• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Category Archives: Spiritual Disciplines

George Muller: Five Principles For Prayer

13 Tuesday Dec 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in George Muller, Ministry, Prayer

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Arthur Pierson, George Muller, George Muller of Bristol, Prayer

“Five grand conditions of prevailing prayer were ever before his mind:

1. Entire dependence upon the merits and mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ, as the only ground of any claim for blessing. (See John xiv. 13, 14; xv. 16, etc.)

2. Separation from all known sin. If we regard iniquity in our hearts, the Lord will not hear us, for it would be sanctioning sin. (Psalm lxvi. 18.)

3. Faith in God’s word of promise as confirmed by His oath. Not to believe Him is to make Him both a liar and a perjurer. (Hebrews xi. 6; vi. 13-20.)

4. Asking in accordance with His will. Our motives must be godly : we must not seek any gift of God to consume it upon our own lusts. (1 John v. 13; James iv. 3.)

5. Importunity in supplication. There must be waiting on God and waiting for God, as the husbandman has long patience to wait for the harvest. (James v. 7; Luke xviii. 1-10.)”

Arthur Tappan Pierson. George Müller of Bristol, Chapter XII, “New Lessons in God’s School of Prayer”

Zachery Crofton, Repentance not to be Repented.7

25 Friday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

      SECOND PART OF CONVERSION

Conversion is a turning and a turning to: turn from sin and turn to God. Before we consider Crofton’s discussion, it must be noted that the sinner turning to God presents a strange situation: God is the judge of sin. What criminal comes to the judge for sentencing?

But there is another aspect to understand the subjective psychology of sin. Sin is by nature a revulsion toward. This is a point which can be lost when we think of sin as violating a law. The law and the governor are distinct entities in our thinking. We can separate the law from any person and conceptualize it as having its own force. We do this because the legitimacy of the law in our political system must be independent of any individual. Neither king nor president are above the law. The law has its own legitimacy. As Rutherford titled his book, “Lex Rex”, The Law is King.

But with God there is no such distinction. The legitimacy of the law is that the law is based in God. The person(s) gives the law its force and legitimacy.

Therefore, when the sinner who truly repents realizes his violation of the law he does not merely seek to cease violating the law, it must entail a cessation of fleeing the source of the law. The one who experiences merely “legal repentance” (as opposed to “gospel repentance”), divorces the law from God. In his book The Whole Christ, Sinclair Ferguson argues that legalism is understanding the law as somehow separate from God.

And so Crofton explains the second step in repentance as  “Reversion to God.—A reception of God. God, and God only, becomes the adequate object of gospel-repentance: man by sin hath his back on God; by repentance he faceth about. All sin doth agree in this, that it is an aversion from God; and the cure of it by repentance must be conversion to God.”

This opens up another way to understand the horror of sin. We could ask, “Why would the failure to do or not do some particular act matter to God?” Eliphaz, one of Job’s friends asks the question this way:

Job 22:1–3 (ESV)

22 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:

            2           “Can a man be profitable to God?

Surely he who is wise is profitable to himself.

            3           Is it any pleasure to the Almighty if you are in the right,

or is it gain to him if you make your ways blameless?

Considered in this manner, he is correct. Why should God care one way or the other when it comes to my sin or obedience. I can neither help nor hinder God.

But if the sin is not a bare violation of an external code, but rather is a personal rebellion against God – a refusal to be in right relationship to God—then the “size” of the sin is shown to be an irrelevant criteria.  It is the lack of the right relating to God that is the issue.

Notice the language, quoted by Crofton, of repentance being a call of God for relationship: “When God calls for true repentance, it is with an “If thou wilt return, O Israel, return unto me.” (Jer. 4:1.) And when repentance is promised, it is promised that “the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall fear the Lord and his goodness.” (Hosea 3:5.) And when they provoke one another to repentance, it is with a “Come, let us return unto the Lord;” (Hosea 6:1;) and when provoked by others, it is to “return to the Lord their God.” (Hosea 14:1.)” The section from Jeremiah and the whole of Hosea conceptualize sin in Israel as adultery: the violation of a marriage vow.

There is a kind of cessation of sin which is not repentance. I heard the story of a man who fell into a violently racist crowd. Then, at some point he gave up his hatred and became civil and tolerant. Surely, giving up the violent hatred is good. But merely stopping his hatred did not constitute repentance. Not being a racist does not make one in right relationship with God.

As Crofton writes, “The gospel-penitent turneth not from sin to sin, as do the profane; not from sinful rudeness to common civility, or only moral honesty, as do the civil honest men; but unto piety, acts of religion, unto God. God is the sole object of his affection and adoration.”

Why then would one dare to come to the lawgiver and judge if guilty? Because God is merciful, “The true penitent is prostrate at the feet of God, as him only “that pardoneth iniquity, transgression, and sin;” and pliable to the pleasure of God, as him only that hath prerogative over him.”

That relationship of Creator and creature, which entails so many aspects, lies at the heart of the reconciliation. It is the undoing of the primeval fall: you shall be God knowing good and evil.  With that we lost our position and became absurd. Repentance is then a return to that relationship, “The whole man, soul and body, is bent for God; and pursueth communion with and conformity to God.”

He then works out some implications of this turning to God. It is a return which entails the whole life, thought, affections, behavior. Behavior will entail an obedience which flows from love and willing to suffer loss of all things but God.

A return of the mind: “Not only doth repentance turn us from what is grievous and contrary to God; but unto that which is agreeable and acceptable to God. The mind returneth from the devising of evil, to the review of the mind and will of God.”

A return of the affections: “The will and affections return from all evil, unto a resolution, and ready acceptance of the good and acceptable will of God.” The will is easily and readily turned toward God, because love and desire are turned toward God, “His desires and affections run out to God, and God alone; there is nothing in all the earth to be compared with God, nor any in heaven acceptable to the soul beside God.”

A return of conduct; obedience which flows from love: “A gospel-penitent stands convinced, that “if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him;” (1 John 2:15;) and if any man love any thing better than Christ, he is not worthy of him; (Matt. 10:37;) and so he accounteth all things dross and “dung” in comparison of Christ. (Phil. 3:8.)”

This love of God causes the truly repentant to give the will of God precedence over any competing rule or desire: “The command of God carrieth the truly penitent contrary to the commands of men; nay, corrupt dictates of their own soul.”

The command of God overrules my own soul. A common argument of our culture is “authenticity.” I should be conformed to my own present desires. To act otherwise would be to be dishonest and unauthentic. The true penitent will follow the command of God when it crosses his own desire.

A willingness to even suffer:

Not only doth he believe,

but is also ready to suffer for the sake of Christ:

he is contented to be at God’s carving, as unworthy any thing.

Under sharpest sorrows,

he is dumb, and openeth not his mouth; because God did it. (Psalm 39:9.)

In saddest disasters he complains not,

because he hath sinned against the Lord.

Let Shimei curse him, he is quiet; nay, grieved at the instigations of revenge;

for that God hath bid Shimei curse.

