Please turn with me to the glorious, inerrant, inspired Word of God, 2 Samuel chapter 11, the very last sentence of that chapter, and then into chapter 12. But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. Then the Lord sent Nathan to David, and he came to him and said to him, There were two men in one city, one rich and the other poor. The rich man had exceedingly many flocks and herds, but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished, and it grew up together with him and with his children. It ate of his own food and drank from his own cup and lay in his bosom, and it was like a daughter to him. And a traveler came to the rich man who refused to take from his own flock and from his own herd to prepare one for the wayfaring man who would come to him. But he took the poor man's lamb and prepared it for the man who would come to him. So David's anger was greatly aroused against the man. And he said to Nathan, as the Lord lives, the man who has done this shall surely die. And he shall restore fourfold for the lamb because he did this thing and because he had no pity. But Nathan said to David, You are the man. Thus says the Lord God of Israel, I anointed you king over Israel and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into your keeping and gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if that had been too little, I also would have given you much more. Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord to do evil in his sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword. You have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon. Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house because you have despised me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. Thus says the Lord. Behold, I will raise up adversity against you from your own house, and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor. And he shall lie with your wives in the sight of the sun, for you did it secretly. But I will do this thing before all Israel before the sun." So David said to Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David, the Lord also has put away your sin. You shall not die. However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme. The child also who is born to you shall surely die. The Nathan departed to his own house. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word, and I pray that as we dig into it, that compare scripture with scripture, that you would help us to grow in our understanding, our love for you and for your grace, to be comforted in the gospel, but also to be challenged to always walk close to Jesus. We commit this continued time of worship to you in response to your word, in Jesus' name, amen. This morning, I'm only gonna focus on two sentences. The last sentence of chapter 11 says, but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. And then you see that when God was displeased, he didn't cast David away. He, even before David prayed in Psalm 51, cast me not away from thy presence, O Lord. He showed he had no intention of doing so. First sentence in chapter 12. It says, then the Lord sent Nathan to David. God's love pursued David despite the fact he was displeased. God drew David to himself, okay? And I love both sides of that equation. Those two verses show the way that law and grace really are inextricably bound up in each other. God loves his law and he loves his grace and he wants us to love both as well. And I hope by the end of the sermon that you will see that these two little verses provide a beautiful counteraction to both legalism, which is performance-based and not grace-based, as well as to antinomianism, which many times forgets that God's grace was designed to make us more and more conformed to Christ's likeness. And I hope it'll be a caution as you read some of the literature that's out there, as well as a tremendous encouragement to you as well. But under point one, I'm primarily going to be addressing antinomianism. Under point two, primarily going to be addressing legalism. And I don't think you could have a better context to examine both of those subjects than David's adultery and his murder. And I'm going to be using Steve Brown and some of his followers as a foil in the first point, but I'm going to be using him as an ally under the second point. Now, let me just tell you who Steve Brown is. He's a very gifted and provocative teacher at Reform Theological Seminary. He's got a very popular radio show. He's written a number of books. And he's got a huge following in the PCA as well as in some other denominations. Very, very influential guy. And right up front, I'll say that this sermon has the potential of offending both Steve Brown groupies as well as Steve Brown critics. Because there are some good things that Steve Brown has to say. He's a brother in the Lord and he does have some truth. I think he's got his finger on the pulse of what is happening in some areas. And so under the point two, I'm going to be agreeing with him and pointing out some areas where where we do need to have some corrections. But let me start by addressing antinomianism. And I've got a definition for you in your outline that I got this past week. Antinomianism, this definition says, refers to any concept of justification which tends to marginalize or downplay the believer's duty to zealously strive after holiness and against all sin. Now this definition perfectly describes the kind of antinomianism that Luther and all of the other Reformers unitedly stood against at the time of the Reformation. Those antinomians had some good things that they believed in. They solidly believed in justification by faith alone. And there's a lot of parallels between those antinomians and the modern antinomians that we're seeing in the Reform movement. people back then correctly taught that a man is justified by faith alone, through grace alone, based on the merits of Christ alone. And yet they had a wrong view, a very passive view of sanctification that I believe makes nonsense out of Paul's call to war against the flesh and to crucify the flesh and Titus 2's call to be zealous for good works. And you know Paul's phrase in Philippians, where we're to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Now they do point out that God does bring sanctification. They don't focus on that. And they talk about God working it in us, but they don't seem to emphasize much our working out of what God has worked in us. It's a very passive view of sanctification. And actually, for some of these modern people, Their view of sanctification is simply reminding ourselves about our justification. And for many of these folks, they're trying to bring comfort to the afflicted rather than afflicting the comfortable. And there's a place for both. And I want to give them credit because even though David was in danger of imminent death in verse 13, and he certainly did not feel