The Differences between the Protestant and Radical Religions
Regarding Faith, Repentance, Works, and Grace
Since writing this article, I have made a few important doctrinal corrections. These are contained in
the Reading Slowly post for Pentecost Sunday 2024. The excursus regarding this article can be found immediately before the last paragraph of that post. Thank you.
The terms “Protestant” and “Radical” are used in a somewhat peculiar way in this article, so I should clarify.
What I have called the Protestant religion is really the Lutheran religion, but is not written in such a way that intentionally excludes the Calvinist religion. The great diversity of the Calvinists and their confessions makes it difficult to account for where exactly our beliefs differ from theirs. The main thorny issues—the mode of presence in the Lord’s Supper, the particulars of the efficacy of Baptism, and Single versus Double Predestination—are not here addressed, so I reckon that “Protestantism,” is a reasonable reckoning of our shared religion.
What I have called the Radical religion is really the Baptist religion, but it is also much more than that. For the Baptist religion has spread far and wide, and disintegrated into many sects and practices which would not call themselves Baptist. The term “Radical” is used as a callback to the Radical Reformation, from which Baptist thought first really emerged in earnest through the Anabaptists (though the Baptists themselves were a shoot from the stem of Anglicanism chronologically.) I have used this word because “Baptist” is really insufficient to describe their doctrines. The word “Baptist” implies a particular view or set of views about Baptism, when really the whole of Baptist belief differs in such an extreme—and unknown—way from what Protestants (that is, Lutherans and Calvinists) believe, on every subject. That is the very point of this article: to show how what Radicals believe is totally different from Protestantism, and really from Christianity. To cede to them the term “Baptist” that they have claimed for themselves understates the controversy. In addition, the term “Radical” has been adopted because it implies a sort of purified, Platonic form of the Baptist religion, the full expression of their confession with no compromise or syncretism, such as is taught in the New Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches.
Protestants and Radicals differ in many understated ways. Many make the mistake of assuming that the Protestant and Radical religions are common, or, at any rate, that the Radical religion may be called a subset of the Protestant religion, as the Protestant religion is to the Christian religion. This is incorrect; it would be the same as saying that the Protestant religion is really just a sort of the Popish religion. In fact, the gulf between the Protestant and Popish religions is not an order of magnitude larger than that which lies between the Protestant and Radical religions. Comprehensively considered, the points of difference between the doctrines of the Protestants and the Radicals are as many as the stars in the sky, or of the grains of sand in the desert, and are altogether too many to name. There is also the matter of the great diversity of the Radical religion (to say nothing of the diversity of the Protestants), which also makes a comprehensive analysis of the two religions a fool’s errand. Nevertheless, I will here endeavor to explain the key issues of disagreement between the Protestant and Radical religions, upon which the rest of the controversies make their beds. The most crucial of these disagreements are those regarding Faith, Repentance, Works, and Grace.
Regarding Faith
Protestants and Radicals disagree on what Faith is, and what Faith does. The Radicals say that Faith is a quality that God creates through Grace in a person, while the Protestants say that Faith is a response or a reaction to God’s Grace. Now, it is firstly necessary to recognize that Protestants and Radicals do not agree even about how Grace works, as we shall hear more of later. Secondly, it is not false to say that Faith is created by God (obviously), and neither is it incorrect in all cases to describe Faith as a “quality.” However, when the Radicals speak of Faith, they speak of it as something that can exist in isolation, as if “Faith” can be distinguished in its essence from “Faithfulness,” or “Fidelity,” both of which carry a greater implication of dependence. That is, to the Radical, Faith is per se passive, while to the Protestant, it is per se active.
The Protestants speak of Faith as a great love, hope, and above all, trust, of God. One who has been touched by the Holy Spirit in turn trusts the Holy Spirit to save them, and not just to save them, but also to direct their entire life towards what is good. This is the Protestant Faith: not a set of principles or propositions that are accepted, but a genuine trust, dependence, and constant calling on the Names of the Lord. To the Radical, Faith does indeed consist of a set of propositions, most typically “do you believe that you are a sinner, and that Jesus Christ, God Himself and the Son of God, died for you that you might be saved from your sins?” A person who genuinely believes these things will necessarily, they say, do good works.