In all his actions and enjoyments, he is awed by, and argueth not against, God.

Conclusion: “So that true gospel-repentance doth not only convince and cast down, but change and convert, a sinner. Sense of and sorrow for sin as committed against God, are necessary and essential parts, but not the whole or formality, of repentance: no; that is a turning from sin, all sin, unto God, only unto God. It indulgeth not the least iniquity, nor taketh up short of the Lord. It stayeth not, with Jehu, at the extirpation of Baal; but, with Hezekiah and Josiah, restoreth the passover, the worship of the Lord.”

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 5 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 387–390.

Zachery Crofton, A Repentance not to be Repented.6

22 Tuesday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

“So that the first part of conversion is a recession from all sin.—” He then proves this with a series of Scriptural citations. Our relationship to sin is one of “departing” (Ps. 34:14, 37:237), ceasing (Is. 1:16), “forsaking” (Is. 55:7), abhorring (Rom. 13:2), and: “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” (Eph. 5:11)

Crofton concludes with the image of political rebellion, “Nay, it is an apostasy from sin, to break league with, and violate all those bonds in which we stand bound to profaneness; and with rage and resolution rebel against the sovereignty of sin which it hath exercised over us.” I have often heard of apostacy from God, but not from sin. And yet, this is quite similar to the image used in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress when Christian is met by Apollyon:

APOL. By this I perceive thou art one of my subjects; for all that country is mine, and I am the prince and god of it. How is it, then, that thou hast run away from thy king? Were it not that I hope thou mayest do me more service, I would strike thee now at one blow to the ground.

CHR. I was, indeed, born in your dominions, but your service was hard, and your wages such as a man could not live on; for the wages of sin is death, Rom. 6:23; therefore, when I was come to years, I did, as other considerate persons do, look out if perhaps I might mend myself.

APOL. There is no prince that will thus lightly lose his subjects, neither will I as yet lose thee; but since thou complainest of thy service and wages, be content to go back, and what our country will afford I do here promise to give thee.

CHR. But I have let myself to another, even to the King of princes; and how can I with fairness go back with thee?

APOL. Thou hast done in this according to the proverb, “changed a bad for a worse;” but it is ordinary for those that have professed themselves his servants, after a while to give him the slip, and return again to me. Do thou so to, and all shall be well.

CHR. I have given him my faith, and sworn my allegiance to him; how then can I go back from this, and not be hanged as a traitor.

APOL. Thou didst the same by me, and yet I am willing to pass by all, if now thou wilt yet turn again and go back.

John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress: From This World to That Which Is to Come (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995).

There is value in this understanding, because it underscores the extent to which sin is not merely a passive state but is an active ruler. To repent is to rebel:

“If we will call on the name of the Lord, and become his subjects, we must recede, rebel against sin, bid open defiance, and proclaim open war against it, notwithstanding all those engagements that lie upon us: “Let him depart [from iniquity],” saith our translation; in the original, αποστητω απο αδικιας, “apostatize from unrighteousness.” (2 Tim. 2:19.)”

Having made the point, Crofton returns again to the proposition that sin makes a demand upon us: “Sin hath an interest in and engagement upon men. By nature they are obliged to follow it; and the whole man is too much devoted to pursue and obey the dictates of lust.”

This is a standard element of biblical psychology, if you will. And, I think it a point which we rarely consider. John Owen speaks about sin being a “law” to the one outside of Christ.

What then is the nature of the turn from sin: He gives three elements: cognitive, affective, behavioral.

First, cognitive, the turn takes place in the mind, “By the apprehension of his mind.—Seeing sin and its sinfulness, he discerns the contrariety of it to the image of God.” The nature of this apprehension is that sin violates the law of God. “By the law, which is, by the spirit of repentance, engraven on his heart, he now knows sin, which he never knew before; he discovereth abundance of evil, in what he deemed exceeding good.” He knows sin violates the law of God.

Second, there is a change in the nature of desire. He turns from sin, “By the alteration of his will and affections.” Crofton here seems to anticipate Jonathan Edwards in seeing the tight connection between affection and will [rather than seeing will as a self-determining force]. Rather than loving the sin or having desire for the sin, he hates the sin:  “David, he hateth “every false way,” and the very workers of iniquity. (Psalm 119:104.)”

Here Crofton wisely concedes that sin does continue even in the repentant. What the repentant do when he sees that he has sinned? “If he be surprised, by the difficulty of his estate, or distemper of his mind, with an act of sin, he loatheth himself because of it.” Here he takes Romans 7 to reference a believer in his struggle with sin [this is a debated point], “with Paul, professeth, ‘I do the things that I would not do.’”

How greatly is sin detested? “Death is desired, because he would sin no more. He would rather be redeemed from his “vain conversation,” than from wrath to come; penitent Anselm had rather be in hell without, than in heaven with, his iniquity.” Thomas Brooks makes a similar point :

“First, Keep at the greatest distance from sin, and from playing with the golden bait that Satan holds forth to catch you; for this you have Rom. 12:9, ‘Abhor that which is evil, cleave to that which is good.’ When we meet with anything extremely evil and contrary to us, nature abhors it, and retires as far as it can from it. The Greek word that is there rendered ‘abhor,’ is very significant; it signifies to hate it as hell itself, to hate it with horror.

“Anselm used to say, ‘That if he should see the shame of sin on the one hand, and the pains of hell on the other, and must of necessity choose one, he would rather be thrust into hell without sin, than to go into heaven with sin,’ so great was his hatred and detestation of sin.”

Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 13.

Third, the repentance is in action: “Into an abstinence from, nay, actual resistance of, sin.” He abstains from sinful conduct. He avoids occasions for temptation. He seeksto reclaim others and is grieved by their sin. He mortifies his “earthly members” (Col. 3:5).  “All his complaint under sorrows is against sin. His care is to be rid of sin; his fear, of falling into sin.”

Here Crofton pauses. Yes, it is true that all the life must be thrown into the revulsion against sin; but that rebellion against sin is always imperfect in us. He is concerned this discussion of leaving sin may leave us fearful for ourselves. “Yet take along with you this cautionary note, that you run not into sinful despair and despondency, in observing your penitent recession from sin.”

Sin is a powerful persistent foe; though beaten it persists. When the allies landed on D-Day, the Nazis fate was sealed and still the war persisted.  “Sin’s existency, and sometimes prevalency, is consistent with a penitent recession and turning from it.—Sin may remain, though it doth not reign, in a gracious soul.”

No one can say that he has no sin and will not sin again.  “Who is there that lives, and sins not? (1 Kings 8:46.) “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8.)”

Here is his caveat at length:

“The righteous themselves often fall. Noah, the preacher of repentance to the old world, becomes the sad pattern of impiety to the new world. Penitent Paul hath cause to complain, “When I would do good, evil is present with me.” (Rom. 7:21.) Sin abides in our souls, whilst our souls abide in our bodies. So long as we live, we must expect to bear the burden of corruption. Sin exists in the best of saints, by way of suggestion, natural inclination, and violent instigation and enforcement of evil; and so, taking advantage of the difficulty of our estate, and distemper of our minds, it drives us sometimes into most horrid actions, even David’s adultery, or Peter’s denial of Christ.