safe in Psalm 15, There is an element of truth in this ancient error of the security that we have in Christ. The element of truth is that justification does indeed make the believer secure in God's salvation no matter what sins he may fall into. Steve Brown is constantly saying, OK, I'm giving you a pass for three sins today. And what he means by that is those three sins, if you're justified, are not going to condemn you to hell. True enough. But let me first of all share where I am in total agreement with these men so that there is no misunderstanding. A truly justified person can never lose his salvation. David did not lose his salvation when he committed adultery. He did not lose his salvation when he covered over his sin and hardened his heart against the conviction of the Holy Spirit. He did not lose his salvation when he murdered Uriah. And legalists bristle at that. That just seems horrifying to them. that you think that David can get away with that, with a clean slate, that he's still justified? Yes, he is still justified. And I think it's so important for us to realize that the scripture says, once justified, you are justified forever. All of our sins, past, present, and future, were paid for by Christ. He bore the penalty for us, and we're never going to have to face those sins again before the judge of the universe in the courtroom of heaven. Now, before a loving father and Abba Father, yeah, we're going to have to face Him for those sins, but we'll never face the judge of the universe in the courtroom of heaven. I love the hymn writer. One phrase there, it's, Christ paid the price. that law could never demand twice. That is just perfect. He said there's no double jeopardy in God's justice, plan of justice. Christ paid the price that law could never demand twice. He rescued us from that courtroom. Our sins have been paid for, justice has been done, and we glory in that truth. Along with these antinomians, we glory in that truth. In fact, let me continue to glory in that truth. In Romans 8, 29 through 30, it gives us a golden chain of salvation which cannot be broken. If any link in that golden chain of salvation which pulls us out of hell and into heaven is broken, we will plummet. This is standard Reformed theology and that chain begins in eternity past where God sets His love upon the elect that He gave to His Son and then He predestines those elect to glory. and he justifies them, and he calls them, and he glorifies them. And the reason that Reformed people say this is a golden chain that cannot be broken is that Paul says, all whom he foreknew, he predestined, and all whom he predestined, he called, and all whom he called, he justified, and all whom he justified, he glorified. There is not a single one of those people who can be lost, okay? They are secure. This is what gives us Security in the Sun when the judge of the universe looks at people like David in this chapter He sees them legally as being as perfect as Jesus because our sins were imputed to Christ Christ's sins were imputed to us now so far so good. That's where we're in agreement That's in the courtroom of heaven but where they go wrong is to claim that since we are perfectly righteous legally in Christ, by definition God can only see Jesus' righteousness. And therefore, by definition, He can never get angry with us. He can never be displeased with us. He can never be disappointed in us. As Steve Brown says, no matter what you do, God's not mad at you. He isn't going to punish you. Or as Adam Stattmiller says, God is not mad at you. If you're a believer, it is actually impossible for God to be mad at you. For God to hold anger towards you would mean that you are still under wrath. Simply put, if God could be mad or hold any form of condemnation towards believers covered by the blood of Jesus, then Jesus failed on the cross. In one lecture, Steve Brown told his students at the seminary, he says, in fact, I want you to go out and cuss today just to prove that you're not legalists, okay? And Brown said that believers should feel comfortable living in sin and even feel comfortable cussing in front of God because their justification makes them 100% safe in doing so. Nevermind that verse 13 says that David was in danger, of imminent death from God's hand of discipline. But they say no. Justification means we will never be in danger from God. God is always fond of us. The idea is We're always going to be dirty, rotten sinners, and we're never going to have security if we look at our actions instead of looking at the cross of Christ. Well, it's overlooking 1 John, the whole book of which is designed to give us assurance and comfort. And what is the basis of that assurance and comfort? It's that we are constantly confessing our sins and we are walking in the light. It's not that we are ignoring our sins. But in any case, he seeks to bring comfort by having Christians only focus on our justification and adoption. But is it true that God never gets angry with a justified believer? No. Was Moses a justified believer? Absolutely yes he was. And yet it says in Exodus 4 verse 14, the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses. Now I've picked Moses as an example because everybody believes he was a justified believer. But the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses. Was he secure in his salvation? Absolutely. Yeah, he was justified. He knew he could never lose his salvation. So why does God say the Bible say that he was angry at Moses? Well, I believe that our passage explains the balance that we need to have on this subject. Chapter 11. Verse 27 says, but the thing that David had done displeased the Lord. And that's a very strong statement in the Hebrew. It's an idiom that means God is highly upset, highly displeased, but literally it is was evil in the eyes of the Lord. If you look at the margin, was evil in the eyes of the Lord. And I want to focus first of all on the part where it says the eyes of the Lord. It's common for these modern reformed antinomians to say, when God looks at you, all he sees is Jesus. Now, as far as the courtroom of heaven, that is absolutely true. When the law comes after you and wants to throw you into hell, It's going to find legal papers that say that you were already punished for your sin and that you're not even in existence. You died. Mr. Sinner is no longer alive. You are legally a saint in Jesus. All the law sees is Jesus. But here's the point. God's relationship to you is not just as a judge in a courtroom. God now relates to you as a father and as a father his eyes are attuned to anything that is dangerous in your life. And in this verse obviously God's eyes were seeing something different than Jesus in David. That's why David says, Oh God, you know my foolishness and my sins are not hidden from you. To me it's fairly clear. Now let's go back to Romans 8. which modern antinomians so frequently appeal