When the Radicals speak of Faith, they describe it as if it were a trait or a propensity. Just as a hot-tempered man is wont to be angry, they say, so is a man with Faith wont to do Good Works. While they acknowledge that Faith cannot exist without being a Faith in something, namely, the Lord Jesus Christ, they make Faith, fully conceived, to be a principle of itself, working nothing and exerting nothing per se. Against this, the Protestant says that just a man provoked responds with anger, so does a man respond in Faith to God’s Grace. It is possible to speak of a Radical Faith in the abstract, separated distinct from the Lord Jesus Christ it proceeds from, but not a Protestant Faith. A Protestant Faith depends, not just in actual fact and practice, but also in concept, on God, and not just on God, but in particular on His Word and works towards us.
Another controversy between the Protestants and Radicals is whether Faith is internal or external. The Radicals say that Faith is merely internal, while the Protestants say that Faith is both internal and external. To a Radical, since Faith is a passive quality that a person has, belief in the Lord Jesus Christ in the same mode as one might believe that Joe Biden is President,1 Faith is also, by definition, purely internal. To do so much as to confess with the lips that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, is thought not to be an act of Faith, but to be a Good Work as a result of Faith. Given the theological foundation (that Faith be a passive quality), this is a reasonable conclusion. The Protestants, who believe that Faith is an active response to God’s Grace, disagree. They reason, while Faith certainly begins in the internal being, that is, the heart, the soul, and the mind, it does not conclude there, and its activity does not cease at the borders of the human body. To place trust in God’s Providence and Promises will manifest in external action (of which we will hear more of later), and these actions are not always distinguishable from Faith itself.
The Apostle St. Paul speaks regarding the activity and externality of Faith. In Romans 10:9, he says, “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” St. Paul speaks of two sorts of confession here, that is, two propositions of Faith: the confession of “the Lord Jesus,” that is, the confession of Jesus’ divinity, and the confession that God has raised Him from the dead, that is, the confession of Jesus’ passion and atonement. He also speaks of two expressions of Faith, the external (confession with the mouth) and the internal (belief in the heart). Both, together, he says, lead to salvation. “For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (10:10) St. Paul continues in verse 13, saying, “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” To call on the Name of the Lord is not necessarily external, for the call may be made silently, within the heart of the believer—as so frequently occurs during a dark night of the soul. However, to call on the Name of the Lord is necessarily active. Now, this calling cannot occur without Grace, and is actually a reaction to Grace, being identical to Faith itself.
Regarding Repentance
Another crucial difference between the Radicals and the Protestants is their opposed doctrines of Repentance. On this point few Radicals are so radical as to articulate the fullness of their position, usually adopting some syncretized middle way between the two. Yet a few Radicals are so bold as to assert a sharp distinction between Faith and Repentance, against the Protestant union of the two. Repentance, these Radicals say, is a Work, something done as a result of true Faith, rather than the essence of true Faith itself. They derive this position from the definition of the word “repent,” which is, “to turn away.” This turning away, they say, is an active process, which is not a principle of itself, but flows from the principle of the passive Faith which must already exist in a person. For Christian Repentance is not like worldly Repentance, in that it represents a wholesale turning from sin on the basis of God’s Word and Law. This sort of Repentance logically requires that one believe in God, and believe in God’s Word; such a person must already have Faith. Thereby, they say Repentance is a Work, a sweet flow from the spring of Faith, yet distinct from the thing itself.
They employ reason in defense of this doctrine. The axiom, “Faith alone saves,” is accepted by both Radicals and Protestants, and is more than easily proven from Scripture. If Faith alone saves, then what of Christians, who have true and fervent Faith in their hearts, who nonetheless, afflicted by the Old Adam within them, and not yet perfect regarding sin and righteousness, who fail to repent of any particular sin? Do they die damned? Of course not, the Radicals say: their Faith has saved them. Therefore, Repentance is something that stems from Faith, good, wonderful, and praiseworthy, but not essential to salvation, and therefore must be sharply distinguished from Faith itself.
The Protestants, opposing this, say rather that Faith and Repentance are united, neither one nor the other being able to exist independently. Like as we speak of God as having Love and Wrath as attributes, yet God is One and has no parts, so too, the Protestants say, are Faith and Repentance united in essence, only distinguished in a manner of speaking. For Faith is reckoned as an active response to God’s Grace, and this response is both a turning towards God (which is called Faith or believing) and a turning away from sin (which is called Repentance). Yet these are one action, not two; it is impossible to turn towards God without turning away from sin, and it is impossible to turn away from sin without turning towards God. For Repentance, in a comprehensive sense, is understood to be a turning from all sins, indeed, the whole sinful life and the sinful old man, including the sin of unbelief. How, then, could a man turn from the sin of unbelief, except to believe? Conversely, the man who believes that he may turn to God yet refuse to turn from sin is sorely mistaken, as it is written, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar.”2
The Radical conception of Repentance is both too much and too little. On the one hand, it imagines a sort of piecemeal Repentance, where a person repents of each sin individually, rather than the body of sin as a whole. This sort of enumeration brings to mind the old doctrines of the pre-Reformation Roman Church, where it was thought that a Christian must confess all of his sins to a priest in order for them to be forgiven. On the contrary, David says, “Who can understand his errors? Cleanse me from secret faults.”3 Surely, known errors must be turned from, such as the hatred of brothers, for Faith precludes the endurance of willful, knowing sin,4 but Repentance consists primarily of turning from sin as a whole. If unknown errors can be cleansed, then Repentance should not be understood in a piecemeal, enumerative manner.
On the other hand, the Radicals are drunk on a Faith that can coexist with willful sin, and dream drunken dreams of a Repentance that is merely a pleasant stream from the spring of Faith, rather than the springwater itself. The Scriptures are not ambiguous on this point. It is written, “Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out,”5 that is, “Repent [so that] your sins may be blotted out.” Repentance is related causally to the forgiveness of sins; it is an effective cause of the forgiveness of sins. Again, it is written, “if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land,”6 that is, “if My people turn from [i.e., repent of] their wicked ways, then I will forgive their sin.” God promises to forgive sins if there is Repentance. Once more, it is written, “unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”7 Repentance forgives sin and prevents eternal death: it is a cause of salvation. How is this true, if justification is by Faith alone? Answer: Repentance is never separated from Faith, as it is written, “Repent therefore and be converted,” and “if My people will pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways.” They are, as we have already heard, one and the very same.
But what of those Radicals who agree with the Protestant position on Repentance, namely, that it is an act of Faith which causes salvation? They are inconsistent. Most agree that Repentance must be united with Faith, but few are willing to follow this line of thought through to its conclusion. For if Repentance and Faith are united, then Faith must be living and active, that is, it must act. If Faith must act, then Faith cannot be purely passive, nor expressly internal, nor can it be a quality in a person. It is impossible to say that Repentance, which is active, is united with a passive Faith. Therefore, if one wishes to adopt the Protestant view of Repentance, one must also hold a Protestant view of Faith, which naturally leads to a Protestant view of Works and Grace, as we shall see.
