"...you can go on sinning as much as you like..."

[Stottfan]

So the title is a bit inflammatory and slightly misleading, but I hope you can forgive me for that

I read this quote in the latest 'Briefing' (Matthias Media, Sydney). It was written by Martyn Lloyd-Jones in an exposition of Romans 6:1...

"There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this: that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret to mean that...because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace...If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding then it is not the gospel."
(D.M.Lloyd-Jones, The New Man: An Exposition of Chapter 6, Banner of Truth, London, 1972, p.8)

My intitial reaction is that I agree with this statement, but I have not dwelt on it deeply as yet, and am interested to hear if there is anything in it which anyone disagrees with (and why)?

 

[StAnselm]

Yeah, good post Stottfan. I've come across it before, but I didn't realise DMLJ said it.

My own take on the matter is that for the Christian, before we commit a particular sin it matters supremely whether or not we do it, but after we sin it doesn't matter in the slightest.

So yes, I can see if you're preaching the pure biblical gospel, some people will think you're antinomian. But by the same token, a lot of (other) people might think you're a legalist...

 

[cygnusx1]

I think what the good Doctor is driving at is that if your beliefs don't meet the proposed FORSEEN objections by the Apostle Paul you have misunderstood the Bible.


Just check out in Romans how many times Paul says something , a proposition and then he replies "God forbid" ....then see if your doctrine goes WITH his expected arguement , if it doesn't you need to do some serious study .

Try Romans 9 and you will see the same framework.

Greetings Cygnus

 

[tigersnare]

I think what the good Doctor is driving at is that if your beliefs don't meet the proposed FORSEEN objections by the Apostle Paul you have misunderstood the Bible.


Just check out in Romans how many times Paul says something , a proposition and then he replies "God forbid" ....then see if your doctrine goes WITH his expected arguement , if it doesn't you need to do some serious study .

Try Romans 9 and you will see the same framework.

Greetings Cygnus

I think Cygnus nailed it.

I wonder if this question would really come up in the mind of the regenerate man though.....?

 

[Turpius]

Preaching the Bible Straight and True with some people, they'll take you wrong no matter what you preach.

 

[jlujan69]

Lord, don't ever let me find a "theological justification" for deliberate sinning, but when I do sin, don't ever let me find a "theological justification" for not running back to the cross. Ok, it's not very deep, but hey, I'm not a reformed type of guy.

 

[frumanchu]

Lord, don't ever let me find a "theological justification" for deliberate sinning, but when I do sin, don't ever let me find a "theological justification" for not running back to the cross. Ok, it's not very deep, but hey, I'm not a reformed type of guy.

On the contrary, j...it has a great deal of depth and is precisely the mindset of the "reformed type of guy."

One of the main arguments against the doctrine of sola fide is that it is antinomian in nature. With respect to justification, it IS in a manner of speaking. However, the natural and invariable effect of the regeneration of the heart unto faith is that works will proceed from such faith. One cannot have true faith without works...not because works are a composite part of that faith but because such a faith cannot possibly exist without producing such works.

We as believers will still sin. Our sanctification is ongoing and will not be fully complete in this life. However, because we love God we strive and battle against our flesh to avoid sinning. When we do we rightly have guilt, but the Holy Spirit works in tandem with the Word to convict us and move us to repentance.

 

[Stottfan]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to reply to my post
A lot of interesting things to ponder. I agree with many of them, eg that with some people, if we preach the true gospel they will misunderstand some or all of what we say, I think primarily because their eyes have not been opened by God and they are thus prevented from a 'saving' understanding of the gospel.
It took me a while to get your post, Cygnus, but I think I understand what you are driving at. Are you saying that the issue is more about what the preacher of the gospel understands to be the content of his message, as opposed to how the hearer reacts to it? I mean, if the preacher is not convinced of the sufficiency of the death of Christ to pay for all his/her sins and that he/she is saved so completely from the punishment that their sins deserve that, in one sense, it doesn't matter whether they sin or not, then the gospel they preach will not make it open to such misunderstanding? And if their understanding of the message does not line up with what the Bible says, then they need to go back to the Bible to correct it?
Or have I misunderstood you? Please answer in layman's terms, I am not very well-versed in the intricacies of reformed theology (yet!)

