“No one is more holy than anyone else.” That was the statement I heard in a recent sermon. At first, I thought I must have misheard it. But, I had not. The point being made to the congregation was clear: abandon your ‘self-righteousness’ and recognize that you are no holier than the person in the pew next to you.
Now, statements like that sound compelling at first. Humble, even. After all, we are trained to go after those Pharisees among us (usually defined as anyone who appears to be holier than we are!). Moreover, we have the reformed doctrine of total depravity entrenched in our minds, reminding us that our hearts are wicked beyond what we can imagine. And, above all this, surely Christ is most glorified when we acknowledge that no one is more holy than anyone else. Right?
Well, not really. Although the Bible certainly condemns self-righteousness, and while we are certainly much more sinful than we ever could realize, there is something missing here. What is missing—ironically in many reformed circles—is the clear biblical category of the “righteous man.” Noah is described this way in Gen 6:9: “Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.” Joseph of Arimathea was described this way in Luke 23:50: “Now there was a man named Joseph, from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man.” Zechariah and Elizabeth were described this way: “And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). And there are countless passages throughout Scripture that contrast the “righteous” with the “wicked” (e.g., Ps 1:5-6; 32:1-2; 37:16-17; 75:10).
So, what exactly is a “righteous” person? Surely we cannot suggest that all these passages are simply referring to the imputed righteousness of Christ (as important as that is). No, it appears the Bible uses this category of the “righteous man” for believers who display a marked consistency and faithfulness in walking with God. Of course, this doesn’t mean these people are perfect, sinless, or able to merit their own salvation. It simply means that the Spirit is at work in such a way that they bear steady fruit in their lives.
If so, then it is simply untrue to say “no one is more holy than anyone else.” Not everyone is equally sanctified. Some are farther along than others by God’s wonderful grace. Now, I am sure the pastor that I heard would agree with that. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I am sure he was only trying to say that when it comes to our justification no one is able to stand on their own righteousness: all are desperately in need of grace. No doubt, in his zeal to make this very good biblical point, he stepped too far and declared that “no one is more holy than anyone else.”
But, this still leaves the question of why so many today seem quite willing to step a little too far and make such statements. Why is the category of the “righteous man” forgotten? Why are Christians today—and mainly reformed Christians—so eager to flatten out distinctions among believers and declare there are no differences between them? Several possibilities:
1. Misunderstanding of Total Depravity. Reformed believers love the doctrine of total depravity. And rightly so. It is core biblical teaching that the natural man is fallen in every part of his being: morally, intellectually, emotionally, volitionally. The natural man does not love God, desire God, or seek God. Thus, it is only by God’s wonderful grace that we come to a saving knowledge of him. But, the problem is that we don’t talk as much about how a person’s dark heart is changed after regeneration. We don’t talk as much about the new man. Thus, we can begin to believe that no one really changes. No one can really be holy. Totally depravity becomes the unfortunate justification for declaring everyone is equally as sinful as everyone else.
2. Seeing Pharisaism as the only serious sin. In recent years, there seems to have been a renewed focus in reformed circles on the problem of legalism. And the motivations for this are often good: legalism is a real threat to the integrity of the gospel message. However, the problem is that if Pharisaism is the only enemy we see, then we can become imbalanced in our message and ministry. If our number one goal is to defeat legalism, then our number one point is always to remind people of how sinful they really are. If someone seems to be living a holy life they tend to be looked at suspiciously—after all, we know that no one can really be holy so therefore this person must be putting up a front; they are not being “real” about their sin. Put simply, in order to weed out Pharisaism our sinfulness is over-emphasized and our progress in holiness is under-emphasized.
3. Trying to make ourselves feel better about our sin. In recent years I have noticed that there are some very popular catchwords in some reformed circles. We are reminded regularly to be “real” and “vulnerable” and “open” about our sinfulness. And, in many ways, this is a good thing. We certainly want to confess our sins so that we can let the light of the gospel shine on them and allow our brothers and sisters to share our burden (James 5:16). However, this trend also has a danger. Elizabeth Elliot put it well:
The “openness” that is often praised among Christians as a sign of true humility may sometimes be an oblique effort to prove that there is no such thing as a saint after all, and that those who believe that it is possible in the twentieth century to live a holy life are only deceiving themselves. When we enjoy listening to some Christian confess his weaknesses and failures, we may be eager only to convince ourselves that we are not so bad after all.