Regarding Works
Of all the differences between the Radical and Protestant religions, none are more substantial than their differences regarding the doctrines of Works and Grace. The Radicals define Faith as a passive internal quality, that is, belief in the Gospel. This internal quality of Faith then produces Good Works, which are external acts, just as the internal quality of liberality produces external charitable giving. Thereby, the Radicals say that all external acts are Works, being either good or bad. While only the most radical of Radicals go so far as to say that Repentance itself (which is, for the most part, internal) is a Good Work, the common Radical opinion is to regard all ordinances and practices of the Christian religion as works, including prayer, forgiveness, Baptism, a verbal confession of the Faith, and so on. They identify all these as Works by a simple hermeneutic: if a practice of Christianity be external to the person, it must be a Work, and is therefore excluded from Faith proper. These things, they say, by definition, do not justify, for “to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.”8
The Protestants are opposed to this on all counts. Where the Radicals define Works as external acts, the Protestants define Works as non-salvific acts. That is, the logical process for a Protestant to identify what qualifies as a Work is directly opposite to that of a Radical: where the Radicals observe an act, identify it as external, and judge that it is a work (concluding that it is non-salvific), the Protestants first observe Salvation itself, then identify those acts which contribute to it, and, having plucked these most precious flowers and put them in the vase of Faith, cast all remaining acts to the category of Works. This logic stems from an opposite notion of what Faith is: rather than a passive internal quality, it is an active ambiternal9 response to God, which exists primarily in the heart (that is where it is at home, so to speak) yet includes things external to the person, such as a public confession of faith, as it is written, “if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”10
In the Protestant religion, some external acts do indeed belong to Faith, if indeed the essence of the act is Faith. The way to see whether an act bears Faith as its essence is to judge whether it can be performed by an unbeliever without a fundamental distortion or mockery of said act. The Confession of sins to a minister, which the Radicals would call a Work and likely deride as unabashed popery, can indeed be done according to the outward manner of the act (the moving of the mouth and the production of sounds which can be understood by the minister as recounting sins) by anyone, faithful or faithless, yet the actual essence of the thing, which is the reception of God’s forgiveness through the office of the Holy Ministry, cannot occur without Faith. The same is also true of prayer. Many unbelievers pray, but the essence of Christian prayer is to communicate with and supplicate the very LORD God, which is impossible without justifying Faith, for “God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is a worshiper of God and does His will, He hears him.”11 These are opposed to Good Works, such as almsgiving; for in the giving of alms, the essence of the act is the giving, not the Faith or lack thereof of the giver. A Christian gives alms with a heart towards God, and a Muslim gives alms with heart towards the Devil, yet the alms are still given, and the deed is not made into a mockery of itself by a bad motivation.
Like prayer and Confession also is forgiveness, which is reckoned by the Radicals as a Good Work, for it quite plainly is distinct from belief or trust in God. Even further, it appears that it should be considered a Work under the Protestant hermeneutic, for even the most ghastly of unbelievers is capable of forgiving others from the heart. However, to say that forgiveness is a good work is to misunderstand what Christian forgiveness really is. While the outward act remains the same, whether a Christian or a Jew forgives, and may be, in a sense, called a Good Work, the essence of Christian forgiveness is to effectually loose judgement for the offending party, which cannot be done without Faith. Whenever a person sins against another, there are (at least) two offended parties: the victim, and God. God promises to take revenge on all evildoers12, and to reward all according to their Works, and also to vindicate all victims of injustice.13 When a Christian forgives, they do so in the mode of Stephen the Martyr, who in his dying breaths cried out “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.”14 It is a letting go of any desire for satisfaction—not to the end that God should not do justice (for God remains sorely offended at the sin, as He was offended at the murder of Stephen the Martyr, and will take vengeance on His own account for that sin), but to the end that the judgement of the wicked should not be made worse on account of the one who forgives.
It is like when the victim of a crime appears before the court and publicly forgives the criminal, not that he may go free (for such would be unjust), but that his internal torment and guilt may be lessened. This is the meaning of what the Lord Jesus Christ said, “if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”15 The essence of this loosing from punishment and Divine Wrath must be faith, for nothing else has the necessary power. If forgiveness is lacking, then Faith also must be lacking; not in the manner of how a lack of Good Works indicate a dead, useless, ineffectual Faith, but in the manner of how a lack of Repentance indicates the factual absence of Faith. So also we see that to forgive others their trespasses in the manner of how unbelievers do, in secret hope for judgement and vindication, does not lead to the heavenly Father forgiving us, for that forgiveness is a false and faithless.
Regarding Grace
Finally, we shall hear of how the Radical and Protestant religions disagree regarding the very lynchpin and foundation of Christianity: The Grace of God unto salvation. Both agree that salvation is by Grace through Faith,16 but the disagreement is on how God delivers this Grace to those He desires to save. The Radicals say that Grace may be merely internal, like the sudden enlightening of the heart, while the Protestants say that Grace must also be external, working through means. Radicals do not per se reject external Grace, but they do not permit Grace proper17 to be delivered by any external means other than the Word of God, spoken or read. Those things which Protestants (in particular Lutherans) call the Sacraments namely, Baptism, the Eucharist, and Confession/Absolution, are called Works by Radicals, with the sole exception that Grace may be imparted in some tangential sense by the use of the Word of God in the ceremonies surrounding these things. These things are called Works because they involve some external effort, and “if it is of works, it is no longer grace.”18
The Protestant religion does not share the Radical aversion to external acts of Faith, and neither does it share the Radical definition of Works, as we have previously heard. The Protestant first observes how the Sacraments are described in the Scriptures as bringing about salvation: it is written, “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism”19 and “this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins,”20 and “whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,”21 all showing that the Sacraments are associated causally with the forgiveness of sins. “And if by grace, then it is no longer of works.”22 If the reception of these things causes salvation, as the Scriptures say, then that reception cannot be called a Good Work, but rather, Faith. For without faithful reception, the Sacraments would be unable to effect the salvation of even the holiest of men. In this sense, they are no different than the other means of Grace, namely, the Word of God read, preached, and exemplified. None could accomplish anything in a person if not received in Faith, and all create and strengthen Faith in a person; though the Word read, preached, and exemplified does so in an easy-to-understand manner, while the Sacraments do so in a manner that is more obscure, and must itself be believed only because of God’s Word regarding them.
The Word of God alone, nuda scriptura, is a means of Grace unto salvation in that it teaches about the Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel. On this, Protestants and Radicals agree. If it finds a faithless audience, it will be utterly useless, as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself teaches, “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”23 Yet, the Scriptures also teach that Faith is created in a person by the Word of God, as it is written, “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”24
The Sacraments operate in the same manner. According to the outward appearance, anyone can approach the Baptismal font, or the altar of the Eucharist, or the Confessor’s booth, just as any godless person can attend a sermon or read from scripture. Such a person, Baptized, Communing, and Confessing sins, is not receiving the Grace of these things. In Baptism, the Name of the LORD God is placed upon the baptizee, yet a similar Grace did not save hard-hearted Israel. Those who eat and drink in an unworthy manner eat and drink judgment to themselves, not discerning the Lord’s body.25 For the one who Confesses to a minister, and tricks him into thinking that they have Faith, the Absolution that such a person receives from the minister is false, and forgives no sins. Conversely, where Faith was weak26, the Sacraments strengthen and create Faith in the person who receives them, bringing with them the above-cited promises that God has attached to them. Therefore, to say that Baptism saves, or that the Eucharist forgives sins, or that a minister has the power to Absolve sins, is nothing more than to say that salvation comes by Grace (these are among the Graces), through Faith.27
that he be so by reason of fraud is not relevant to this discussion
1 John 4:20
Psalm 19:12
Not in such a manner that all who sin cast aside their Faith and Salvation in doing so, for the whole Christian life is a struggle against sin and the Old Adam (which is also sin, lol). Now if the Christian life is a struggle with sin, then sin must occasionally gain the upper hand, or else it would not be called a struggle, and furthermore it would not be lifelong. “Repent! For the Kingdom of God is at hand” is an enduring command, one that persists for as long as the Kingdom of God is at hand (for at its coming there will be no more need, or opportunity, for Repentance). Many have spoken unhelpfully about this matter, so I will try to be clear: most people know what they’re doing is wrong before they do it. All sin is “knowing sin” in this sense. Christians do this as well—but this is not what is meant by enduring, knowing, willful sin. Willful sin involves a rejection of Repentance, an unwillingness to turn away from sin and towards God. This impenitence is what is called the Unforgivable Sin, or Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, because it is the Holy Spirit which calls the heart inwardly towards Repentance, and it is blasphemy to harden oneself against this. There are no absolute boundaries here, no set place where “mere” sin becomes impenitence (that is, to the exclusion of Faith); it depends on the condition of one’s own heart.
Acts 3:19
2 Chronicles 7:14
Luke 13:3
Romans 4:5
I had to coin a new word here, I’m sorry but I couldn’t think of anything else to put here. “Ambiternal,” adjective, having the property of being either or both internal and external; see “ambivalent” and “ambivert.”
Romans 10:9
John 9:31
Deuteronomy 32:35
James 5:4
Acts 7:60
Matthew 6:14-15
Ephesians 2:8-9
that is, the Grace unto salvation, the Grace which produces Faith
Romans 11:6
1 Peter 3:21
Matthew 26:28
Matthew 18:18
Romans 11:6
Matthew 13:18-23
Romans 10:17
1 Corinthians 10:29
We shall deal with the issue of infant baptism another day
Ephesians 2:8-9
A most instructive article, and the audio recording has been particularly beneficial to me given my rather slow reading speed.
There are two matters to which I would like to respond, firstly to the definition of forgiveness, or rather broadly when we truly forgive, and then building upon this article, an overall map of positions within Christianity, at least in broad strokes, not just between what you have termed Protestants and the Radicals. However, for the length of the first response I like to just talk about the first point.
1. About forgiveness:
You have precisely articulated that when we forgive a "person P", this does not mean, nor can it mean, that we still wish for person P to experience "damnation or punishment B," thus B(P), at least none that would arise from the transgressions against us, hence "B(P) r S:" a punishment towards person P due to something they have done towards us ourselves (r meaning relation here).
This reminds me of an idea on how to deal with the opinions of others, though a flawed idea. By saying: "in heaven everyone will recognize where I was right, and thus I need not worry." The problem, evidently, is that one thereby anchors the stability of their identity or at least their actions on something external, still, and also on something other than love. One still desires to be recognized as the one who is right. And in the same manner there lies a problem in how some people see forgiveness, which you have implied as well:
I) If one merely does not wish "B(P) r S," meaning no additional punishment or natural ["mechanical"] consequence of a misdeed in person P due to what they did to oneself S, ...
II) and even if one does not wish "B(P) r A," meaning no such an addition from the misdeeds that person P has done to others as well, ...
III) one may still not truly forgive Person P if one wishes a consequence or punishment due to their misdeed towards God: B(P) r G, ...
IV) but not for the sake of justice, if one is honest, rather because one holds a personal grudge.
How can one overcome this and still correctly combat evil? I think, Leibniz, who was also a Lutheran, provides an answer. Here my own translation from German:
"It follows evidently that genuine piety and even true happiness consist in the love of God, albeit in an enlightened love, whose fire is kindled by the light of knowledge.
This kind of love brings forth joy in good actions, which lend support to virtue and, by relating everything to God as the center, elevates the human to the divine. For by doing one's duty, by obeying reason, one follows the decrees of the supreme, exalted reason.
One directs all endeavors towards the common good, which is identical with the glory of God*, and thus finds that there is no greater private interest than to encompass the common interest. That way, one lives for one's own satisfaction by striving to follow the true benefits of humanity. Whether one succeeds or not, one is content with what happens, if one submits to the will of God, and knows that what He wills is best. Yet before His will is made known through events, one seeks to anticipate it by doing what seems best to correspond to His commands.
When we are in this spiritual state, we are not repelled by lack of success; we then only regret our own mistakes, and the ingratitude of people does not deter us from continuing our benevolent acts. Our charity is full of humility and moderation; it does not presume to dominate. By being as attentive to our own faults as to the talents of others, we are inclined to criticize our own actions, while excusing and rectifying those of others: for we seek to perfect ourselves, but to wrong no one else."
*the better humanity, the more God will be glorified by it.
I would further add that the focal point should not only be humanity as a whole but also the next individual as a distinct notion. This means one has these focal points: "God, humanity, the individual" and acts according to the current focus for the benefit of one of these, directly. By classifying oneself as an individual, one can correctly position oneself within this framework. Additionally, I believe there may be further points to which one could shift focus depending on personal life circumstances, such as one's spouse, work, or community, at these may be added. Oneself thus is only part of the whole formula, and a lesser part to that if one speaks of one's role as object of one's strivings.