israel, and then called them to separation. God saved Israel again, and then called them back to separation. In the New Covenant the Church is saved, and, of course, called to separation. So pursuing holiness, perfection even, is not legalism. It is the natural and instinctual reaction of those who have been delivered from the guilt and power of sin. It is the covenant response to the love of our Creator and Covenant Lord.

Meditate on these words from Romans 6:15-18:

What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion . It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate. Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC. I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC. I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did. So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical. Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion. However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table. One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table. You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation. Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward. 1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup." If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup. This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree. Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations. As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae. Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict. What does it mean? Who may partake? What do we call it? These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts. Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention. PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it. I underst...

Always Reforming

Search This Blog