Category Archives: Mortification

Stephen Charnock, A Discourse on Mortification.4

11 Tuesday Aug 2020

Posted by in Mortification, Stephen Charnock

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Charnock then considers affirmative evidence of true mortification. 

First, “When upon a temptation that did usually excite the beloved lust, it doth not stir, it is a sign of a mortified state.” He provides Peter as an example. Before the crucifixion, Peter famously boasted that though all desert Jesus, Peter would not. Peter proceeds to deny Christ. As Thomas Manton put it, “Peter, that ventured upon a band of men, was overcome by the weak blast of a damsel’s question.”

(Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 8 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1872), 496.)

But then after Christ rose and confronted Peter three times with the question, “Do you love me more than these?”, Peter did not rise in his pride as he did before. “His answer goes no further than, ‘Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee,’ without adding ‘more than these.’”

Or the way in which a sick man will not eat the best dinner, it is a sign he has no taste for the meal. “So when a man hath a temptation to sin, decked and garnished with all the allurements the devil can dress it with, and he hath no stomach to close with it, it is a sign of a mortified frame.”

Second, “When we meet with few interruptions in duties of worship.” How easily and often are we turned away from our duty to “lay fast hold on God.” When everything turns us away, it implies that we are taken by everything but God. He compares this to an army: does it stop us at every turn? Then it is a “well-bodied army.” But where the incidents are few, there are few soliders. 

The third point is the key: merely refraining from sin is not mortification – but when the thief no longer steals but now works so that he can give to others, that is evidence of mortification. As Charnock puts it, “When we bring forth the fruits of the contrary graces, it is a sign sin is mortified. It is to this end that sin is killed by the Spirit, that fruit may be brought forth to God; the more sweet and full fruit a tree bears, the more evidence there is of the weakness of those suckers which are about the root to hinder its generous productions.”

Stephen Charnock, A Discourse on Mortification.3

06 Thursday Aug 2020

Posted by in Mortification, Stephen Charnock

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

“The second thing is, how we may judge of our mortification.”

Those things which are not true mortification. 

Merely reframing from some action: “All cessation from some particular sin is not a mortification. A non-commission of a particular sin is not an evidence of the mortification of the root of it. Indeed, a man cannot commit all kinds of sin at a time, nor in many years; the commands of sin are contrary, and many masters commanding contrary things cannot be served at one and the same time.”

One may give up only the outward display of the sin while maintaining the desire. Jesus explains that adultery and murder begin in the heart as unspoken lust and anger. They are still sin, even if not displayed. 

Or one may cease to commit some particular sin for a number of reasons. Sometimes a sin is not committed because there is simply no opportunity to commit the sin. I would be thief, if only there were something to steal. “The pollutions of the world may be escaped when the pollutions of the heart remain.”

Some sins we cannot commit because our body will not cooperate with the sin. (It was once explained to me that one reason for jail for violent crime is that kept a young man out of service until he became too old to engage in such crimes.) “A present sickness may make an epicure nauseate the dainties which he would before rake even in the sea to procure. There is a cessation from acts of sin, not out of a sense of sin, but a change of the temper of his body.”

Sometimes a flood of guilt or shame keeps one off from a particular sin for some time, but when the guilt subsides and the opportunity returns, so does the sin. 

And finally, one may just trade one sin for other. “A cessation from one sin may be but an exchange.” Certain sins are mutually exclusive: you cannot be profligate and a miser at the same time. 

Being prevented from engaging in a sin: “Restraints from sin are not mortification of it. Men may be curbed when they are not changed; and there is no man in the world but God doth restrain him from more sins, which he hath a nature to commit, than what he doth actually commit.”

Why is a restraint not mortification? Restraints do not get to the heart. 

“Mortification is always from an inward principle in the heart, restraints from an outward.” True mortification will not be merely refraining from some action, but also a desire to refrain. “In a renewed man, there is something beside bare considerations to withhold him, something of antipathy which heightens and improves those considerations, whereby the soul is glad of them, because the edge and dint of them is against sin.”