I am still pondering, however, how a preacher of the gospel would address their hearer if they expressed the misunderstanding that Lloyd-Jones is speaking about. Because, in one sense, (as I have said already), it doesn't matter if the hearer sins once they have become a Christian...it won't make them become 'unsaved' (as this is not possible re:assurance of salvation) and it won't make God love them any less. But then again, the Bible tells us that we can grieve the Holy Spirit by sinning, and as jlujan69 pointed out, there is no 'justification' (theological or otherwise, in my opinion) for deliberate sinning. Would one be best to try and explain to the hearer how (as Jerry Bridges quite eloquently explains it) that on our best days (that is the most godly ones) we are never beyond the NEED of God's grace, and on our worst days (the ones where we sin a lot) we are never beyond the REACH of God's grace?
Perhaps it is all about a proper understanding of grace, and how that if a person has properly understood grace, they will be motivated to thank God by obeying his commands, putting off the acts of the sinful nature and putting on godly attributes? (also Bridges' ideas).
Phew! I didn't mean this post to go on for so long, sorry!
Hope there is something useful within it to respond to.
Thanks for listening.

 

[frumanchu]

Thanks to everyone who took the time to reply to my post

No problem!

I am still pondering, however, how a preacher of the gospel would address their hearer if they expressed the misunderstanding that Lloyd-Jones is speaking about. Because, in one sense, (as I have said already), it doesn't matter if the hearer sins once they have become a Christian...it won't make them become 'unsaved' (as this is not possible re:assurance of salvation) and it won't make God love them any less. But then again, the Bible tells us that we can grieve the Holy Spirit by sinning, and as jlujan69 pointed out, there is no 'justification' (theological or otherwise, in my opinion) for deliberate sinning. Would one be best to try and explain to the hearer how (as Jerry Bridges quite eloquently explains it) that on our best days (that is the most godly ones) we are never beyond the NEED of God's grace, and on our worst days (the ones where we sin a lot) we are never beyond the REACH of God's grace?

Our sin does not remove our justification before God, for all of our sins have been imputed to Christ on the Cross and Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us. So in terms of our justification before God, He looks at us and sees His Son. jlujan69 is correct in stating that there is no 'justification' for our sin (though that choice of wording causes obvious confusion) in that we have no excuse for sinning. Our sin is our own doing, and it does indeed grieve the Holy Spirit. Our justification before God does not keep us from His chastening and temporal judgement upon the sins that we commit as believers. Through the work of the Holy Spirit and the admonition of the Word, we will without fail be brought to the foot of the Cross in repentance as we are continually purified as gold through fire.

Perhaps it is all about a proper understanding of grace, and how that if a person has properly understood grace, they will be motivated to thank God by obeying his commands, putting off the acts of the sinful nature and putting on godly attributes? (also Bridges' ideas).

Very much so! Grace is at the very heart of salvation. The realization of how truly unmerited and undeserved our salvation is (from start to finish) is immeasurable motivation towards obedience and contrition. It stands against the notion that one must do these things in order to merit the continuation of His grace (which then becomes no grace at all). We have crossed from death into life. We have been sealed by the Spirit and given the earnest of our inheritance. The impossibility of our total apostasy is derived not from a lack of logical possibility or antinomian view of our sin, but from the immutability of God in His decree and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit, our Paraclete.

__............... Sola Scriptura ​

​

___|█ |___ ..... Soli Deo Gloria​

|.Ι.Χ.Θ.Υ.Σ.| ......... Solo Christo​

|█ |.................... Sola Gratia​

|█ |....................... Sola Fide​

​

 

[Sola Gratia]

I think what the good Doctor is driving at is that if your beliefs don't meet the proposed FORSEEN objections by the Apostle Paul you have misunderstood the Bible.


Just check out in Romans how many times Paul says something , a proposition and then he replies "God forbid" ....then see if your doctrine goes WITH his expected arguement , if it doesn't you need to do some serious study .

Try Romans 9 and you will see the same framework.

Greetings Cygnus

That was Pauls polemic style .... What shall we say then?