4. Forgetting that Christ is not only glorified in our justification, but he is also glorified in our sanctification. Perhaps the most fundamental reason that we tend to forget the category of a “righteous man” is because we think Christ is only glorified in our justification. He is only glorified by redeeming us from the penalty of sin. However, often forgotten is that Christ is also glorified in our sanctification. He is glorified when we are freed from the power of sin. Thus, the only enemy cannot be legalism. We must also be aware of another enemy: antinomianism. Both are threats to the gospel. And both are threats to the glory of Christ.
Jason B. Hood says
Mike,
This is fantastic analysis…and much needed in the current climate. Thanks for weighing in.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Jason. Good to hear from you. Appreciate your comments on the blog.
Jonathan McIntosh says
Given what current climate, Jason?
-Given the current climate of the larger evangelical landscape, I would say yes. Given *any* climate, actually, I agree with Mike’s post.
-But (as I often say to you in private and cannot resist saying here) the climate of pseudo-religion and outward gestures of Pharisaical-righteousness is still as prevalent here in the deep South as always.
I agree with Mike – let’s challenge our people to grow in their love for Christ and pursuit of holiness. I will not waver, however, from attempting to unmask self-righteousness wherever I see it… hopefully, first of all in my own heart.
Luke Johnson says
Mike, great post. One thought that came to mind is that when I think about ‘the righteous men’ in my arean of friends, I tend to want to compare myself to those righteous men. So here’s my question, how can we both embrace the reality that there are different levels of sanctification while not despairing of our own predicament or ranking ourselves against other Christians?
Michael Kruger says
Hey, Luke. Great to have you on the blog. Yes, comparing ourselves to others is a serious problem and can lead to both spiritual pride or spiritual despair. Thus, the solution is always to compare ourselves to God’s perfect law and not others around us. When we do that, two things will happen (a) we will see how far short we fall, be humbled, and depend on Christ, and (b) we can rightly measure our progress in light of God’s law and see how Christ really is conforming us to his image. The former solves the problem of spiritual pride, and the latter the problem of spiritual despair.
Chuck says
Mike,
Thanks for this article, and kicking off a much needed discussion. Good stuff.
And, certainly comparison can lead to sin. But, Paul also calls us to imitate him, as he imitates Christ. It seems that comparison is implicit in the command. Is there not a way to emulate a mature believer, aspiring to be like them in their character and faith, in a healthy way?
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Chuck. Yes, I think you are right. When I said we should be careful of “comparing ourselves” to others, I was referring to using other as the ultimate standard instead of God’s perfect law. However, that said, there are good biblical grounds for following the example of others and emulating their activity. Not only does Paul ask us to imitate him (as you noted), but James appeals to Elijah as an example we should imitate (5:16-18). So, thanks for reminding us of this important point.
Bill says
Some have said that focusing on our growth and comparing ourselves to others (“more sanctified”) is a necessarily a recipe for self-righteousness. I can see their point. Focusing regularly on my growth can result in me shifting the focus of my attention from the objective work of Christ to my transformation through whatever means (spiritual disciplines, the right rules, etc.). Some of the people that I know who take the position that you are critiquing say that the point of difference is about what brings about transformation. They would say that we are transformed by looking at the gospel (faith) not by setting out to be transformed and trying to bring about change directly.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Bill. Appreciate your comments. Yes, I would certainly not advocate comparing ourselves to others (see my reply to another comment above). And it depends on what you mean by “focusing regularly on my growth.” Certainly our focus should always be on Christ. But that can include how Christ is changing us, how Christ is convicting us, how Christ is shaping us into his image. You note that some will say we should not be “setting out to be transformed.” If this means we should not seek, pursue, or strive towards real holiness, I would disagree. Sanctification is always by God’s grace, but that does not preclude real godly pursuit of holiness. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor should they by pitted against each other.
MF says
Amen! Good work, Dr. K! Another problem for this verboten word may be the “no one is righteous, no not one” passage that we (over)emphasize.
Michael Kruger says
Agreed. And I would add that the “no one is righteous” passage in Romans 3 needs to be nuanced when applied to believers who have new hearts and are therefore able to be righteous (of course, not apart from God’s grace nor in a way that merits salvation).
MarieP says
Kevin DeYoung wrote a great blog article about a year ago in which he said the following:
“The ‘righteous deeds’ Isaiah has in mind are most likely perfunctory rituals offered by Israel without sincere faith and without wholehearted obedience. In Isaiah 65:1-7 the Lord rejects Israel’s sinful sacrifices. There is nothing really righteous about these deeds. They are an insult to the Lord, smoke in his nostrils, just like the ritual ‘obedience’ of Isaiah 58 that did not impress the Lord because his people were oppressing the poor. All that to say, we should not think every kind of ‘righteous deed’ is like a filthy rag before God. In fact, Isaiah 64:5 says ‘You meet him who joyfully works righteousness, those who remember you in your ways.’ It is not impossible for God’s people to commit righteous acts that please God.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/05/31/obedience-is-possible/
With that said, what do you think we should make of Psalm 143:2?
“Do not enter into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight no one living is righteous”
Michael Kruger says
THanks, MarieP. Appreciate you commenting on the blog. I agree with Kevin DeYoung’s comments. John Piper has a very similar portion of teaching in his book Future Grace. As for Ps 143:2, I think this is talking about the fact that no one is able to reach GOd’s righteous standards. All are law-breakers. But, the context of such statements is justification, not sanctification. Paul does a very similar thing in Rom 3:11-18.
Bill says
Michael,
Good comments. I had a discussion around these issues recently when a friend told me that God is equally pleased with us no matter what our actions, since his pleasure is due to Christ’s perfect obedience and hot our own. Would you say that God can still love us and be displeased with our actions. Would it be correct to say that he is angry about our actions or lack of appropriate actions? I think he could both love us and be displeased or angry with us. His response was that God’s anger toward us has been absorbed at the Cross.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Bill. The question you are asking is a very important one. Yes, some people today will insist that God is never displeased with us due to the work of Christ. I understand what they are trying to say, but I think there is a better way to say it. We can say confidently that God’s wrath no longer hangs over us because it has been fully satisfied at the cross. However, we can still elicit God’s “fatherly displeasure” by our sin and disobedience. It is precisely this way with our own children. I love my children dearly; and their actions will not change that. But, their disobedience can lead to my fatherly displeasure (and to my discipline!). But my fatherly displeasure is not in spite of my love but because of my love. In the same way, God is a jealous God. Thus, he is rightly displeased when we run off with other gods. We shouldn’t want it (or expect it to be) any other way.
Bill says
Michael,
I am with you. I especially like the way you stress that discipline is not inconsistent with love. The change in relationship brought about by the work of Christ does not mean that God’s character has changed. Do you think that it is appropriate to speak of God’s anger toward us (at times), though his anger would not be wrathful anger? I must admit that my children have acted in ways that resulted in me being angry. Now I know that I am often sinful so my anger is not always righteous, but I think that Our heavenly Father could love us with covenant love and still be angry with us. By the way, I agree with your concern about these issues. I believe many Christians are being confused by talk from well-known Reformed preachers about how God is not really concerned about our growth in sanctification.
Michael Kruger says
Yes, I agree Bill. Good comments. As for whether we could use the word “anger” in terms of God’s disposition towards his people, it would depend on how we defined it. Certainly it would be the type of righteous, covenantal, familial anger that would be between a father and a son. Because people can be confused by this, I tend to favor the term “displeasure” as more accurately capturing this phenomenon.
Tim Pitzer says
Thanks for sharing this. We had a great talk about this post at small group and realized how it’s easier to only share struggles of sin compared to the sanctifying work in our lives. I definitely agree that it is important and necessary to see our own sin but it felt good to talk about visible ways that we saw God working in each of our lives. Thanks again!
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Tim. Glad to see the post is helpful to your small group. We all need to learn to talk about both justification and sanctification.
Norman Shepherd says
Prof. Kruger,
In the Bible believers are called “righteous” and “saints” for two reasons. First, their sins have been forgiven in the blood of Jesus, and are therefore no longer counted against them. Second,they have been renewed (recreated) in righteousness and holiness in the image of their Creator(Eph. 4:24; Col. 3;10). In the words of Lord’s Day One of the Heidelberg Catechism, I belong to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ. “He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood, and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.” Sanctification is, of course, a work in progress; and believers never have a day when they do not need to pray as our Lord taught us, “Forgive us our debts.” But “true faith is … a deep-rooted assurance … that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ, not only others, but I too, have had my sins forgiven, have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation” (Lord’s Day Seven).
Michael Kruger says
Thanks for these comments. I appreciate your pointing us to the Heidelberg Catechism.
Norman Shepherd says
May I add a point to my previous post. “Is anyone more holy than anyone else?” In principle (really, in Christ) all believers are equally forgiven and equally recreated in righteousness and holiness. But in this life the righteousness that is ours in Christ (Gal. 2:20) is being wrought in us over the course of time (Phil. 2:12, 13), and it proceeds at an uneven pace in believers and among believers. That is why the Bible can speak of some persons as more righteous than others (Gen. 38:26; I Sam. 24:17). Every pastor knows that some believers walk closely with the Lord in covenant faithfulness while others are simply lousy Christians. These brothers and sisters need a lot of love, help, and encouragement to be all that they are in our Savior.
Bill says
Michael,
After reading your blog a couple of days ago I ran across a book by a well-known Reformed preacher who claims that God is not really concerned with our spiritual growth. It is his contention that we are too concerned about our improvement. We should recognize that we are sinners (Rom. 7), focus on God free forgiveness, and accept others (not be judgmental). The book is filled with a number of stories, anecdotes, and edgy comments. I did not finish reading his book, so I am not sure what he thinks the Holy Spirit does. It seems that what is missing in much of this kind of thinking is a biblical theology of the work of the Holy Spirit. This book is indorsed by a number of well-known evangelicals.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Bill. I certainly think a number of folks in reformed circles are confused about sanctification. Of course, I don’t know the specific book to which you are referring, so I cannot comment on that. But, I would certainly disagree with anyone who suggests that “God is not really concerned with spiritual growth.”
Bill says
Mike, What do you think about the suggestion that the misunderstanding is to a large part due to an undeveloped doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is given to us, among other reasons, for the purpose of conforming us to the image of the Son (2 Cor. 3:18). I know that in the writer/preacher’s case (I am deliberately withholding his name), his overstatements are related to his rhetorical strategy. He wants to shock traditional evangelicals out of their self righteous stance, but I wonder if the medicine is as bad as the disease. One of his favorites, Martin Luther once commented on how the church is often like a drunk peasant mounting a horse. We get our momentum going in one direction, then react in the other direction. On and on this goes.
Bill
Michael Kruger says
Yes, I think lack of understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit may play some role in this. However, reformed theology, historically speaking, has had a robust doctrine of the Spirit and its role in sanctification (see Calvin here). Another possibility, is what I call the “fundamentalist backlash.” Reformed folks rightly reject much of 20th century fundamentalism, but to some extent, have over-corrected. The number one goal, for some, has become weeding out fundamentalism. Thus, the focus is upon our own sinfulness and need for justification, but not so much on spiritual growth and sanctification.
Bill says
Yes, of course. You also have John Owen (Puritan) who has had a good deal of influence on Reformed theology. I agree with your backlash theory as well. What I find interesting, and potentially dangerous, is the attempt to deal with the problem. It may be that some of the folks are trying to avoid what they see as the traditional methodology dealing with issues (going to the Bible and looking at systematic teaching). Their response is more storied, edgy, and cynical. The author I am speaking of goes to great lengths to say that he is an inerrantist, five-pointer, etc.
Randy in Tulsa says
Thanks for this post. On the issue of God’s wrath, Larger Catechism question 152 identifies wrath of God both in this life and the wrath of God in the life to come. The LC then has these questions and answers:
Q. 153. What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us by reason of the transgression of the law?
A. That we may escape the wrath and curse of God due to us by reason of the transgression of the law, he requireth of us repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ,[990] and the diligent use of the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation.[991]
Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation.[992]
On the issue of pleasing God, while sin only can be expiated by the blood of Christ (LC 152), the will of the regenerated person is both enabled and subdued by the Spirit of Christ to do all that God requires in the moral law (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 19, paragraph 7.). Yes, the regenerate – enabled by the Spirit of Christ, can please God. We can ans should, as Paul says, walk in a manner worthy of our calling.
Michael Kruger says
Thanks, Randy. Appreciate the input. Citations from the LC are most welcome on this site!