In true mortification, one does not refrain from the sin because it is too hard to commit; one refrains from the sin because there is a “hatred of sin”.  “[M]ortification proceeds from an anger, a desire of revenge.”

Sin is not the bare action: the law distinguished between an accidental killing a deliberate murder: the intent made the thing a sin. Thus, mortification is not merely the outward restraint but a change in the thought and affection, “Mortification is a voluntary, rational work of the soul; restraints are not so. The devil hath nothing of his nature altered, but hath as strong an inclination to sin as ever, though the act he intends is often hindered by God.”

Stephen Charnock, A Discourse on Mortification.2

02 Sunday Aug 2020

Posted by in Mortification, Stephen Charnock

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

I. What mortification is.

Charnock begins with a definition of “mortification” (killing). He lists four aspects of mortification, breaking with sin, a declaration of hostility toward sin, resistance to sin, killing sin.

Breaking with sin. Charnock notes the strength which sin is said to hold over the human being. Sin is likened to a king with subjects, “Sin is therefore said to have dominion, to make laws, whence we read of the law of the members.” Sin is as close to the human being as flesh is to bone.  Therefore, there can be no end of sin’s work until one divorces sin. There must be “a stopping the ears against the importunities of it, and refusing all commerce and cohabitation with it.”

Hostility.  We cannot merely say that we are done and then be done with sin. If we break with sin we merely move to a state of war. Sin will either have its way with us, or we will need to be at war with sin:

And here behold that irreconcileable and tedious war, without a possibility of renewing the ancient friendship, and which ends not but with a total conquest of sin. This hostility begins in a bridling corrupt affections, laying a yoke upon anything that would take part with the enemy. It cuts off all the supplies of sin, stops all the avenues to it; which the apostle expresseth by ‘making provision for the flesh,’ Rom. 13:14, &c.; a turning the stream which fed sin another way 

Resistance: “A strong and powerful resistance, by using all the spiritual weapons against sin which the Christian armoury will afford.” Charnock makes an interesting observation by resting sin and movement to sin in disordered affections, “a bringing the affections into order, that they may not contradict and disobey the motions of the Spirit and sanctified reason.”

Killing: This comes from the meaning of the language of Paul. For instance, in Colossians 3:5, Paul uses the verb nekrosate: you put to death, kill, “to reduce to a carcase.”

Every day there is to be a driving a new nail into the body of death, a breaking some limb or other of it, till it doth expire.

Stephen Charnock, A Discourse on Mortification.1

28 Tuesday Jul 2020

Posted by in Mortification, Puritan, Stephen Charnock

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Charnock first introduces his text, Romans 8:13, “For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” He makes the point that, “You must not imagine you shall be justified without being sanctified.” There is a strange belief that (using an image from Dallas Willard) salvation is sort of like an arbitrary barcode slapped onto a product. The scanner reads the code and ignores the item. If a “soap” barcode is put on a box of cereal, the scanner reads “soap.” We believe that if we receive the barcode “saved” that will read by the scanner on judgment day, no matter who we are.

Charnock then defines “flesh” and “body”: “Some, by flesh, understand the state under the law; others, more properly, corrupted nature. Ye shall die, without hopes of a better life. But if you mortify the deeds of the body: the deeds of the body of sin, which is elsewhere called the body of death; the first motions to sin and passionate compliances with sin, which are the springs of corrupt actions. Corrupt nature is called a body here, morally, not physically; it consisting of divers vices, as a body of divers members.”

The verse consists of a threat and a promise; an act and an object. A great deal of Puritan precision is simply a matter of paying attention to the text. Exegesis is a matter of paying attention, asking questions and thinking. When people first hear someone carefully exegete a text is sounds like magic; when in fact it is merely carefully reading.

