there is a well-known story of a woman who is brought before Jesus for committing adultery.
the crowd and the religious leaders are bloodthirsty and ready to stone her [they have even selected their weapons of choice] when Jesus intervenes and turns the whole circus court on its head and the crowd melts away until it is just Jesus and the woman.
“Has anyone condemned you?”
“No? Well then neither do I.”
And we love this story. We drink it up. We preach great sermons on grace and forgiveness and ask the pointed questions of, “Well where was the man cos surely it takes two people to…”
i was thinking this evening about ‘obedience’ – it’s a much harder sell, isn’t it?
it feels like ‘obedience’ has been locked away with all the negative manipulationary ways of ‘getting people to follow Jesus’ like the warning about hell and damnation if you don’t… no, today we have to invite people into a relationship. and there needs to be a strong emphasis on grace.
“Has anyone condemned you?”
“No? Well then neither do I.”
the idea of obedience has been bouncing around in my mind over the last few years, never too seriously to do too much about in terms of speaking or writing about it, but just from time to time it raises its head as something we should perhaps be taking more seriously.
we call Jesus King don’t we? or Lord? Lord of our lives. Master… teacher… rabbi… the one we follow.
‘If anyone would come after Me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me.’ [Luke 9.23]
it’s kinda there in the contract.
which too many people have watered down in the name of a badly defined grace at times.
because while there is the lack of condemnation exchange between Jesus and the woman, that is not where it ends.
there is also the call to ‘Go now and leave your life of sin.’
which in essence is the call to obedience.
to God-following-ness.
to deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow me.
you see, it IS about grace – the gift is absolutely free, so that no one can boast.
but the acceptance of the gift initiates the call to obedience, which costs absolutely everything.
and ‘complete surrender to God’ [His ways, His plan for our lives, His kingdom] is something that we just don’t talk about enough these days
maybe [we’re all too busy fighting about the definition of ‘a real man’?]
so we can get tripped up by our incessant grasping of this idea of grace as we’ve imagined it to be, as opposed to what it actually is
a free gift into a life of obedience, following a holy and awesome God who is completely worthy of that type of commitment
what are your thoughts on obedience? and what it means in the life of one who follows Jesus?
Irresistibly Fish 
Romans 12:1 always reminds me of balancing grace and obedience. “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.” I love thinking about obedience as an act that comes out of God’s mercy and grace. IN VIEW of all that He has done for us. IN VIEW of His forgiveness and love demonstrated on the cross, let us offer our bodies as living sacrifices, sacrifices that walk in obedience daily…. What other response can there be? What else can I do but obediently offer myself in view of His grace?… Just a thought
Really enjoyed this post, thank you Brett
Interesting points, Brett. Thanks for sharing. For me, grace and obedience are somewhat two sides of the same coin. By that I mean repentance, or turning from sin, doesn’t tell me where I should turn; merely where I shouldn’t. Think about it as a ship on the sea. There’s an ice berg ahead. So, the captain decides to turn away from the ice berg; but to turn where? Repentance and grace are all about the turning away from sin. And it’s important that we use this as the first selling point to a life of Christianity. That’s what Romans is all about. Faith through grace resulting in repentance. But what then? Obedience is the place we turn ‘to’. And that’s what James is all about. Faith, hope, love… The greatest of these is to take up our cross (daily) and follow our Lord to bring the Fathers kingdom here (and now). It’s why I don’t have the same problem of Luther matching up Romans and James. Two sides of the same coin, what to do ‘first’ and what happens ‘later’ because of our trust in Jesus. Peace be with you!
I had a great time reading this post, Brett. Thanks so much for writing it.
I also enjoyed the comments above. Very well thought out and balanced.
The verse that came to mind when I thought “OK, obedience, turning away from a life of sin, because of how awesome and gracious God is… What if I mess up again?” was Philippians 2:13
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV):
“Yes, it is God who is working in you. He helps you want to do what pleases him, and he gives you the power to do it.”
So, I guess Jesus has all of his bases covered.
I’m sorry, fish, I simply can’t agree
1. you can either believe that God gives grace to obey (the Catholic notion) or
that God gives forgiveness because we CAN’T obey (Protestant)
2. even if you want to take the Protestant position above, and believe that the starting point is that we CAN’T obey BUT you then get the power to obey, you are still back to the Catholic position.
Choose – the Catholic position makes much more ‘rational’ comfortable sense
But
i’m not sure i understand what you are suggesting Richard [and your point seems to have gotten cut off i’m afraid] – i’m not one to align myself with a specific position because too often it feels like taking sides and also because a particular side’s position on any theological aspect might seem particularly biased or flawed in some aspect… so rather i try to interpret what i see scripture saying and from that i get the need for both grace and obedience… i see grace as an undeserved gift – that God has freely offered us salvation and participation in the building of His kingdom with His Son but that part of that means that we have to be obedient to the calls He has placed on us which include loving God, loving people [both neighbour and enemy], making disciples and teaching them to obey everything Jesus taught us, looking after the least of these [particularly widows and orphans], forgiving anyone who has wronged us and so on… so the grace is definitely evident but so is the need for obedience – the one doesn’t cancel the other out but rather the one points to the need of the other to be in place…
sorry for the cut off but it seems to be there in full on the web, ending in ‘but..’
my point is that you see the gospel as a good deal offered by god whereby he gives something and we give obedience in return. But two problems
i. what happens if I don’t give obedience in return?
ii. am then better than those who don’t give obedience in return?
it seems that grace, for you, is an infused power whereas, for protestants, it is a change of status from guilty to not guilty
i’m not sure what you mean by ‘infused power’ but i think i would agree with those who see grace as a part of the process of going from guilty to not guilty but i think Jesus is pretty clear [and speaks about it often] about the need for works to follow the free gift of salvation – to the woman caught in sin His response is ‘I don’t condemn you but go and sin no more’ – the sheep and the goats parable indicates that those who do not look after the least of these will ‘depart from me into the lake prepared for the devil and his angels’ and in Matthew 7 there is the talk of even those who did right stuff ‘Lord, Lord, look at all this stuff we did’ but were not in relationship with Him were going to depart… Jesus taught in Matthew 6 that if we don’t forgive then His Father in heaven cannot forgive us and so on… James teaches that faith without works is dead – there is definitely a strong call to a life that looks different AS A RESULT OF THE FREE GIFT that God has given us [which is all on Jesus so that no man can boast – Ephesians 2] – we can’t earn salvation but there is a responsibility to live like we have it once we have… i don’t think there is a contradiction at all – grace and obedience go hand in hand. Jesus can’t be Lord if He’s not Lord [luke 9.23 – deny yourself, take up your cross daily and follow Me – there has to be following]
For all talk of a ‘free gift’ the religion you describe is really no different from all the others where man must (of his own initiative, or as in your case in response to God) do something to secure his eternal safety. This ‘do this and live’ approach (hermeneutic) is explicit in the OT as the Old Covenant, considered to have been first set out for Adam and then repeated through Moses.
However the whole thrust of the OT is that the Israelites could not and would not do this so God in Christ paid for their disobedience. This becomes the new spectacles (or ‘hermeneutic’) through which we view OT and NT scripture – that God saves, not man
One way we can so easily forget this new hermeneutic and revert to the old one is shown with the rich young ruler; Jesus said to him ‘go and sell all you have’ (the old hermeneutic) but the man failed to ‘follow’ (to use your words). But a few verses on, Jesus explains again the new hermeneutic as he explains that what is impossible for man is possible for God.
Before the Reformation, the Roman church had a plurality of views in it, but at the Council of Trent it set its face against the Reformation and asserted clearly the old hermeneutic as controlling the OT and NT, ie ‘Do this and live’ (‘follow and live’). There is some recognition that man cannot do this on his own so grace becomes a fuel (an infused power) offered to man to obey the law; it is then vital for man to accept this fuel and obey (confessing his sins when he fails in order to be given a second chance) – those who don’t accept it will go to hell.
Notions that man must play some part in his salvation were declared heretical at church councils in the 4th and 6th centuries but they still rear their heads
Are you or have you been a Roman catholic?
hi Richard
i am not/have not been a Roman catholic… if i have to take any label it is Jesus follower as that is how i try to live my life… again i will reiterate that the gift of salvation is absolutely free – there is nothing i can do of my own volition to earn or secure it – i simply have to decide to accept it and invite God into my life – but then i really feel Jesus, Paul and James [and others] are very explicit on what a Holy-Spirit filled life looks like and so while it’s not a case of follow God and do what you want it is also completely a case of follow God and do what you want because now my desires and motivations have been shifted to kingdom things and so if i am truly following God then the things God wants become the things i want… but you have not really addressed any of the many scriptures i have referenced in terms of what a Jesus follower looks like to back up your notion that there is no requirement to being a Jesus follower so while your argument has a nice sound to it, i don’t see it following scripture – and once again i am agreeing with the 4th and 6th century church that man plays no part in becoming saved… but in being saved, absolutely but with Paul it is not i but Christ living in me [although He doesn’t take over my body like a puppet or zombie – i still physically have to do things and make decisions and choose to follow Him]
you write “again i will reiterate that the gift of salvation is absolutely free – there is nothing i can do of my own volition to earn or secure it – i simply have to decide to accept it and invite God into my life”
The 6th century Council of Orange declared as heresy the idea that our salvation was dependent on us taking the salvation offered by God. That notion was resucitated by the Arminians in 17th century. It is popular, it is easy, logical and rational, but it is not christian. all protestant teaching stands against that view. Sorry
well i don’t know about the Armenians or all the protestants who may be teaching that, but when i read ‘If anyone wants to follow Me, He mus deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me’ it appears to me that there are at least three things in that sentence [by Jesus, not the Armenians or protestants] that seem strongly to be doing words to me [and invitation or possibly command depending how you view it] – and what i am asking for from you Richard is to start quoting some scripture to back up your claims because i place a lot more emphasis on scripture than the armenians or the protestants… you are yet to do that…
Well, if we read Eph 2:8-9 I think what Brett’s trying to say is pretty clear: For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God– 9 not the result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.
The Protestant emphasis has always been that you can’t “do something to earn” God’s grace, which we all agree is impossible. However, there is no notion of “earning” God’s grace in having an ability to accept a gift. And even if one were to try and construe accepting a gift as a work (which is entirely unnecessary), the ability to accept God’s grace could be a reflection of the image of God, which is cracked but not destroyed. The Greek word pistis means both “trust” and “loyalty” and thus faith in God has always required faithfulness to God. Faithfulness to God indicates faith in God.
Richard, I think you’re working with categories that are entirely foreign to Scripture and forcing a mould upon Brett’s thinking that just isn’t there.
Richard, are you a Calvinist?
I think I am more gnesio-Lutheran than Calvinist but they both take the same line on this.
I agree calling faith a work or not a work can only confuse BUT if we say that one person accepts the gift and another does not accept the same gift, then we have effectively made one ‘smarter’ than the other – he has cause for boasting.
We both agree that ‘earning God’s grace’ is wrong – it is known as Pelagianism and was declared heretical. But it reemerged as semi-Pelagianism and that’s the danger we’re facing here. That too was declared heretical – at the council of Orange
my invitation to you Richard is to drop the labels and start quoting some scripture to back up your views because at the moment your argument is not making a lot of sense to me – what scriptures back up the viewpoint you have and can you state your viewpoint a little more clearly as i have mine?
No, not really. But if you want to understand the dangers of your view, check out Council of Orange, or semi-Pelagianism, or Arminianism (not Armenianism) on wiki
Again, I think you’re using categories in an anachronistic way that have no place in the first century discussion of faith/faithfulness. There could be a number of reasons one person accepts the grace of God and another does not, and it does not have to be because one is “smarter” than another. And even if it was, as noted above, that does not constitute a meritorious work, and thus a cause for boasting. A person rescued from drowning who accepts the help of another does not afterwards declare, “Look how amazing I am, I accepted help.” They realise that without the necessary external help, they would be lost.
The problem we have is that if we remove every element of human involvement we’re left with universalism, or worse, a Calvinistic view of predestination.
Both Calvin and Luther strongly upheld God’s sovereignty in election (predestination). You don’t?
You continue to quote men and councils and trains of thought and until you can back any of it up with some Jesus or Paul or others the argument loses a lot of steam for me so maybe we will leave it here. Thankx for your thoughts.