“Which of the saints have not had a sad experience hereof? Nor must it seem to us strange; for repentance doth not cut down sin at a blow; no, it is a constant militation, and course of mortification; a habit and principle of perpetual use; not action of an hour or little time, as we have noted before; it is a recession from sin all our days, though sin run after us. If once we be perfectly freed from sin’s assaults, we shake hands with repentance; for we need it no more. So that let it not be the trouble of any, that sin is in them; but let it be their comfort, that it is shunned by them: that you fall into sin, fail not in your spirits; let this be your support, that you fly from, fall out with, and fight against sin.”

What then is the mark of the true repentant? There is a conflict in his life between sin and mortification.  “The true penitent doth evidence the truth and strength of his repentance, by not admitting sin’s dictates without resistance; not acting sin’s precepts without reluctance. When he deviseth evil, his mind is to serve the law of God; and he approveth of that as good. He doeth what he would not: the law in his members rebels against the law of his mind, and leadeth him captive; and therefore he abides not under sin’s guilt or power without remorse. If he be drawn to deny his Master, he goeth out, and weepeth bitterly. He is in his own eye a wretched man, whilst oppressed with a body of corruption. Nay, he retireth not into sinful society without repining; his soul soon thinks he hath dwelt too long “in Mesech,” and “in the tents of Kedar.” (Psalm 120:5.)”

Zachery Crofton, A Repentance not to be Repented.5

18 Friday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Repentance, Repentance not to be Repented, Zachery Crofton

Crofton beings the “fourth conclusion” (the fourth point) of his sermon on repentance as follwos:

“Turning from all sin to God, is the formality of true repentance.—Sincere conversion is the summa totalis and ratio formalis of a gospel-penitent.”

The act of turning from sin to God is the action of repentance, it is the form of repentance. “Ratio formalis”, the formal reason. This is a reference to Aristotle’s four aspects of causation. The “formal cause” is the form. For instance, if we were to consider the formal cause of a sculpture making a statute, the “formal cause” would be the shape of the statute.

Turning from sin and to God is what we do in repentance. Having said this, he now proves up his point. First, he proves it by way of negative argument: What if you had other elements of sin without this turning, would that be repentance?

“Remorse for sin, without a return from sin, will afford you no comfort. Sin is an aversion from God; and repentance a conversion to God.” This is an interesting argument, he will make a detailed Scriptural argument in a moment, but he begins with looking at the subject effects.

Sin causes us to be move from God, it is an “aversion to God.” If I merely feel sorrow for sin, but do not also have the ability to move toward God to relieve that sorrow, I will be in the untenable place of both hating my sin and having no one to relief the burden. This is the picture of Christian at the outset of Piligrim’s Progress: he knows the great burden on his back, but he has no way to relieve the weight of that burden.

This is a state the Puritans often referred to as “legal terrors” or “legal conviction”, rather than the work of Grace which would not merely cause one to see sin as a matter of guilty but also bring one to Christ for relief of that guilty and shame. Another common analogy, used by Crofton, compares false repentance to Judas, “All Judas-conviction and confession, nay, contrition and condemnation, will not constitute a gospel-penitent, for want of conversion.”

He then picks up this argument from a different point, the way in which the term is defined, “The common call of sinners unto repentance is, to “turn,” and “return to God.” (Isai. 44:22; 55:7; Jer. 4:1; 18:11; and many other places.) Whenever repentance is promised, or predicated and spoken of in scripture, it is ordinarily by this term, of “turning,” and “returning to the Lord,” (Isai. 19:22; 59:20;) and that not only in the Old, but also in the New, Testament: “We were as sheep going astray; but now are returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls.” (1 Peter 2:25.)”

The very term repentance entails that turning from and turning to.  Until we turn to, we are in a very grave state: “Like the prodigal, we are out of our wits, until by a spirit of repentance we recover our sound mind, and return to our Father, from whom we have madly run away; so that the very formality of repentance is “returning.””

Think of the psychological effects described in Romans 1:18-32. The passage begins with the action of suppressing the knowledge of the wrath of God against sin. But that process leads to a kind of madness which permeates the rest of the passage. We come to irrationality and finally the approval that we make of one-another in a plunge into sin. It is the sort of mutual encouragement to some stupid action that adolescents are famous for providing. And while it might be comical in minor instances, the overall effect is devastating.

This change in direction is a change in life, the repentant person is a “changeling.” “Old things are done away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17.) But what precisely is the nature of that change. He first gives two negative explanations:

First, the change is “not in his substance.” Before and after conversion, we still human beings made of the same stuff.  Second, it is not a change in “quantity, measure, and degree, as common Christians too commonly dream.”

What then is the change: “in quality, nature, frame, and disposition.” We might venture to say the change is a psychological change, a change in how we think and feel with respect to certain matters: “The soul and body, in regard of their essence, powers, faculties, proper and natural actions, remain the same after that they were before repentance.”

The transformation is seen is the disposition, not the destruction of the life before conversion,  “sorrow, fear, joy, love, desire, natural passions and affections, are indeed altered, not annihilated; restrained, nay, regulated, not ruined: but the whole man is, in respect of property, bent, and disposition, no more the same, but a very changeling.”

He then provides examples from Scripture of this transformation described, “[so] that it may be said of them, as of Onesimus, “In time past unprofitable, but now profitable;” (Phil. 11;) or as of the Corinthians, [that] they were thieves, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, what not? but [that] they are washed, they are cleansed, they are sanctified. (1 Cor. 6:9–11.)”

Zachery Crofton, A Repentance not to be Repented.3

10 Thursday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

The third conclusion of Crofton concerning repentance is that it is a matter of humiliation. He begins his discuss here:

Sense of and sorrow for sin, as committed against God, are the precursive acts of true repentance.

True repentance, as most divines determine, doth consist in two parts; namely, humiliation, and conversion: the casting down [of] the heart for sin, and the casting off sin: a repenting “for uncleanness,” επι τῃ ακαβαρσιᾳ, (2 Cor. 12:21,) and sin, with grief, shame, and anguish; and repenting “from iniquity,” απο κακιας, (Acts 8:22; Rev. 9:20,) and “from dead works.” (Heb. 6:1.)

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 5 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 376. After considering various examples of repentance in Scripture he explains:

So that, according to the expressions of scripture, as well as the experiences of the saints, humiliation of the soul is an essential act, and eminent part, of repentance. And this is that which I in the description do denominate “sense of and sorrow for sin, as committed against God;” thereby intending to note unto you, that the soul must be humbled that will be lifted up by the Lord; and his humiliation doth and must consist of these two parts,—conviction and contrition, sight of and sorrow for sin. (377)

377. This begins with the Holy Spirit’s work of conviction, a recognition that one stands guilty under the law:

For as indeed without the law there is no transgression, so without the knowledge of the law there can be no conviction. Ignorance of divine pleasure is the great obstruction of repentance; and therefore the prince of this world doth daily endeavour to blow out the light of the word, or to blind the eyes of the sons of men, that they may not see and be converted. (378)

He refers to this as the “first part of humiliation”: I stand convicted by the law. It is the personal application which matters here: it is not the knowledge that such and such rule exists, but rather than the law is true and applicable. One could know the law of God and yet still not know conviction. Thus, it must be the Spirit brings to realization, this law applies to me here and now.