Charnock then makes a few deductions from the text. “Sin is active in the soul of an unregenerate man.” Second, “Nothing but the death of sin must content a renewed soul. The sentence is irreversible: die it must.” This is a present tense, continual action. 

“The knife must still stick in the throat of sin, till it fall down perfectly dead. Sin must be kept down though it will rage the more, as a beast with the pangs of death is more desperate.”

This rampage against sin must be universal, from all actions and intentions, from the first motion to the last completion.

“The greatest object of our revenge is within us. Our enemies are those of our own house, inbred, domestic adversaries; our anger is then a sanctified anger when set against our own sins. Our enemy has got possession of our souls, which makes the work more difficult.”

How then is this done?  “Man must be an agent in this work. We have brought this rebel into our souls, and God would have us make as it were some recompence by endeavouring to cast it out; as in the law, the father was to fling the first stone against a blasphemous son.”

And how, “Through the Spirit. (1.) Mortification is not the work of nature; it is a spiritual work. Every man ought to be an agent in it, yet not by his own strength.” 

And here a bit of summary, “The difficulty of this work is hereby declared. The difficulty is manifested by the necessity of the Spirit’s efficacy. Not all the powers on earth, nor the strength of ordinances, can do it; omnipotency must have the main share in the work.”

And from this the “doctrine”, the thesis statement: 

The doctrine to be hence insisted on is this: Mortification of sin is an universal duty, and the work of the Spirit in the soul of a believer, without which there can be no well-grounded expectations of eternal life and happiness.

The Only Way to Mortify Sin

16 Sunday Sep 2018

Posted by in Mortification, Thomas Brooks

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

Thomas Brooks, The Unsearchable Riches of Christ

Proposition

the exercise and, improvement of grace in your souls, will be more and more the death and ruin of sin in your souls.

Argument 1

Take it from experience; there is not a choicer way than this for a man to bring under the power of his sin, than to keep up the exercise of his grace.

Two illustrations

Sin and grace are like two buckets at a well, when one is up the other is down; they are like the two laurels at Rome, when one flourishes the other withers.

Restated proposition

Certainly, the readiest and the surest way to bring under the power of sin, is to be much in the exercise of grace:

Argument 2

Rom. 8:10, ‘And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin: but the spirit is life because of righteousness.’ The life and activity of Christ and grace in the soul, is the death and destruction of sin in the soul.

Restated proposition

The more grace acts in the soul, the more sin withers and dies in the soul.

Illustration

The stronger the house of David grew, 2 Sam. 3, the weaker the house of Saul grew. As the house of David grew every day stronger and stronger, so the house of Saul every day grew weaker and weaker.

Restated proposition

So the activity of the new man is the death of the old man.

Illustration and application

When Christ began to bestir himself in the temple, the money-changers quickly fled out, Mat. 21:12–14. So when grace is active and stirring in the soul, corruption quickly flies.

Restated proposition

A man may find out many ways to hide his sin, but he will never find out any way to subdue his sin, but by the exercise of grace.

Argument from experience

Of all Christians, none so mortified as those in whom grace is most exercised.

Concluding illustration and application

Sin is a viper that must be killed, or it will kill you for ever; and there is no way to kill it but by the exercise of grace.

Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, Direction II.A

29 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in Exegeting the Heart, Mortification, Puritan, Sanctification, Sanctifictation, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

(The prior post in this series may be found here.

In this section Marshall deals with the question of motivation, “we must have an inclination and propensity in our hearts” to do what God requires. There are two reasons for this. First, we will not act without the inclination. Second, the law of God itself requires love — and actual desire. It is not bare conduct which satisfies the will of God.

He begins by noting that this work of sanctification is too difficult to attain to without a satisfactory motivation:

And shall we dare to rush into the battle against all the powers of darkness, all worldly terrors and allurements, and our own inbred domineering corruptions, without considering whether we have sufficient spiritual furniture to stand in the evil day?