to, and I believe that there are two things that they miss in this passage. The first thing in Romans 8 is that it does not conflate judge and father. They're two different offices with two different relationships. God is our father and he sends his Holy Spirit into our hearts to enable us to cry out, Abba, Father. uh... yet when we grieve the spirit and yes paul says that we can grieve the spirit god doesn't just overlook our sins because we are justified that's to confuse justification and sanctification and there are two actually two opposite extremes that mess up these distinctions between justification and uh... and sanctification auburn avenue advocates mess up this distinction by talking about progressive justification. And consequently, they're constantly troubled with legalism, lack of assurance, not knowing where they stand. And on the other extreme of the spectrum, the modern grace movement that I'm talking about, Steve Brown and these others, they're doing exactly the same thing. They're confusing justification and sanctification, and it leads them to antinomianism. And both antinomianism and legalism are the worship of self. Auburn Avenue is trying to get the Grace Movement to keep from worshiping self through pop psychology and feel-good religion. And the Grace Movement's trying to keep the Auburn Avenue types, you know, from worship of self by avoiding this self-effort that they claim that they have. But the only way to avoid both extremes is through the traditional Protestant distinctions, and both movements have messed up on those distinctions. Now, the distinction between God as judge before justification and God as father after our justification I think is a helpful one. The father doesn't overlook the sins of his child simply because he's no longer a child of Satan. No, he's seeking to help this child get rid of the remnant hurts and the remnant sinful ideas and practices that Satan produced prior to the adoption. The father now has fatherly interests in our growth. He still has requirements that that child has to live by the house rules. He can't just do anything that He wants to do. And He disciplines those whom He loves. And so even though we're never going to be cast into hell by the judge of the universe, we have a relationship with God the Father where He does not put up with the kind of guff that modern antinomians claim that He puts up with. And they're forced to claim that He does because they're overly focused on justification. Second they fail to emphasize a clause in verse 29 that includes our sanctification as an essential part of that golden chain Sanctification means basically we're not there yet and God's gonna do something about it Romans 8 29 says this for whom he foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. Now, since it's a golden chain that's pulling us up out of hell and into heaven, that chain cannot be broken and us still be saved. If any link is broken, it will drop, and that's standard Reformed theology. And to focus only on justification and adoption, or sonship does a disservice to those people who think they're justified and they're really not. And we won't get into the reasons why they're not. But if I have time, I'll give you some examples later on in the sermon of so-called Christian homosexuals who love Steve Brown and they feel they've adopted this modern grace movement theology in order to justify their behavior. What Romans 8, 29 means, if you are not being progressively conformed to the image of Christ, then you haven't been justified, which means you haven't been called, which means you haven't been predestined by God. In other words, without sanctification, you can't claim to be saved. Now, here's a word picture. Our Heavenly Father doesn't leave us in our messy diapers as the modern antinomians imply. No, He pursues us, He cleans us up, He matures us in Christ Jesus so that by the time you're a three-year-old Christian, so to speak, you shouldn't be messing your diapers that many times, right? He might have other issues at age 3 and 4 and 5 and age 18, you know, that has to be dealt with. You're never going to be perfect, but there should be obvious growth in a new believer. 1 John 2, 6 words it this way in the NIV. Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. Now, antinomians don't like that word must because it smacks too much of duty. duty and freedom just don't go together and in their vocabulary and I'll deal with that later but back to 1st John 2 6 in context you read it that verse in context it is crystal clear that John intends to mean that believers must keep all God's commandments It's an obligation we still have, even though now we're keeping this obligation out of the motive of love. We're keeping it from the security that we have as those who are justified and adopted as God's children. Now, the Amplified Bible expands and brings out the nuances of the Greek words, and here's how the Amplified Bible renders 1 John 2.6. Whoever says he abides in him ought as a personal debt to walk and conduct himself in the same way in which he, that is Jesus, walked and conducted himself. And how did Jesus walk and conduct himself? Well, he perfectly kept God's law, which means we have an obligation to keep God's law. Even if we can't fully do it, we still have the obligation to do that. Now, antinomianism denies that. They deny the word ought in relation to a Christian. They say that's not liberty, that's not freedom, and Jesus died to make us free. Never mind that James calls the law the perfect law of liberty, but they say if you must, if you ought, if you have duty, You are not free. Steve Brown speaks of a scandalous freedom, that's the title of one book, that he says looks almost like antinomianism, but really isn't. No, it is antinomianism, believe me. It uses exactly, exactly the same definition of freedom that antinomians used historically. Brown says that freedom, the freedom Christ purchased, must include both the freedom not to sin and the freedom to sin. Brown groupie air good says we are free to sin. McLean says if I didn't have freedom to sin then I would work for my salvation. Now that's a false dichotomy that's failing to distinguish between justification and sanctification with justification. Absolutely true. There isn't any works involved with sanctification. Absolutely false. Another Brown fan by the name of Eric Guzman says We're free to live, and I'll point out that the area that we're, he's talking about living, is the area of our Christian life after justification, okay? So he says, we're free to live according to God's standards, and we're free not to. That's because our acceptability is based on faith in Jesus' finished work, not on our goodness or lack thereof. If you dispute this, you drive a stake in the heart of the gospel. The scripture says, for freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. There are many who