The first act of repentance is the falling of the scales from off the sinner’s eyes; the first language of a turning soul is, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6, 18:) (378)

There is more here. Not only does one see the law as applicable, one also sees himself as condemned. Yes, this law applies to me, and I stand condemned:

So that now the soul doth not only assent unto the law as true in all its threats, but applieth them unto himself; confessing [that] unto him belongs shame and confusion, hell and horror, woe and eternal misery; that he knoweth not how to escape; but if God proceed against him, he is most miserable and undone for ever; and so is constrained with anguish of soul to cry out, “What shall I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30.) (379)

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 5 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 378.

Now comes the “second part of humiliation”:

The second part, then, of penitential humiliation is contrition, or sorrow for sin as committed against God.—Herein the soul is not only acquainted with, but afflicted for, its guilt; seeth not only that it is a sinner, but sorroweth under, and is ashamed of, so sad and sinful an estate. (380)

This raises a question: Why should sorrow matter? Humans expect sorrow for repentance, because we want an emotional component to know the “I will stop” is real. But why would God seek sorrow?

Sorrow is a component of an actual change of position: the comprehension of guilt under the law is not merely a cognitive recognition (although it is not less). It must entail a real judgment, “this is true and I am guilty.”

A true recognition of guilt would necessarily entail a fear of the guilt and a horror of that God is my judge and adversary:

The stony heart is broken, the adamantine soul dissolved; he rends not his garment, but his heart, and goeth out and weepeth bitterly. He seeth with shame his many abominations; and readeth, with soul-distressing sorrow and anguish, the curse of the law that is due unto him; and considereth, with almost soul-distracting despair, the doleful estate into which his sin hath resolved him: for he seeth God, with whom he is not able to plead, to be highly offended; and therefore must, with Job, confess that he is not able to answer when God reproveth; he is vile, and must lay his hand on his mouth (380)

One aspect of this recognition which makes no sense from the outside is the recognition “I am vile.”  Taken out of its context, it seems perverse. But let us take this from the inside: A human being is created for fellowship with and the blessing of God. We are the image of God and the pinnacle of creation. To be in sin is to be in a drunken stupor. The awakening of conviction is the like the recognition of one awakens in some horrible state, in a crack den, in a garbage heap, in some utterly degrading and disgusting place and thinking, how did I get here.  It is the person who awakens to discover that in his intoxicated state he crashed his car into a van and murdered a family. That is the horror of sin.

Let us continue with the drunk who has killed the children in the drunken crash. We can imagine two men: one who is horrified at the damage he has done and the life that is lost. We can imagine another man angry at the punishment he will face and loss of his own expectations. The moral quality of these two men is quite different.

That is the distinction between true and false repentance.

His sorrow is a sorrow of candour and ingenuity; not so much that he is liable to the lash, and obnoxious to the curse, as that a Father is offended, the image of his God defaced. His grand complaint is, “I have sinned against God;” his soul-affliction and heart-trembling is, “God is offended.”  (380)

Zachary Crofton, Repentance not to be Repented.2

09 Wednesday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Faith, Puritan, Repentance, Zachary Crofton

The second “conclusion” or introductory point is “The believing sinner is the subject of gospel-repentance.”

First, only a sinner can repent, because repentance is a turning from sin. Thus, before the Fall, Adam could not repent. Repentance “is the work of a transgressor.”

Second, repentance is only the work of one who believes, who is seeking grace. To merely see one’s sin, to merely experience conviction is insufficient make for repentance. The sinner will repent only if he “see[s] a pardon procured for sin committed.”

Faith and unbelief thus stand as the basic components of one’s spiritual life toward God:  “Faith must be the formal qualification of a gospel-penitent, as the very foundation and fountain of true repentance; unbelief is the very ground of impenitency, and lock of obduracy.” That last phrase is great, “lock of obduracy” a lock which cannot be moved or altered.

Faith permits a certain sort of understanding. When faith looks upon its proper object, the sight becomes an argument in favor of seeking the pardon: “Hence it is that the objects of faith become arguments, and the promises of grace persuasions, to repentance.” Faith argues for repentance.

Here he makes an interesting argument, “The approach of “the kingdom of God” is the only argument urged by John the Baptist, and our Saviour, to enforce repentance. (Matt. 3:2; 4:17.)  The Gospels begin with Jesus and John the Baptist saying repent, the kingdom of God is at hand. The text does not record a different basis upon which one is to repent: God is here, repent.

When the cross is seen by faith, it shows the proof of the sight by repentance.

He then enters into the argument of the order of salvation: does faith or repentance come first?

In terms of cause and effect, faith must come before repentance. But in terms of our personal experience, the order is opposite: we repeat and then have the knowledge of our faith.  “In order of sense and man’s feeling, repentance is indeed before faith; but, in divine method and the order of nature, faith is before repentance, as the fountain is before the stream.”

So faith makes plain to the sinner, his state of sin and need for pardon. Faith looks upon Christ. The sight of Christ by faith, draws out repentance because the sight of Christ provokes hope of pardon matched with the knowledge of sin.

Zachary Crofton, Repentance Not to be Repented 1

31 Monday Oct 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachary Crofton

In Puritan Sermons, Volume 5 (James Nichols) we find the sermon of Zachary Crofton, A.M., “Repentance not to be Repented” defines repentance as follows: “Repentance is a grace supernatural, whereby the believing sinner, sensibly affected with and afflicted for his sin as committed against God, freely confessing, and fervently begging pardon, turneth from all sin to God.” (372)

On the first element, a “supernatural grace” Crofton makes a distinction which is not often heard: repentance is the principle animating the action, not the action itself: “it is a habit, power, principle, spring, root, and disposition; not a bare, single, and transient action.” (373) He then furthers this point by adding repentance is distinct “from all penitential acts: sighing, self-castigation, and abstinence from all sinful actions, are fruits and expressions of repentance, but not the grace itself.”

As such, it is easier to understand his insistence that repentance is a supernatural grace given by God. This grace, that is gift of God, causes the human being to act in accordance therewith, “The power and principle is divine; but act and exercise of repentance is human: God plants the root whereby man brings forth fruit worthy repentance.”