There are four “endowments” which Marshall lists as necessary. The first is “an inclination and propensity of the heart to the duties of the law”.  This first element is the primary category. The remaining three elements matter as these support the desire to act:

[The duty required is not bare instinctual conduct” but such a one as it meet for intelligent creatures, whereby they are, by the conduct of reason, prone and bent to approve and choose their duty, and averse to the practice of sin. And therefore, I have intimated that the three other endowments [a new natures, confidence in the eternal state, and confidence they we will persevere] are subservient to this as the chief of all, which is are sufficient to make a rationale propensity.

Marshall here sets out a theory of human motivation: A human being will not fulfill the law of God (love of God and love of neighbor) unless he has a new nature, a “hope of heaven” and certainty that the hope is real for him.

Hope functions like magnetic north for a compass needle: Hope draws the attention and orders the conduct. We must have some hope and reasonable assurance to undertake any task. One will promise to come to see another because he has hope that it will be possible to make the trek and has sufficient reason to undertake the work. But no one (who is sane) would promise to be around the world in 30 seconds, or to travel back in time. Therefore, we need hope and we need those supernatural helps (a new nature and faith to lay hold upon what is promised to the new nature) to increase in holiness.

Next we will look at Marshall’s discussion of “inclination and propensity”.

Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification, Direction I

25 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Mortification, Sanctification, Sanctifictation, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Marshall’s book, published in 1692 (12 years after his death), sets out 14 directions on the doctrine of sanctification and its relationship to justification. It is publication with an introduction by Joel Beeke, published by Reformation Heritage Books.

Direction I: That we may acceptably perform the duties of holiness and righteousness required by the law, our first work is to learn the powerful and effectual means whereby we may attain to so great an end.

Marshall begins with the proposition that Christians are required to holiness: we are saved to holiness The question is how, what is the means by which we attain to such holiness?

He notes that if we take seriously the doctrine of original sin, we must recognize that we in ourselves lack the ability to attain to such holiness. And he rebukes those who merely insist upon holiness as if it merely required effort and self-will:

Yea, many that are accounted powerful preachers, spend all their zeal in the earnest pressing the immediate practice of the law, without any discovery [disclosure] of the effectual means of performance: as if the works of righteousness were like those servile employments that need no skill and artifice at all, but industry and activity.

The means for sanctification is a grace communicated by God to us — it cannot be known without God’s disclosure. The means appointed by God are the Scriptures received by faith: “God hath given, in the holy scriptures by his inspiration, plentiful instruction in righteousness, that we may be thoroughly furnished for every good work….[W]e cannot apply ourselves ourselves to the practice of holiness, with hope of success, except we have some faith concerning divine assistance, which we have no ground to expect, if we use not such means as God has appointed to work by.”

Study Guide, The Mortification of Sin, Chapter 12.b

19 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by in John Owen, Mortification, Theology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The previous post in this series may be found here

In the remainder of the chapter, Owen details the manner in which we do not know God. The study will pick up on page 111 of Kaipic/Taylor.

 

  1. Has any one ever seen God? What of Moses?

 

  1. The Puritans (as advised by William Perkins) would engage in the work of addressing objections to a doctrine (you will see this in Spurgeon’s sermons when he says, “Someone will say ….”). What is the objection which Owen addresses?

 

  1. While it is true that we have a fuller knowledge of God after the Incarnation, we still do not have a full understanding. What language does Paul use to describe our knowledge of God?

 

  1. Owen draws an analogy of how we understand God, and how a child understand his father. Explain and apply this analogy to our knowledge of God. (p. 113)

 

  1. What will say when we finally come to see God when we come into the presence of His glory?

 

  1. The next argument Owen uses to prove his point is an argument from the lesser to the greater: If we do not know what we will be (the lesser), how can we possibly know God (the greater)?

 

  1. Owen now seeks to detail and prove his point: We do not know God.

 

  • Note how God describes himself: “invisible, incomprehensible, and the like?—that is, he whom we do not, cannot, know as he is. And our farther progress consists more in knowing what he is not, than what he is.” (114). In-visible means not visible. In-comprehensible means not to be comprehended. These are negative describes, something is not, rather than an affirmative statement of God is.