say that the freedom mentioned in that verse is freedom from sin. It certainly means that. But if it doesn't include the freedom to sin, then it's not real freedom. And I could multiply in quite a number of quotes exactly along those lines. And what I want to point out is that their definition of freedom is exactly the same definition of freedom used historically by the antinomians and used also by the Armenians. And if you push that definition, then God is not free. Because God cannot sin. Impossible for God to sin. Jesus called what they are talking about slavery, not freedom. He said, truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. Everyone. So Jesus said, that's not freedom, that is slavery. He goes on to say, so if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. Now they love to quote that verse, but they take it out of context. They don't quote the verse that goes right before that. Numerous scriptures deny that the freedom Christ purchased is a freedom to sin. In fact, they say the exact opposite. It is a freedom from sin. For example, In Romans 6, Paul says, for he who has died has been freed from sin, and having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. So slavery is unavoidable. You're either got a good master or you got a bad master. You're either a slave to sin or you're a slave to righteousness, but slavery is unavoidable. And freedom from one or the other is unavoidable. So he goes on to say, for when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness, but now having been set free from sin and having become slaves to God, you have your fruit to holiness and the end everlasting life. So Paul's not only contradicting their view of freedom, their view of slavery, he's also saying, that without this kind of pursuit of holiness, you're not gonna be saved. You aren't saved in the first place. And so it's just like the same thing as the golden chain of salvation. Now back to our word picture, when Jesus sets us free, we're brand new babies and we've not only been set free from Satan's family and ushered into God's family, but he is progressively setting us free from our dirty diapers so that we don't get diaper rash, right? And even though baby Christians, they might squirm and fight and resist this changing of the diapers, they don't like it, God's gonna do it anyway because He loves us, right? Will they spiritually poop again? Well, yeah, of course they're gonna poop again, but that doesn't mean God likes the poop, right? And His grace keeps cleaning us and maturing us in Christ until they don't like the poop either. Okay, that's the goal. Get these kids, they hate poop in their diapers, right? As they grow up, they're still not free to put on a backpack and run away from home. No, they belong to God. Contrary to what Steve Brown says, we are not free to sass God. We are his. And the problem that I have with mild antinomians like Steve Brown is that they almost encourage Christians to stay in their poopy diapers. And that's why we're getting so many people with spiritual diaper rash. I'll mention some excellent things that Steve Brown has to say in a bit, but I really believe he messes up big time on these first points. And though he is not as strongly antinomian as some of the historic antinomians have been, he needs to pay attention to the warning in Jude 4, which describes people, quote, who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil. And I think that is exactly what he has done in his radio programs and in his books. And so back to our text, God's eyes that are looking at David. Contrary to a lot of shallow rhetoric, God sees more than Jesus. His eyes are seeing a child who is headed toward trouble if he doesn't intervene and rescue him. And that's the whole point of chapter 12. He loves David enough to intervene and to rescue David. And David expanded on everything we have said under point B in Psalm 51, which was written after Nathan's confrontation. Psalm 51 shows that even though David never doubted his salvation, he felt distant from a grieving daddy. He speaks of transgressions that needed to be blotted out to restore a relationship. And he's not talking about blotting out sins in justification. That's the way that text is misused by people. David's already a justified believer. No, he's talking about blotting out sins that have alienated the father from the son. And the fact God is so alienated, he had to send Nathan to David. That implies a distance. He's not really close to him. Verse four of Psalm 51 says, against you, you only have I sinned and done this evil in your sight. Notice that phrase, in your sight. What did God see in David? He saw more than Jesus. The Psalm speaks of God judging David's sin. Now obviously he's not judging David's sin as the judge of the universe in the courtroom of heaven. He's judging as a father who doesn't like this behavior, and he wants the best in his son. It's that kind of judgment, that kind of discernment. Anytime you disagree with something your child is doing, you're judging your child. You're not being judgmental. You've got to distinguish between judging and judgmentalism. We shouldn't be judgmental, but you're rightly discerning. You're rightly judging. whether something is good or bad. Verse 8 of Psalm 51 speaks of God's heavy discipline. In verse 9, David says, So it's clear again that God's face is seeing more than Jesus in David. And he didn't like it. Verse 11 speaks of an alienated relationship, that the father-son relationship was not what it should be. Verse 12 shows that he lacked joy in this father-son relationship. Verse 14 speaks of guilt. Yes, guilt. Contrary to Chevijian and so many other modern grace movement people, guilt can be a good thing. Why it's like a warning light on the dashboard of your car that's saying oops We better pull over and get something adjusted something's wrong with the engine Okay, guilt is telling us something's not right in our relationship And yet a lot of these grace movement people say no guilt is utterly incompatible with God's grace And I'm pointing these things out to you because I know a number of you guys read these books and you got to be aware Yes, there's good things in there But there is a lot of bad stuff as well. In fact, it's it's extremely dangerous stuff camouflaged in wonderfully amazing rhetoric. These guys are incredible writers. They really are. But they conflate justification and sanctification too much, and they conflate the concepts of the judge, what he sees legally and what a father sees practically too much. They deny that a Christian ever needs to feel guilt. Well, the guilt in Psalm 51 is not the guilt of an unbeliever. It's the guilt of a person who dearly loves his daddy, his father, and he feels bad that he's displeased his father. And it was good that he felt that guilt, okay? Yes, pastors should comfort the afflicted when it is appropriate. But