The first of Luther’s 95 theses was, “When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, “Repent” (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.” When thought of as action, the statement seems difficult to understand. However when understood as a principle, a disposition (as is in Crofton), such a life of repentance makes sense, “Repentance is not the work of an hour, or a day; but a constant frame, course, and bent of the soul, on all renewed guilt flowing afresh, and bringing forth renewed acts.” (373)

It is a principle which when exposed to guilty responds with penitential action. It is a relationship to sin of abhorrence.  Notice also that repentance differs from mere guilt at being exposed to the law. Instead, repentance is a supernatural gift of the Gospel:

“Repentance is not the result of purest nature, nor yet the effect of the law; but a pure gospel-grace; preached by the gospel, promised in the covenant, sealed in baptism, produced by the Spirit, properly flowing from the blood of Christ; and so is every way supernatural.” (374)

Some ways in which memory may ago astray

16 Saturday Jul 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Memorization, Memory

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Memory, Psychology, Thesis

Here is a helpful summary of the problems which may arise with memory:

When memory serves as evidence, as it does in many civil and criminal legal proceedings, there are a number of important limitations to the veracity of that evidence. This is because memory does not provide a veridical representation of events as experienced. Rather, what gets encoded into memory is determined by what a person attends to, what they already have stored in memory, their expectations, needs and emotional state. This information is subsequently integrated (consolidated) with other information that has

already been stored in a person’s long-term, autobiographical memory.

What gets retrieved later from that memory is determined by that same multitude of factors that contributed to encoding as well as what drives the recollection of the event. Specifically, what gets retold about an experience depends on whom one is talking to and what the purpose is of remembering that particular event (e.g., telling a friend, relaying an experience to a therapist, telling the police about an event).

Moreover, what gets remembered is reconstructed from the remnants of what was originally stored; that is, what we remember is constructed from whatever remains in memory following any forgetting or interference from new experiences that may have occurred across the interval between storing and retrieving a particular experience.

Because the contents of our memories for experiences involve the active manipulation (during encoding), integration with pre-existing information (during consolidation), and reconstruction (during retrieval) of that information, memory is, by definition, fallible at best and unreliable at worst.

Mark L. Howe and Lauren M. Knott , “The fallibility of memory in judicial processes: Lessons from the past and their modern consequences” Memory, 2015, Vol. 23, No. 5, 633–656, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2015.1010709

First, let’s note the particulars of what is said:

“This is because memory does not provide a veridical representation of events as experienced.” Memory is not an objective recordation of a historical event. We know that even a photograph can be deceptive. We only see what is before the camera, not all of the things which remain outside of the photograph.  Look up the Beijing Olympics sky jump location: On television it appears to be a located on a snow covered mountain. But it was really an artificial structure in an industrial park next to what looks to be a nuclear reactor.

This example considers only one dimension of the problem: what can be seen. When it comes to reality involving human actors, the number of potential variables in play, sights, sounds, emotions, thoughts, et cetera, make a comprehensive “recording” of the event impossible. No one human being could possibly know everything was is present at any one time. Hence, our memory is not a complete recordation of the past.

So, the first limitation is attention: “Rather, what gets encoded into memory is determined by what a person attends to.”

Next, to be efficient, it will not be necessary for our memory to record everything taking place. Existing memories and expectations of what should occur can fill out what is actually recorded. The old Spiderman cartoons from the 1960’s repeatedly used certain elements as fillers (for instance, Spiderman swinging through some location). The stock segments were interspersed into the new episode. And so, memory depends upon “what they already have stored in memory, their expectations.”

The way in which the memory is taken down also depends upon our emotional state: this may effect the information we attend to as well as the way in which it is stored. For example, a particularly fearful event will be kept differently than an insignificant occasion. You can remember that time you almost died, but you have no idea what you saw on your way to work three years ago on a Tuesday in March.

Moreover, the information is then kept alongside of what you already known and have remembered: There is an integration of that information with your existing life:  “This information is subsequently integrated (consolidated) with other information that has

already been stored in a person’s long-term, autobiographical memory.” This can result in the information being smoothed out, accommodated into a consistent whole.

But memory only becomes functional (for purposes of testimony) when it is retrieved. There are a host of problems which can arise when it comes to “finding” the memory. And then, once it is found, not necessarily everything is retrieved: “What gets retrieved later from that memory is determined by that same multitude of factors that contributed to encoding as well as what drives the recollection of the event. Specifically, what gets retold about an experience depends on whom one is talking to and what the purpose is of remembering that particular event (e.g., telling a friend, relaying an experience to a therapist, telling the police about an event).”

The memory is recalled is not an exact reproduction of what was originally recorded. Due to the way in which memory is stored and encoded, the memory must “reconstructed”. This too can result in changes from the original event:

“Moreover, what gets remembered is reconstructed from the remnants of what was originally stored; that is, what we remember is constructed from whatever remains in memory following any forgetting or interference from new experiences that may have occurred across the interval between storing and retrieving a particular experience.”

Indeed, the process of reconstruction and then returning the memory can result in changes to the memory. The plasticity of memory itself a matter of research. This has been studied not merely to determine the extent to which memory is fallible or can be manipulated, but also as a means of therapy to help people who have suffered from traumatic memories and maybe suffering from the effects of such memory (for instance, what is often referred to as “PTSD”; this work focuses on something called memory “reconsolidation”).

The Wonderful Combat, Sermon 2.4

16 Thursday Jun 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Faith, Faith, Lancelot Andrewes, temptation

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

discontent, Faith, Lancelot Andrewes, temptation, Temptation of Christ, Temptation of Jesus, The Wonderful Combat

IV. The Devil’s Temptation to Distrust

Now we are to consider the diversity and order of the temptations, & then will we handle them particularly. And first we are to note, that though there are but these three recorded, yet he endured divers [various] others. His whole life was full of temptations, as may appear by Luke 22. 28. It is said Luke 4. 2. that he was tempted forty days of the Devil whereas these three Temptations here set down, were not till after the end of forty days. These only are mentioned, but there were other not written, as divers of his miracles are unwritten. John 20:31. Only so much was written, as was expedient.[1]

These three are a brief abridgement of all his Temptation.[2] As it is true that Paul saith, that Christ resembled Adam, and was made a quickening spirit, as Adam was a living soul, 1. Cor. 15. 45.[3] And the bringing of the Children of Israel out of Egypt, by being called out of Egypt, Matt. 2. 15.[4] So may Christ and Adam be compared in these three temptations. For they both were tempted with concupiscence [strong, sinful desire] of the flesh, concupiscence of the eye, & pride of life, 1. John 2. 16.[5]

In Adam, the Devil first brought him into a concept, that God envied his good, and of purpose kept him hood-winked, least he should see his good,[6] as we see falconers put hoods over hawks’ eyes, to make them more quiet & ruly [subject to being ruled]. Secondly, he lulls him on to a proud conceit [thought] of himself, by persuading him, that by eating he should be like God. Thirdly he shows the fruit, which was pleasant. So in Christs temptation first, he would have brought him to murmur against God: secondly to presume: & thirdly to commit idolatry[7], all which are set down.[8]

And under these three heads come all temptations, Numb. 14. & 21. and Exod. 32.

To some of these extremes will the Devil seek to drive one.