 

  • Identify some verses which describe God as invisible or incomprehensible (or infinite, or other statement of what God is not).

 

  • Consider carefully these descriptions. We think in terms of what we can see. When it comes to things which we do not understand, we seek to see it. God is a being we cannot see. Take the next element, incomprehensible: Do you expect to comprehend God? Do you find that we human beings expect to be able to understand God, who God is, what God does? Do we — do you — ever attribute reasons to God (whom we cannot understand).

 

  • What is the effect of the light surrounding God? Can any creature approach unto God?

 

  1. If God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, then what is God? Can you imagine anything which is merely infinite? As soon as you conceive of something, you have made it finite? What of eternal, as soon you have any beginning or ending (or perhaps even now) you have something which is not eternal. Can you imagine something which cannot change? We cannot possibly understand the mere being of God.

 

  1. If we pretend to understand the incomprehensible God, what have we done?

 

  1. If our goal, if it is not to understand God’s being? (114).

 

  1. When it comes to the nature of God, the nature of the Trinity, is it a problem that we cannot explain such things? Are there things about physical universe which human beings do not understand? Can you explain the way in which the soul and the body interact? Can you explain how God moves upon the heart? Is it a surprise that we cannot explain God?

 

  1. If we cannot know God’s being, how can we know God?

 

  1. If we cannot know God by the “normal means” (our senses), how can we know God?

 

  1. Knowing something “by faith” seems like nonsense to post-Enlightenment Westerners: we have a prejudice to claiming that we only “know” things by senses. This is a problem in many ways. First, our senses can be wrong. Second, our beliefs about things are what permits us to know anything. We must believe certain things are true to know anything. Example: You must belief that there is a real world, that you are not dreaming, that there are other rational beings before you can know anything about them.

Moreover, we can only know certain things by faith, by belief. Imagine a young couple: each has formed a deep romantic love for the other, but that love has never been expressed. The love exists but it cannot be known until it is believed. What if the young man tells the lady, “I love you” — but she does not believe him. The love is real, but it is unknown. Only if she believes it to be real, is it real.

The truth about God is real and apparent: Creation, Conscience, Christ; yet, it is not known until it is believed.

Thus, faith in God is not a make-believe exercise.

  1. Since knowledge of God is relational it is regulated by the persons in relation; God is under no obligation to make himself known. What is required to lay hold of things not seen? Whom does God reward?

 

  1. While knowledge by faith is real, does it have any limitations?

 

  1. What are the affirmative statements in the NT which describe the manner in which we do know God?

 

  1. Do we know “enough” of God? In what way? For what purpose?

 

  1. What is the end of our knowledge of God?

 

  1. Explain how we comparatively know God better after the Incarnation?

 

  1. What is the difference in knowledge between a believer and an unbeliever?
  2. How can an unbeliever know “about” God? An unbeliever can know about God from Creation — even from the Scriptures. Unbelievers can study the Scripture and make conclusions based upon that data.

 

  1. Analogy: Is it possible for a historian to know a great deal about President Lincoln (without knowing Mr. Lincoln?)?

 

  1. What does God not intend by his self-revelation?

 

  1. What does God intend by revealing himself to us?

 

  1. A doctrine is never to known simply for its factual value: A doctrine is to known for its effect. What effect should the ultimate incomprehensibility of God have upon us?