God says the only appropriate thing for Nathan to do at this juncture as a pastor in David's life was to afflict the comfortable. When you're comfortable in sin, you don't need the comfort that Steve Brown's giving. You need the affliction of conviction. And that ties in with point C. It's not just what God's eyes see, that he sees something different than Jesus and David and it's just an academic knowledge. No, God's heart is upset with what David did. And I'm not gonna read all of the Psalm 51 verses in your outline there that illustrate the word displeased. But Psalm 51 verse 11 says that God was alienated from David by David's actions. See, children can be alienated from their fathers. David had withdrawn his heart from his Abba father. Verse 13 shows that God wants Christian sinners turned back. Verse 14 shows that God wants David to delight once again in God's righteousness. Now, this past week, I And I've read in the past tons and tons of books from this, trying to understand where the grace movement's coming from. And I've reread a number of those this past week. And I will say, some of the grace movement people are right on the money. I mean, they have the balance that's there. I'm not sure why they associate with those that aren't, but many of them have said good things. But many are so focused on justification that they repeatedly describe sanctification as if it was simply reminding ourselves of our justification. For example, in Chevijian's book, Jesus Plus Nothing Equals Everything. I think it's a very clever title. He says, the Christian life is not about my transformation. It's about Christ's substitution. But as one critic rightly pointed out, quote, to the contrary, justification is about Christ's substitution, but sanctification is about my transformation. And in so many ways, these people confuse justification and sanctification just as badly as the Auburn Avenue advocates have confused the two. It's common for these people to say, God likes you just as much when you're in rebellion as He likes you when you're following His word. Well, they'll have to deal with Psalm 51 verse 17 which speaks of God despising an unrepentant heart. Now, I will hasten to say God did not love David any less before his rebellion than after his rebellion. He didn't love any more when he blessed David or when he disciplined David. In fact, it was his love that brought the discipline into his life. But can God get displeased? Yes, he can. Can God get angry? Yes, he can. He got angry with Moses and he's gotten angry with other people in the scriptures. Can God despise a rebellious heart while still loving that person? Yes, Psalm 51 affirms that he can. But point D highlights the fact that the literal Hebrew of God's displeasure is that what David did was evil. If you look at the margin, it was evil in God's sight. Evil is still evil even when it is engaged in by a justified believer. One dictionary speaks of this Hebrew word for evil as a moral offense that is unacceptable to God. Get that definition. It's an offense. It's unacceptable. That means what David was doing was an offense to God, and it was unacceptable to God. Where some modern antinomians think of everything we do as being acceptable to God and the Son, it's important to distinguish between justification, where that is true, and sanctification, where it's not. Justification deals with the legal, imputed righteousness of Christ credited to our account that means He treats us as perfect in the courtroom of heaven. It's purely purely legal Sanctification deals with the practical infused righteousness of Christ that transforms his children and changes unacceptable behavior into acceptable behavior Okay, it's not legal. It's practical and both doctrines are essential and the Protestant faith has always held that justification always immediately follows after Sanctification immediately follows after justification. But because of the persistent writings of modern antinomians, numerous Christians have concluded that sanctification is an option. Now, these writers, they will hasten to tell you that that's not their intention. Steve Brown said, hey, the only reason I am jumping only on this side of the boat is because the legalists are on the other side of the boat and they're about to capsize the boat. And he considers legalism to be the most pervasive problem in the church. And he says, if I don't jump only on this side of the boat, they're going to capsize it. I'm trying to bring correction. My response to him would be you only bring balance by being balanced. OK. You don't bring balance by being unbalanced. And so I would tell Steve Brown, get into the middle of the boat and tell the other people to knock it off too and to get into the middle of the boat. The only way you're gonna be balanced is if you model a balanced theology to those who are around you. And his theology is not balanced reformed teaching, it is antinomianism. But hey, it gives an opportunity to look at both sides. So let me summarize point one with three questions. First, does God only say Jesus when he looks at you? And the answer is yes and no. Yes and no. As a judge determining whether you're going to go to hell or not, yes, the only thing he, quote, unquote, sees or credits to your account is what Jesus has done. You are justified. You're rescued from hell. You're given a new identity. You're adopted as sons and daughters. You're called saints. You now have a loving father. That's justification. The paperwork's been all filled out for your adoption. It is finished. And if you doubt your salvation, yes, of course, look at your adoption papers. That's a comfort. That's wonderful. You can feel secure in that. But that's not all there is to salvation. Now you have a relationship to work on. You don't work at all on justification. But you sure do work on sanctification. You work at the relationship you have with God. And works has become a dirty word in some circles, and it should never have become a dirty word. By the way, again, let me emphasize, not all the people who identify themselves as part of the grace movement hold to these errors. I'm just warning you that when you're reading through these things, use discernment. Romans 2.15 pronounces this blessing. glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good. You want a blessing? Well, then don't be passive. Be very active and aggressive in your sanctification. Be very systematic at how you're working and chiseling away at the old man and entering more and more into the new man of Christ. You see, Let me read another scripture here Galatians 5 6 says that what really counts in the Christian life is faith working through love See as a father God looks at you with a new set of eyes so to speak obviously looks at you both ways, but He's looking at you through the eyes of a father. He sees the kind of sonship you were displaying He sees the kind of sonship he wants you to display and he's very patiently Lovingly working on you to conform you to the image of his son. I And he wants you to cooperate. That's the historic Protestant faith. And is it all still of grace? Absolutely, it is. Regeneration and justification are 100% of God's grace, 0% of us. Sanctification, however, is 100% God's grace, and it's 100% us. That's what Philippians 2, 12 through 13 says. It's God who works in us both the will and to do of His good pleasure. Therefore, we're to do what? Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. We can only work out 100% what God has worked in 100%. So all of salvation from eternity past to eternity future is of grace, but sanctification is very, very active. Second question, is God's opinion of you any different when you rebel or when you were following His law? And the answer is yes and no. Right? As a judge who determines whether you're going to go to hell, you're always going to be seen as a saint, even when you have blown it as thoroughly as David did. But as a father, God wants the best for his children, and it is possible to grieve the Holy Spirit and to grieve the Father contrary to what antinomians imply. It's possible for God to get angry with you just like He did with Moses. And the reason is that evil is still just as repulsively evil after justification as it was before your justification. God's law does not somehow magically change just because you got converted. It's still God's standard. As a father, God guarantees that you will outgrow the poopy diaper stage and you'll outgrow the crying and the whiny stage and you'll mature more and more until you finally become like Job and like us elders are supposed to be, blameless but not sinless. Blameless, but not totally sinless. The moral ought of walking, just as Jesus walked, will become more and more our goal, and pleasing God will become more and more our goal. But it all flows from the safe position of being a forever child of God. Third question, can you ever be alienated from God? By now you've probably guessed it, yes and no. No, you can never lose your salvation and be cast into hell. But yes, you can quit acting like a son and grieve the heart of your father. You can even become a prodigal son and leave home. But 1 John guarantees if you're truly the elect, you cannot persevere in that running away from home. He's always gonna draw you back. And if you permanently stay out, it's evidence that says that you never were one of us. And so His grace of preservation will enable you to persevere. And that's point two. Let's look at the legalists under point two. And there are many varieties of legalism. Very easy to point the finger outside. Maybe we'll do it just briefly. and say, yeah, there's legalists out there who believe you can lose your salvation when you sin. Now that's a particularly serious form of legalism. I've known some Wesleyans who just never seem to be able to mature in Christ because they're constantly losing their salvation and getting saved again and losing their salvation, getting saved again. And then some of them lower the standards of God's law so low that they can say, whew, you know, I finally came to sinless perfection. I no longer, I haven't sinned for 20 years. thinking, wow, you don't read the scripture a lot, do you? If you think you've never sinned. So that's a gross form of legalism. 1 John says, if you claim you're without sin, you're a liar. It's just flat out, you're a liar. Now, we should be fighting against it. We should be growing. We should be overcoming more and more. But even people that the scripture calls blameless, people like Job, people like elders are supposed to be, still have heart sins and sometimes those heart sins get expressed outwardly. Now of course the Wesleyans will appeal to Psalm 51 and they'll quote it where David says, create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. And they'll say, see, David sinned so seriously he lost his salvation. Now he needs to get regenerated all over again. He needs to get a new heart. all over again. And then they'll appeal to the next verse. And they'll read it and they'll say, do not cast me away from your presence. Do not take your Holy Spirit from me. And they say, see, it's possible to lose your salvation. You could lose that indwelling Holy Spirit. And actually I say, no, that very verse disproves Wesleyan theology. Why? Well, because think about the timing of when David said, do not cast me away from your presence and do not take your Holy Spirit away from me. When did he say that? First of all, he's implying he still has a spirit, right? Do not take your Holy Spirit away from me. He's implying he has a spirit. This is almost nine months after his adultery, almost eight months after his murder. On Wesleyan theology, he should have lost his salvation and lost the Holy Spirit when he committed adultery, and for sure when he committed murder. And yet David still has the Spirit. So he's not lost his salvation. What is he talking about here? I believe what David is talking about is losing the empowering of the Spirit for office just like Saul did. Remember, the Spirit left Saul and he was no longer able to function as a king like he should. And so that's what he was worried about. But the next verse in Psalm 51 shows David still had salvation. It was the joy of his salvation that he wanted to have restored. It was the comfort of having a close relationship with God that was missing. And contrary to what Steve Brown says, David should not have felt comfortable in his sins. But contrary to legalism, we'll see that David did not doubt his salvation. So that's the first, the most serious form of legalism. What I want to do right now, I want to give several quotes from two of Steve Brown's books that I think highlight our tendencies toward legalism and performance-based Christianity and that leave Christians joyless. Now, I probably, well, for sure, wouldn't word myself the way he does, but I want to give credit where credit is due. There is something nasty that he is opposing, and I can appreciate his opposition to performance-based Christianity. The first form of legalism that he speaks of is what I call bootstrap sanctification, where instead of depending upon the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit by faith, receiving from heaven where Christ is, every blessing that He's blessed us with, instead of doing that, we grin and bear it. You know, we brace ourselves and we try harder in our own fleshly strength. And one symptom of this is that Christians totally lose their joy. in his book Approaching God, Accepting the Invitation to Stand in the Presence of God, Steve Brown says, If there is no laughter, Jesus has gone somewhere else. If there is no joy and freedom, it is not a church. It is simply a crowd of melancholy people basking in a religious neurosis. If there is no celebration, there is no real worship. Now I don't think his remedy is really good enough because it lacks power. He said that there's some sins he just quit even trying to work on. For example, he's got an addiction that he says, man, I've tried and tried. I'm not even gonna try anymore. I'm just gonna be comfortable in my addiction. And really, actually, it makes me sad. It doesn't just disqualify him from office, but what makes me sad is he is so opposed. He's so psychologically oriented and so opposed to biblical case law. He just doesn't like that. that he's totally missed out on the biblical blueprints that could help him get over his addictions. I think his heart's probably right there, but he has put a thumb on the problem, and that is that joyless Christianity often rises from self-effort. Second, he addresses the problem of seeing prayer as purely duty rather than heart relationship. He says, not being changed by prayer, It's sort of like standing in the middle of a spring rain without getting wet. It's hard to stand in the center of God's acceptance and love without getting it all over you. And so what he's doing is he's trying to address Christians who are trying to calm their guilt by praying harder. They're trying to earn God's favor by praying harder. And they're entering into prayer simply as a drudgery of duty. And he's right. You should not be doing that. Prayer really should be tapping into God's, you know, the power of the Holy Spirit, the joy and the love of the Holy Spirit. It should be joyfully giving to God and it should be joyfully receiving from God. The third thing that Steve labels as legalism in his book, A Scandalous Freedom, is the problem of hypocrisy and lack of transparency. He says the church should be a place where we can say anything and know we won't be kicked out. Where we can confess our sins knowing others will help us. Where we can disagree and still be friends. It ought to be the one place in the world where we don't have to wear masks. And I think he is correct. There's a problem in you know, our churches in this regard. I'm not convinced his solution is right or his insistence that people, you know, have the right to stay in their poopy diapers, you know, forever is right. The solution is not more meditation on justification and adoption. The solution is given in Galatians chapter 3 and it is faith in the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit and spiritual warfare. Okay? He still has recognized a problem in the church. In the next quote, he deals with two issues. The first is being judgmental of Christians who are in any stage of sin, whether it's the poopy diaper stage or later stages or even serious sins like David. I mean, would you be judgmental with David? This is what he's talking about. There's a difference between judging sin and judgmentalism. And Steve also addresses the legalism of faking it that results from the former behavior. He says, when the requirement for acceptance in any particular group is to think certain thoughts, to act in certain ways, and to fit certain molds, and we don't think or act that way or fit the mold, we tend to fake it. We put on a mask that says, I'm just like you now. Will you please love me and accept me? I can think of hardly anything that will kill your joy and freedom more than wearing a mask geared to get others to accept you because you're acting like them. And I say right on. The next issue is where churches require unthinking obedience or what the Westminster Confession calls implicit faith. And believe me, there are some pretty controlling churches out there. So Steve speaks to this controlling approach to the church in these words. Never again would I be so irresponsible as to, without thinking, without questioning, give control of my life to another human being. I would always remember that others don't deserve that kind of worship and unthinking obedience. You can accept truth and trust authority Only if the truth allows questions and the authority allows challenge Now he says it in a context that I think has got a bad attitude he thinks at least once a month you ought to get on the case of your elders, you know and Just just to prove you're not a legalist. Okay, he's always overstating things. But anyway, he's got a point here because even Paul is allowed the Bereans to challenge his teaching, to check everything out that he said against the scriptures, didn't he? And when you don't have that, then all of a sudden it's the people that you worship instead of God. It's the people's opinions that you follow instead of the word of God. And it really is an important issue. It's, by the way, one of the reasons why we wrote that booklet on circles of belief and liberty. The next issue was thinking that we must win the victory rather than standing in the victory that was won in Christ. Now, I have a slightly different take than he does, but it's still a problem. He rightly points out, this is something a Christian should never forget. The battle is already over. God won. It's final. There is no contest. Our side has already triumphed. Now, I agree. Unfortunately, his own testimony showed that sometimes he doesn't know how to claim that victory in space-time historical experiences. It tends to be a lot of times a theory with some of these guys that revolves around justification. And I believe they really need to study more of John Owen on sanctification than these guys. But anyway, the next issue is making our love conditional. Steve says, whenever religion becomes leverage, it ceases to be the religion of Jesus. The gospel of God's grace takes away the leverage. Why? Because if I'm forgiven without condition, you can't make me feel guilty. If God loves me, you can't manipulate me by threatening to take away your love. And that's a key point that I'm in agreement with him on. Using love as a leverage, not forgiving, If God knows my secrets and doesn't condemn me, then you can't use my secrets as blackmail. Now, he probably applies it too far, but there's definitely truth there. And I'm just going to summarize one more point. Doubting your salvation every time you fall into sin is inserting legalism into justification. Security in our sonship comes from understanding what our adoption papers look like. Not seeing how clean our diapers are or how perfect our behavior is. And I think the first sentence in chapter 12 addresses all of these issues, at least in seed form, and David's Psalm 51 addresses them more fully. Verse one says, then Yahweh sent Nathan to David. The name Yahweh is the name that God uses when He is in covenant relationship with His people. It was God's covenant with David that made it impossible for God to throw David away. It is God's very character that causes Him to persevere with His children. He names himself the covenant-keeping God. And 2 Timothy 2.13 says that even if we are faithless, he remains faithful. He cannot deny himself. He's going to fulfill the decrees that he gave before the foundation of the world. He cannot deny himself. And you see this confidence in Psalm 51. Even though David weeps over his sins and grieves over that broken relationship, he never doubts God's covenant. Instead, verse 1 bases the whole prayer upon what? your loving kindness, according to the multitude of your tender mercies. That's just as marvelous theology. God's loving kindness never changes. Why? Because he is our covenant keeping God. He is Yahweh. And the multitude of God's tender mercies answers the multitude of our sins. As Paul worded it in Romans 520, where sin abounded, grace abounded much more. In verse 2 of Psalm 51, David has faith that God can cleanse him from even as heinous a sin as adultery and as murder. Only legalism would say, I am too bad to be forgiven. That's legalism. Only unbelief would say, I've committed the unpardonable sin, so I can't ask God to forgive me. And my response is, you're heaping guilt upon guilt when you do that because you're calling God a liar. 1 John says, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from what? all unrighteousness. And I've had people actually say to me, yeah, but if you knew my sin, you'd know it's an exception. My sin is too great. And I said, no, you're calling God a liar. God says he will cleanse you from all unrighteousness. Yeah, but maybe I've committed the unpardonable sin. I said, no, if you confess your sin, you obviously have not committed the unpardonable sin because he says, if you confess your sins, He will cleanse you of that sin. So by definition, a person who's committed the unpardonable sin cannot, cannot confess that sin, right? He cannot confess his sins. And so all through Psalm 51, you see evidence that David believes the everlasting covenant that he is in with God. It preserves him from the legalism of thinking he is too bad to be forgiven. And we must repent of such legalism. The second thing we see from this phrase is that God pursues those whom he loves. God sent Nathan to David. Now that implies distance, we've already looked at that. But it also implies a pursuing God. David has wandered, God is seeking him. And this too hints at the overflow of God's heart that is so evident in Psalm 51. You look at the references, the words that are used in that Psalm, just marvelous. Words like loving kindness, tenderness, mercy, generous spirit. It shows David never doubted that God's love would continue to motivate him to pursue him. And again, only legalism would say that God's covenant faithfulness in some way is dependent upon our faithfulness to God. It's one of several problems that I have with Auburn Avenue theology, okay? They are mixing and fuzzying some of those categories. As I quoted from 2 Timothy 2.13 earlier, Paul says, if we are faithless, he remains faithful, he cannot deny himself. Now, of course, if you're a faithless rebel like David was at that point, things are going to get pretty uncomfortable. Why? Because he is a faithful God who cannot deny himself. He has decreed that you're going to be conformed to the image of Christ. And so if it takes discipline, whatever it's going to take, he's going to continue to work upon you. You're still his child. Psalms 32 and 51 speak of the incredible pain that David was experiencing. And God's goal was to restore David's repentance and faith so that he could restore David to joy and restore him to a love for God's law. And the last thing that we see in 2 Samuel 12 verse 1 is that God's grace seeks to conform us to God's powerful word. What did God send to David? Well, he sent Nathan the prophet, but this prophet's bringing God's powerful word. And this addresses not only legalism but also antinomianism. I'm just going to address the legalism portion of this because it's a lot of times missed. It addresses legalism because in this passage God's Word is not a dead letter. It is wielded by the grace of Almighty God as a sword initially, and then as healing oil. And God's Word was more powerful than any two-edged sword. I mean, David had erected an impervious covering over his sins, and with one fell swoop, God took that covering away, exposed David, humbled him, made him ready to come home to Father. And so contrary to legalism, we must not separate word and spirit, word and grace, word and power. Those have to go together. Otherwise, we've got a dead letter. The word of God is the powerful vehicle for grace's transformation. And if you just take the word without the spirit, all you got is self-effort. Legalism seeks to have self-reformation. Grace causes backslidden Christians to realize that God's grace precedes, undergirds, and finishes the good work that He has begun, but His grace uses the Word. We must approach God's law with full dependence upon grace. Nathan would draw David's attention to God and not to himself. So, next time you're tempted by antinomianism to ignore your own sin and to ignore the sins of other people, remind yourself of 2 Samuel 11, verse 27b. And if Satan turns things around and he tempts you toward legalism, toward judging others and or feeling hopeless about your own sins, remember 2 Samuel 12, verse 1a. And I would urge you to glory in the grace of your heavenly Father. Glory that grace does not throw out the baby with the bath water simply because the baby sometimes gets poopy. But then neither is it surprised by poopy diapers in immature believers. A diarrhea occasionally happens, you know, for people who are older. Accidents can happen. But we should expect continual growth in all God's elect. And as we'll see next week, God uses humans. He uses the body of Christ as part of this loving process of maturing us in Christ. As Hebrews twice worded it, but exhort one another daily while it is called today, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another. and so much the more as you see the day approaching. So let's avoid all self-worship, both antinomianism that ignores sin in ourselves and others and legalism that trusts ourselves and judges others. Instead, stand firmly in justification and secure in Christ you'll be able to obey with all the zeal that is in you The admonition in Hebrews 12, 14, pursue peace with all people and pursue holiness without which no one will see the Lord. Amen. Father, we thank you for your word and we pray that it would do a thorough work of enlivening our hearts, crucifying the flesh and causing us to be able by faith to seek those things which are above where Christ is. And Father, may we never doubt the security that we have in our justification and in our adoption. But based upon that solid foundation, may we with zeal war against the world, the flesh, and the devil. With zeal, may we pursue after you with all of our hearts. May we grow steadily in you, glorying in the holiness to which you have called us. In Christ's name we pray. Amen.