First, by distrust he will seek to drive us to use unlawful means, for the obtaining of necessary things, as bread is when a man is hungry. Or if we be in no such want, that that temptation cannot take place, then (through superfluity) he will tempt s to wanton and unnecessary desires, as to throw ourselves down, that the Angels may take us up: and having prevailed so far, then he carries us to the Devil and all. All this will I give thee, there is his All: Fall down and worship me, there is the Devil with it: so (that in this respect) may it well be said, that The way of a Serpent is over a stone, Proverb. 30. 19. He goes so slyly, that a man sees him in, before he can tell what way, or how he got in. First he wraps himself in necessity, and thereby winds himself in unperceived then he brings us to make riches our God.

Now let us see his Darts. The first is, of making stones bread. This may well be called the hungry temptation. The stream of the Doctors[9], make Adam’s offence the sin of gluttony: but Bucer[10] thinks, that this temptation is rather to be referred to distrust and despair. There is small likelihood, that one should sin in gluttony by eating bread only. The Devil’s desire was only, that the stones might be turned into bread, and that after so long a Fast: and then if the temptation had been to gluttony, Christ’s answer had been nothing to the purpose; the Devil might well have replied against the insufficiency of it. For gluttony is to be answered by a text willing sobriety, whereas this text which Christ answers by, contains rather an assertion of Gods’ providence: and therefore, our Savior should have seemed very unskillful in defending himself. The temptation therefore is to distrust.[11]

This stands well with the Devil’s cunning in fight: for by this he shows first even at the throat, and at that which is the life of a Christian: to wit his faith; as a man would say, even at that which overcomes the world, 1. John 5. 5.[12] He tempted him to such a distrust, as was in the Israelites, Ex. 17 7[13]. when they asked if God were with them or no.

So, he made Adam think, God cared not for him: so here the Devil premises a doubt to shake his faith, wherein Christ made no doubt, Si filius Dei es. [If you are the Son of God.][14]

Indeed, you heard a voice say, you were the beloved Son of God, but are you so indeed? or was it not rather a delusion?[15] You see you are almost starved for want of bread: well, would God have suffered you so to be if you had been his Filius dilectus [beloved Son]? No, you are some hunger-starved child. So, Luke 22. 3. Christ prayed that Peter’s faith might not fail.[16] It was that the Devil shot at. He is a roaring lion seeking to devour us, whom we must resist by faith, 1. Pet. 5. 8.[17]

It is our faith that he aim at 1. Thess. 3. 5.[18] For having overthrown that, disobedience soon will follow. Having abolished the stablisher of the Law, Roman. 3. 31. the breach of the Law must needs [by logical necessity] follow. He hath then fit time to set us a work, about making stones into bread, that is, to get our living by unlawful means. First, shipwreck of faith, then of obedience.[19]

The Devil here seeing him in great want and hunger, would thereby bring in doubt, that he was not the Son of God, which is not a good argument.[20] For whether we respect the natural tokens of God’s favor, we see they happen not to the wisest and men of best and greatest knowledge, as appears in the ninth chap. of Eccl. vers. 11 or the supernatural favor of God, we shall see Abraham forced to fly his country into Egypt for famine, Gen, 10. 12. so did Isaac, Gen. 26. 1. & Iacob likewise was in the same distress, Gen. 43. 1.[21] Notwithstanding that God was called The God of Abraham, Isaack and Jacob[22]; yet were they all three like to be hunger-starved. Yea, not only so, but for their faith, many were burned and stoned, of whom the world was not worthy, Heb. 11. 37.[23] So fared it with the Apostles, they were hungy, naked, and a thirst, 1. Cor. 4. 11.[24] But what do we speak of the adopted sons of God, when as his own natural Son suffered as much, nay, far more?[25] Here we se he was hungry, also he was wearied with travail and fain [desirous] to rest. John4. 6.[26] he had no house to hide his head in, whereas foxes have holes.[27]

If thou be the Son of God.

The heathens have observed, that in rhetoric it is a point of chiefest cunning, when you would out-face a man, or importune him to do a thing, to press & urge him with that, which he will not, or cannot for shame deny to be in himself: as by saying; If you have any wit, then you will do thus and thus: if you be an honest man or a good fellow, do this[28]. So here the Devil (not being to learn any point of subtlety[29]) comes to our Savior, saying, If thou be the Son of God, (as it may be doubted, you being in this case) then, make these stones bread. No, no, it follows not: a man may be the Son of God, and not shw it by any such art.[30] So when Pilate asked, who accused Christ? They [the ones bringing the accusation against Jesus] answered, If he had not been a malefactor, we would not have brought him before thee, John 18. 30. They were jolly grave men [very serious men], it was a flat flattery: and in John 21. 23.[31] there is the like. This ought to put us in mind, when we are tempted in like manner, that we take heed we be not out-faced.[32]

In the matter itself we are to consider these points: First the Devil sets it down for a ground, that (follow what will) bread must needs be had. [The Devil asserts: You must have bread.]

Therefore, Christ first closes with him[33], Admit he had bread, were he then safe?[34] No, We live not by bread only: so that bread is not of absolute necessity. Well, what follows of that? Bread you must needs have, you see your want [lack], God has left off to provide for you. Then comes the conclusion, Therefore, shift for your self [take are of yourself] as well as you can.[35]

First, he solicits us to a mutinous repining within ourselves, as Heb. 3. 8. Harden not your hearts, as in the day of temptation, whereby he forces us to break out into such like conceits [thoughts], as Psalm. 116. 11. I said in my distresse, that all men be liars: and Psalm. 31. 22. I said in my hast, I am cast off. Thus closely he distrusted God, in saying, his Prophets prophecy loes, till at last, we even open our mouths against God himself, and say, This evil commeth from the Lord, shall I attend on the Lord any longer? 2. Booke of Kings, chapter 6. and verse 33. Hunger and shame is all we shall get at God’s hands.[36] And so having cast off God, betake themselves to some other patron, & then the Devil is fittest for their turn.

For when we are fallen out with one, it is best serving his enemy, and to retain to the contrary faction.[37] Then we seek a familiar (with Saul) to answer us, 1. Sam. 28. 7.[38] But what did the Devil tell him? Did he bring comfort with him? No, he tells him, that tomorrow he & his sons should dye. So here does the Devil bring a stone with him. What Father (says Christ) if his Sonne aske him bread, would give him a stone? Matthew the seventh chapter and in the ninth verse:[39] yet the Devil does so; Christ was hungry, and the Devil shows him stones.

Here is the Devil’s comfort, here be stones for thee, if thou canst devise any way to make these stones bread, thou art well; whereas we do not use to make bread of stones, but of wheat[40], to work it with the sweat of our brows. To get it so, we learn Gen. 3. 19.