Let us, then, revive the use and intendment of this consideration: Will not a due apprehension of this inconceivable greatness of God, and that infinite distance wherein we stand from him, fill the soul with a holy and awful fear of him, so as to keep it in a frame unsuited to the thriving or flourishing of any lust whatever? Let the soul be continually wonted to reverential thoughts of God’s greatness and omnipresence, and it will be much upon its watch as to any undue deportments. Consider him with whom you have to do,—even “our God is a consuming fire;” and in your greatest abashments at his presence and eye, know that your very nature is too narrow to bear apprehensions suitable to his essential glory. (118)

  1. How will such an effect result in deadening (mortification) of sin in our lives?

 

 

Paul Baynes, Brief Directions Unto a Godly Life, chapters 1-13 (revised)

13 Tuesday Oct 2015

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Mortification, Paul Baynes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This is a biblical counseling text from the 17th century.

Here’s what I’ve been working on. I’ll put this up as a pdf with formatting and such when it is completed (at present the bolds, italics, et cetera will not show up in the post). The original text from 1637 is 244 pages long. Below, you will find the first 76 pages. The formatting, chapter headings and such have been added. I have also slightly modernized the text (rather than “speaketh” I have “speaks”).

 

 

Brief Directions Onto a Godly Life:
Wherein every Christian is furnished with most necessary helps for the furthering of him in a godly course here upon earth, that he so may attain eternal happiness.

Written by Mr. Paul Bayne, minister of God’s Word,
to Mr. Nicholas Jordane, his brother.
London
Printed by A.G. for I.N. and are to be sold by Samuel Enderby
at the Starre in Pope’s Head Alley, 1637

The Epistle Dedicatory
To the right worshipful, Mr. Nicholas Jordane, Esquire, and one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace and Quorum, in the County of Suffolk’s,
Sir,
It has been an ancient custom to reserve some lively representation of worthy friends deceased, to thereby continue the remembrance of their virtues, persons, and love. This holy treatise ensuing has served you to that purpose, and that very fitly; for herein you have a true representation and remembrance of your most worthy and loving brother, especially of the most noble and worthy part of it, I mean of his excellent understanding of the mystery of godliness, his most zealous and earnest will and desire of all men’s practice of godliness; and a sincere love unto you in particular, unto whom he primarily directed these directions onto a godly life; which as they do lively express that he had put on the new man, created and renewed in knowledge, righteousness and true holiness. So it is most worthy of our reservation, both in the remembrance in imitation of him. Yea, I confidently affirm, that this faithful remembrance is most worthy and fit always to be carried about us, and daily to be looked upon by us: for it will help us well to put on that new man, and to be conformable to our head Jesus Christ, and to walk before the Lord in holiness and righteousness all the days of our life. For there is this difference between those former corporeal images of earthly bodies and this that men with too much love and use of them, easily fell into superstitious wickedness; but this the more it is loved and used of man, the more will all wickedness be rooted out of their hearts, and the more will they glorify God by a holy life and conversation [conversation means the sum total of on’s conduct] having received this holy treatise at your worship’s hands to publish unto to the world, I am bold to return it unto you for safeguard, both that the world may know unto whom it is obliged for so excellent a monument, as also for the great benefit that shall be reaped thereby. So, Sir, accounting it a wise part in him that cannot speak well, to say but little; I commend you and this treatise to God’s grace which is able to build us up further, even to do wondrously above all that we can ask or think.
Your Worship’s humbly at command,
N.N.

PART ONE: The trouble of this world is sin; redemption by God in Jesus Christ is the only solution. Therefore, our chief goal must be to obtain that salvation by faith. We must distinguish true faith from false – and then lay hold upon the grace to be had in full assurance of God’s love for us. For such faith “is the root and ground of a godly life.”

CHAPTER ONE: OUR PROBLEM IS SIN
The trouble of humanity is sin. Redemption in Christ is the only answer. However, not all have true faith which lays hold on redemption. At times the trouble lies with poor pastors who do not do their job. Some trouble lies with the people who will not hear with faith.

Sure it is, that it was not thus with mankind in the beginning as now it is.

Continue reading →

How We Learn to Not Love the World

22 Tuesday Sep 2015

Posted by in 1 John, 1 Peter, Love, Mortification

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

1 John 2:15–17 (ESV)

15 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. 16 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. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Learning how to not love the world: