The tension between sin and grace in the Christian life has been the center of many theological discussions and debates, besides the fact that it is at the heart of the function of a Christian life. If we neglect sin or justify sin, we fall into antinomianism; if we ignore grace or divert from grace, we land on legalism. There is no easy way out, and it is far easier to swing to one side. How to deal with sin without undermining grace? Or how to proclaim grace without justifying sin? We have to look at Scripture, especially the apostolic writings, in which they teach extensively on the Christian life. Here we look at three converging points, which form the framework of our thinking.
First, NT teaches the reality of new life in Christ. This is a life qualitatively different from the old, and this transformation is defined as “regeneration”, “new birth”, “resurrection”, as explained in Rom. 6-8, 1 Cor. 2, 2 Cor. 3, Gal. 5, Eph. 2, 4, Col. 1, 3, Tit. 3, 1 Pt. 2, 1 Jn., etc. The apostles are not only talking about a positional change (justification), but also an existential transformation, a true internal, spiritual, and moral change (not only potentially, but realistically, currently, accomplished). They contrast the state before salvation (without Christ) and the state after salvation (in Christ), and they emphatically speak about the categorical difference between these two. The apostles do not deny the existence of sin in Christians, even in themselves. But it is noteworthy that the apostles call Christians saints, and no longer “sinners”. They do not think Christians are in the same category as the unregenerate. They do not speak as though the Christian life is essentially the same as the unregenerate. Yes, Christian still sins and sin in its fundamental sense does not change (as falling short of the glory of God, as disobeying God, as violating His holiness). But the sin of a regenerate person differs from the sin of an unregenerate person, in the sense that the sin exists and operates within a different framework of life, not only objectively but also subjectively, not only abstractly but also definitely.
When Apostle Paul talks about “alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds”, “dead in the trespasses and sins, …lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, …” (Eph. 2:1-3Col. 1:21), he is referring to the previous state in sin (all past tense, “you once were”), not the current state that still sins. Rom. 6-8 is an extensive treatise on the regenerate man, his positional change accompanied by his existential transformation. This section and this topic have been neglected by a significant portion in the Reformation churches, including the Reformed. Many, intentionally or unintentionally, confuse the two states and speak as though Christians remain “dead in the trespasses and sins”. They subtly turn the past tense of the NT into present tense, and this is misleading.
This has its historical roots in the distorted zeal originated from the fringe of the Reformation church, and later becoming mainstream. Some are so eager to uphold “justification by faith alone”, so eager to reject the Roman view of infused righteousness, that they deny the reality of regeneration in principle or in practice. The latter appears more in the theologically orthodox churches. Some are afraid that if talking about the reality of a regenerate life, we may fall back to the Roman error of relying on works and confuse justification and sanctification. However, what actually is done is separate justification and sanctification, which is as wrong as confusing them (as found in various forms of perfectionism).
Second, it is under the reality of new lift in Christ, the apostles address sin in a Christian by pointing out the inconsistency between sin and new life. When they talk about sin of a regenerate person, their central thesis is its inconsistency and incompatibility. This is what is demonstrated in Rom. 6 (are we continuing to sin? Are we to sin because we are under grace?), Rom. 8, (live according to the Spirit and according to the flesh, and out of this comparison, Paul gives the command, “put to death the deeds of the body”), 1 Cor. 5 (old leaven, new lump), Gal. 5 (fruit of the flesh, fruit of the Spirit), Eph. 5, Col. 2 (also the phrase “let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel”, Eph. 4:1, Phil. 1:27), 1 Pt. 2, etc. For some, this is rather “weak” arguments because there is not a lot of persuasive power. How do you motivate a person to forsake sin and pursue holiness by show some “inconsistency”? Would they care? Why not link their piety with salvation?
Indeed, it is easy to force or foster piety by creating this connection. Compare two scenarios: tell someone if you do this you will go to hell, and tell someone if you do this there is an inconsistency. Which one works better practically? The former, of course. But that is not the apostolic teaching, that is pagan. Is the apostolic teaching efficient? No, it has little effect on many people. But the apostolic teaching is effective on a particular group of people, the regenerate, because only the regenerate care about his inconsistency. The unregenerate do not and they will not.
Here we have the option of following the apostolic teaching and pray the Word of God will work in the heart of God’s people; or the option of employing fleshly principles to tame the flesh, which also means undermining if not destroying the gospel, as Rome has done. It is not just about promoting morality among unbelievers or nominal believers, there is little damage if the result is limited to this. But it is not, because it is against the gospel, and it is not evangelical piety (piety springs out of the gospel). The gospel is attacked.
This is the trajectory of legalism in the Reformation church. The problem is not that some uphold piety, all Christian shall aim for piety; the problem is that this piety is generated at the cost of the gospel (the distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate in the church is also abandoned). What is the profit if one gains this piety and denies the gospel? The apostles have a high view of the Christian piety, but also a high view of the Christian gospel. Whenever they talk about the former, it is always in the framework of the latter and presupposes the latter. They do not take a shortcut from piety to salvation, as their teaching is centered on faith in Christ, from which comes both salvation and piety.
Third, the dire consequence of indulging in sin. The apostles do not only address the inconsistency between sin and Christian life, as if it is only some inconvenience; they also warn Christians that indulging in sin is antithetical to the Christian identity and Christian faith. The one who presents one’s life as slaves to sin and lives according to the flesh remains unregenerate (Rom. 6, 8); “the sexual immoral, idolaters, adulterers, homosexuals, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers” will no inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6, similarly in Gal. 5, Eph. 5, etc.). Also the famous passages in Hebrews, 6:1-8, 10:26-31, and in 1 Jh. 2:11, 3:4-10, 15, etc. Such passages talk about a state not only inconsistent with the regenerate state, but entirely antithetical to the regenerate state. It is not to say that a Christian who has greed in his heart forfeits his salvation immediately. But they do warn that one though confessing Christ, if living a life characterized by sin, has no share in Christ at all. Apostle John is not talking about that a sinning Christian is no longer a Christian, but a Christian “making a practice of sinning”, that is a life of lawlessness, is no Christian. There is a difference between the struggle of a regenerate against sin and the slavery of the unregenerate under sin. Again, we come to the first point, a regenerate life is qualitatively different from the unregenerate, and it is impossible to confuse these two.
The apostles did not spell out all the practical implications of these teachings. There is no ready-formula to tell at which stage one falls from the grace, or at which sin. I think they are more concerned about what to teach and how Christians should think, than discerning exactly the state of each individual. It is the Word of God separates the regenerate and unregenerate. The Word of God will distinguish false Christians from weak Christians. True Christians will react to God’s Word and will bear fruits. True Christians will deal with sin while embracing grace.
Were they afraid of intimidating Christians by warning them about the possibility of falling from the grace? No. If a Christian believes the true gospel, such warning will only push him towards grace, not away from grace. The prospect of a Christian sinning is not a reason to relying on oneself, but a reason to trust Christ. Were they afraid of misleading Christians to lawlessness by emphasizing the transcendent nature of grace? No. If a Christian believes the true gospel, such teaching will only stir up his obedience. The key is the true gospel. Only the true gospel yields true life; only this true life can deal with sin without undermining grace.