By extortion and usury we may make stones into bread, that is the Devil’s Alchemistry: or happily we may make bread of nothing, when a man gets a thing by another’s oversight, Gen. 43. 12. Or else, what and if we can overreach our brother in subtilty, and go beyond him with a trick of wit or cunning? Let no man defraud or oppress his brother in any matter: for the Lord is avenged of all such, 1. Thess. 4.6. The one is called The bread of violence and oppression, Proverbs 4. 17. The other, The bread of deceit.[41]

They are indeed both made of stones, for they still retain their former property, as the event will declare. For though in the beginning such bread be pleasant, Proverb. 20. 17. yet after his mouth is but filled with gravel, Proverb. 20. 17. After which will consequently follow, gnashing of teeth.[42]

Notes:

This section of the sermon begins to consider the first temptation.

“Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread.” But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”” (Matthew 4:1–4, ESV)

We must not think that these were the only temptations which Jesus ever faced. But there are representative temptations. The temptations follow in a pattern which was laid down in the Garden when the Serpent tempted Eve. First, there is the temptation to distrust God. Second, there is the temptation to trust yourself. Third, there is the temptation to full idolatry.

Thus, in the attack, the Devil must begin by striking at our faith.  He does this with Christ by first asking him, are you really the Son of God. That voice you thought you heard 40 days ago? Did you really hear anything? Really? If you are the Son of God, then why are you here in the desert starving to death?

You cannot really trust God to take care of you. That is for certain. But I’ll tell you what, if you are really the Son of God you could certainly do something little like turning these stones into bread.

If Jesus had made bread, would the Devil have left him alone? “Oh, you are the Son of God, my bad.” No. The Devil would have continued to press Jesus to distrust God. The attack at each step was an attack upon trust in God. That is the nature of temptation. It attacks at faith: God is not to be trusted. You can only trust yourself.

This is the critical element of this section of the sermon: Temptation first comes at faith. It seeks to dislodge us from God. The response must be then to focus on our trust of God.

Jesus saw through the temptation and knew what the Devil aimed at: His answer, Man shall live by what God says.

Andrews then turns the matter around and looks at the Devil’s temptation the other direction. The Devil comes to us when we are hungry and he only offers us stones. He says, see if you can eat that? He is not seeking to free us, but to ruin us.

What is the Devil’s means of getting bread? It is not farming and waiting and making bread. It is stealing, oppression, fraud. If we eat such bread, it will turn to gravel in our mouths.


[1] “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:30–31, ESV)

[2] The three temptations of Satan which are recorded should be understood as a sort of summary of all the temptations Christ suffered.

[3] “So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.” (1 Corinthians 15:42–49, ESV)

[4] This text has provoked a great deal of confusion over time. Here is an excellent discussion of this text and how Matthew is in fact using Hosea. https://www.gracechurch.org/sermons/10928

[5] “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world.” (1 John 2:15–16, ESV)

[6] The Devil was the first to trick (hoodwink) Adam into believing that God did not want Adam to have good. The Devil was thus (falsely) offering Adam sight.

[7] “Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. Do not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.”” (1 Corinthians 10:5–7, ESV)

[8] The temptation of Christ follows the same pattern as took place in the Garden. The first move was to assert that God was withholding some good thing. To Eve, the Serpent says that God is withholding the fruit because God does not want Eve to know good and evil. To Christ, the Devil says God is withholding food from you, why don’t you make bread? Second, the Serpent tells Eve you should eat the fruit, it won’t hurt you. It will make you better. To Christ he says, throw yourself down from the temple. You won’t be hurt. Third, the Serpent bring Eve to actually rebel against God. To Christ, the Devil says, just worship me.

[9] Most prior theologians.

[10] Martin Bucer, protestant theologian, 1491 – 1551.

[11] The majority of theologians speak of the temptation to make bread being a temptation to gluttony. But that does not make sense. Why offer bread if it was gluttony. Moreover, the response to a temptation to gluttony is sober self-control. But Jesus does not speak about self-control. Instead, the temptation was to despair of God’s oversight of the world, “Why isn’t God taking better care of you?” Jesus goes to his trust in God, not to he has self-control over hunger.

[12] “Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:5, ESV)

[13] “And he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the quarreling of the people of Israel, and because they tested the Lord by saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”” (Exodus 17:7, ESV)  The people became discontent and did not trust the Lord. And so they asked, Is the Lord among us?

[14] The Devil sought to sway Christ’s faith by saying, Well if you are really the Son of God.

[15] Andrews here makes an interesting observation. When Jesus came up from being baptism a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son.” The observation by Andrews takes the humanity of Jesus seriously. Jesus has spent an impossible time alone in the wilderness. He must be near physical death. The comparison to Moses does not even seem appropriate at this level, because was apparently being supernaturally maintained. This fast level Jesus weak and hungry. Matt. 4:2. At that point, one might begin to wonder, did I really hear that voice?

[16] ““Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,” (Luke 22:31, ESV)

[17] “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world.” (1 Peter 5:8–9, ESV)

[18] “For this reason, when I could bear it no longer, I sent to learn about your faith, for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you and our labor would be in vain.” (1 Thessalonians 3:5, ESV)

[19] If the Devil can cause us to doubt God, our obedience will fail.

[20] The Devil’s argument is not based upon a sound premise. We cannot tell whether we are God’s child merely by looking at our present physical circumstances. Sometimes the most wicked person has a long, profitable life; and the most faithful child becomes a martyr.

[21] Abraham and Isaac each had to flee the land due to famine. Jacob had to flee the potential violence of his brother. By looking at merely their circumstances, one could not necessarily conclude that they were favored by God.

[22] “And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God.” (Exodus 3:6, ESV)

[23] “They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated— of whom the world was not worthy—wandering about in deserts and mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth. And all these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.” (Hebrews 11:37–40, ESV)

[24] “To the present hour we hunger and thirst, we are poorly dressed and buffeted and homeless,” (1 Corinthians 4:11, ESV)

[25] We are all children of God by adopted. Jesus is Son of God by nature.

[26] “Jacob’s well was there; so Jesus, wearied as he was from his journey, was sitting beside the well. It was about the sixth hour.” (John 4:6, ESV)

[27] “And Jesus said to him, “Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.”” (Matthew 8:20, ESV)

[28] It is a useful rhetorical trick to press someone to do something which it appears he must be obligated to do or he will lose his reputation. This permits you to gain a degree of control over the other person.

[29] There is no trick which the Devil does not know.

[30] The Devil, If you were really the Son of God, then you could turn these stones into bread. But being made to play tricks for the Devil is not necessary for Jesus to be the Son of God.

[31] “So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”” (John 21:23, ESV)

[32] We should be careful and wise not to respond to every demand of a fool or one who is trying to manipulate us.

[33] Christ engages him in battle.

[34] Christ sees the trap: If he makes the bread, will the Devil leave him alone and admit that he is the Son of God? No. Jesus sees the trap as is shown by his response.

[35] The Devil says, You need bread. God is not going to help you. You have better help yourself. This will then lead to discontent. The examples in the next paragraph show instances of discontent.

[36] If we begin to distrust God, our complaints against God will grow into complete unbelief and rebellion.

[37] When grow to distrust God and rebel, we will turn to serve God’s enemy. It is interesting that turning to God’s enemy we often think ourselves to be serving no one.  As if we were sufficiently clever to avoid the Devil’s scheme.

[38] Since Saul could no longer receive a word from the Lord, he went to see a witch. “Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek out for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants said to him, “Behold, there is a medium at En-dor.”” (1 Samuel 28:7, ESV) Saul will learn that he and his son will die the next day.

[39] “For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent?” (Matthew 7:8–10, ESV)

[40] Andrews here turns the Devil’s temptation on him and in quite an ironic and funny manner. You want help from the Devil? Here is how the Devil helps: You’re hungry? Here are some stones. See if you can make yourself something to eat. But we don’t eat stones. We make bread from wheat.

[41] The way in which the Devil provides bread is by alchemistry like bread into stones, or deceit, or oppression, or stealing.

[42] “Bread gained by deceit is sweet to a man, but afterward his mouth will be full of gravel.” (Proverbs 20:17, ESV)

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner 5.2 (prayer)

12 Thursday May 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Prayer, Richard Sibbes, Richard Sibbes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Prayer, Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner

Sibbes argues from the structure of the text that:  “God answers all those desires which formerly he had stirred up in his people.” Which leads to this observation, “Where God doth give a spirit of prayer, he will answer.” To support this position, begins with the contention that it needs no proof, “It needs no proof, the point is so clear and experimental [that is a matter of experience].” He then provides Scriptural examples, such as Ps. 50:15, “Call upon me in the day of trouble, I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.”

Why is this so? Because the motivation to pray is a motivation which comes from God himself. “The reason is strong, because they are the motions of his own Spirit, which he stirs up in us. For he dictates this prayer unto them, ‘Take with you words,’ &c., ‘and say unto the Lord, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously.’”

What then of prayers which are not well-formed, which may not even amount to clear words due to our distress?

‘the Spirit also helps our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself makes intercession for us, with groanings which cannot be uttered,’ Rom. 8:26. Therefore there cannot a groan be lost, nor a darting of a sigh. Whatsoever is spiritual must be effectual, though it cannot be vented in words. For God hath an ear, not only near a man’s tongue, to know what he saith; but also in a man’s heart, to know what he desires, or would have.

Thus, prayer begins and ends with God, “God, he first prepares the heart to pray, then his ear to hear their prayers and desires.” This should be a strong encouragement to prayer:

a Christian hath the ear of God and heaven open upon him; such credit in heaven, that his desires and groans are respected and heard. And undoubtedly a man may know that he shall be heard when he hath a spirit of prayer; in one kind or other, though not in the particulars or kinds we ask, hear he will for our good. God will not lose the incense of his own Spirit, of a spirit of prayer which he stirs up, it is so precious. Therefore let us labour to have a spirit of prayer,

He raises the question of how God answered their prayer. The prayer was “take away all mine iniquity.” Yet God anwers that he will “heal their backsliding”. Backsliding being a more serious crime than mere sin.

Ans. To shew that he would answer them fully; that is, that he would heal all sins whatsoever, not only of ignorance and of infirmity, but also sins willingly committed, their rebellions and backslidings. For, indeed, they were backsliding.

He recounts the gravity of Israel’s sin and idolatry. It was such as to seem a hopeless case. But God offers to cure this hopeless case. Here, the rhetorical form of Sibbes’ sermon becomes objection and answer:

So that we see, God, when he will comfort, will comfort to purpose, and take away all objections that the soul can make, a guilty soul being full of objections. Oh! my sins are many, great, rebellions and apostasies. But, be they what they will, God’s mercy in Christ is greater and more. ‘I will heal their backsliding,’ or their rebellion. God is above conscience. Let Satan terrify the conscience as he will, and let conscience speak the worst it can against itself, yet God is greater. Therefore, let the sin be what it will, God will pardon all manner of sins. As they pray to pardon all, so he will ‘take away all iniquity, heal their backsliding.’

By putting this into the form of objection-answer, Sibbes can deal with the objections which will naturally cause one to hesitate: I am simply too evil to be forgiven.

Another practical preaching point: Rather than ask, perhaps one someone here may feel, someone here may thing; which is the common way of presenting objections: Sibbes merely states the objections. To ask, “Maybe you feel, maybe you have experienced” is to give the hearer a ground to create a distance. We have a natural tendency to wish to not be drawn in. But to merely state the objection allows us to listen and respond. We are lead to consider our own hearts by this indirect approach.

Why then does God use the word “heal” (“I will heal their backsliding”) rather than forgive and sanctify? To heal implies a wound, disease. From this we have:

  1. The malignity and venom of it; and then,
  2. The wound itself, so festered and rankled.

Now, pardoning grace in justification takes away the anguish and malice of the wound, so that it ceaseth to be so malignant and deadly as to kill or infect. And then sanctification purgeth and cleanseth the wound and heals it up.

Here, Sibbes again speaks with utter frankness at the horror of sin and the guilty of humanity. But in all of this there is no condemning tone of I am better than you sinful congregation! He is both plain and sympathetic. It is a tone I have rarely seen preachers achieve.

First, he states the general proposition: God heals sin:

Now, God through Christ doth both. The blood of Christ doth heal the guilt of sin, which is the anger and malignity of it; and by the Spirit of Christ he heals the wound itself, and purgeth out the sick and peccant humour by little and little through sanctification. God is a perfect healer. ‘I will heal their backsliding.’

He then notes our weakness generally, by referring to the “church” being prone to backsliding:

See here the state of the church and children of God. They are prone to backsliding and turning away. We are naturally prone to decline further and further from God. So the church of God, planted in a family in the beginning of the world, how soon was it prone to backsliding. This is one weakness since the fall.

He then develops the general idea by making it more personal: it is not the abstract “church” but our very nature which is subject to this weakness:

It is incident to our nature to be unsettled and unsteady in our holy resolutions. And whilst we live in the midst of temptations, the world, together with the fickleness of our own nature, evil examples, and Satan’s perpetual malice against God and the poor church, are ill pilots to lead us out of the way.

He now turns to the matter of healing a “wound and disease.” This again is a move which is not common in most contemporary preaching. Sibbes is chasing down the understanding of the metaphor: If we must be healed, then we must have a wound or disease. If we have a wound or disease, what does that entail? It the second move, what is inherent in a wound or disease which goes beyond most preaching.

It is not necessarily bad that most preachers do not make this move, because the secondary move can easily lead to idea wholly unsupported and purely speculative. But as we shall see, Sibbes avoids the error or rank speculation. Another fault other than speculation is that the preacher could easily be led off into nonsense or matters well beyond the task at hand.

However, when this second move is handled with great care and wisdom, a sound theology and constant Scriptural application, the result can be something quite profound.

← Older posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.3
  • Weakness
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.2
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.1
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior.1

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.3
  • Weakness
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.2
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior Book 1.1.1
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion With Her Savior.1

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • memoirandremains
    • Join 629 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • memoirandremains
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar