Category Archives: Theology

The Wonderful Combat, Sermon 3.2

23 Thursday Jun 2022

Posted by in Lancelot Andrewes, Scripture, temptation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

I.         The Five Shields

They are in number five. First, a preparation of ourselves by the use of Gods sacraments, that we may be the more strong to sustain and bear off temptations[1], and to hold out to the end without fainting.

Secondly, a withdrawing [of] ourselves into the desert, or some other solitary place, there (by meditation) to kindle good thoughts, Psalm. 39. 3.[2]

Thirdly, fasting.

Fourthly, watchful prayer, Matt. 26. 41.[3]

Fiftly, the perfecting of ourselves in the Scriptures.[4]

These be the five shields wherewith Solomon’s temple was hanged.

The Use of Scripture:

(A Storehouse)

Now as for the Scripture, we are to note, that where God speaks of any good that we are to receive out of it,

it is recommended to us as a storehouse,

whether we are to make our resort for the bread of life,

and the water of life, whereof he that tasteth, shall never thirst. John6. 35.[5]

And from thence are we to draw the waters of comfort, out of the fountains of salvation, Isaiah 12.3.[6]

When there is any ill-spoken of, which we are to resist,

then is it commended to us as an armory,

            whence we may fetch any kind of weapon which we shall need, either offensive, as a sword, Hebr4. 12[7] or defensive, as a shield, Pro. 30. 5.[8]

(A Shield)

The Scripture is the broad plate [a shield],

that is to bear off the darts:

our faith is the braces or handle whereby we take hold, Eph. 6. 16[9]

and lift it up to defend ourselves withal.[10]

For the Scripture is a shield Non quod dicitur, sed quod creditur.[11]

Dicitur [it is said] there is the strong and broad matter, fit to bear off:

and Creditur, [it is believed] that is the handle or braces to it.

God spake once or twice, I have heard it, power belongeth unto God. Psalm. 62. 11. So that it suffices not that it be spoken only by God, but we must hear it too: neither must we hear it as the voice of a man, (as Samuel at the first did; who when God called him, thought it the voice of Eli[12]) but as the voice of God, that we which were dead in our sins, us hath he quickened & forgiven us all our trespasses, 1. Thes. 2. 13.[13] This is the perfection of our faith.

Generally, of the scriptures, this is Christ’s opinion, confirmed by his own practice; that if the Devil come as a serpent, here is a charm for him, Ps. 58. 5[14]; or if he come as a lion, here is that is able to prevail against him, 1. Pet. 5. 8. And that the Devil knows well enough, as appears by his malice that he hath always borne it, before it was scripture, when it was but only dictum [said]. For so soon as God had said, Let s make man in our likeness, that word was straight a whetstone to the Devil’s envy.[15] And after the fall, when the seed was promised, that was, and is the cause of all the Devil’s enmity. Gen. 3. 15.[16] So when the promise was reiterated, Gen. 22. 18 that was the cause he so turmoiled all the Patriarchs.[17]

But when the words were to be written, and to become Scripture, then his malice began to grow very hot, in so much that he caused it for anger to be broken, Ex. 32. 19.[18] For the Fathers are of opinion, that all the Devil’s busy endeavor, in making the Israelites to commit idolatry with the golden Calf, was to the end, that he might so heat Moses in his zeal, as that in his anger he should break the Tables of the Law, by casting them hastily out of his hands. We are to note therefore, that there is a forceable sound in the word, which the Devil cannot abide; & not only the sound, but the sight also.[19]

It is written of Augustine, that lying sick on his bed, he caused the seven penitential Psalms to be painted on the wall over against him, in great letters; that if after he should become speechless, yet he might point to every verse when the Devil came to tempt him; and so confute him.[20] Blessed is he that hath his quiver full of such arrows, they shall not be ashamed. Blessed is he that has the skill to choose outfit arrows for the purpose, as the Fathers speak out of Isaiah 49. 2.[21]

Christ saith affirmatively of the Scriptures, that in them is eternal life, John 5. 39[22]; negatively, that the cause of error, is the not knowing of them, Mark. 12. 24. David says[23], it was that that made him wiser than his enemies, than his teachers, and than the Ancients, Psalm. 119. 98. 99[24]. & 110. Knowledge of the truth is the way to amendment after a fall, 2. Tim. 2. 26.[25] There is much calling now-a-days for the Word, and others find fault as fast, that it is no better harkened unto: for as the want of obedience and all other abuses (which are so much cried out against) proceed not only from the not hearing of the Word, but as well from the not mingling of faith with it, (without which mixture, it is nothing worth) it profits not, Heb. 4. 2[26] so the error of the former times was, in yielding too far to the Devil’s policy, by sealing up the Scriptures and locking the storehouse and armory of the people.[27]

It is the policy Christ tells us of in the eleventh chapter of Saint Luke’s Gospel, the two and twentieth verse. A strong man puts the strong-armed man out of his house, and takes away his armor from him: then he needs not fear him.[28]

The like policy we read of 1. Sam. 13. 19. when the Philistines had taken away all smiths and armor, then they thought they were safe.[29] So in the time of darkness, the Devil might let them do their good works, and what they list[30], and yet have them still under his lure: for he might offend them at his pleasure[31], that had no armor to resist him.

All the Children of GOD, had a right and property in the Law of God, as appears by Christ’s words, John 10. 34 he answered them that is, the common people, Is it not written in your law? As though he should say, the Scripture is yours.[32]

To the young man (in the tenth Chapter of Saint Luke’s Gospel, and twenty six verse) that asked Christ what he should do to be saved? Christ answers, What is written in the Law? how readest thou?[33] Whereunto they answer, that we cannot read, or that the book is sealed up, Isaiah 29. 11[34], is as the Devil would have it.[35]

Then hath he a fit time to offer us stones to make bread of.[36] But this answer with our Savior Christ will not be allowed of.[37]

Notes

Andrews discusses five spiritual disciplines which will provide spiritual strength: (1) the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper); (2) solitude for meditation, (3) prayer, (4) fasting, and (5) knowing the Scripture.

In this section he is going to emphasize knowing the Scripture. He refers to the Scripture as a storehouse and a shield. The Word of God is an expression of the power of God. It is a power which will provide us protection from the attack of the Devil. The Devil hates the Scripture and the power of the Scripture.

But for this Scrpiture to be effective, the Scripture must be known and believed. The first fault will then be plain ignorance of the Scripture. The Devil is perfectly content to allow us to be good people as long as we don’t know the Scripture. The second fault is to have access but to not understand or believe the Scripture. To be profitable, it must be understood and believed.

When the Devil comes and says to us, “Make bread from stones,” we will failu if we do not know and believe the Scripture.  

[1] To bear without succumbing.

[2] Psalm 39:3 (ESV)

   3            My heart became hot within me.

          As I mused, the fire burned;

then I spoke with my tongue:

This is an interesting choice to reference meditation. Andrews chose it based upon the fact that musing result strong effect upon him a “fire burned.”

[3] Jesus, speaking to the disciples who fell asleep in the garden of Gethsemane, Matthew 26:41 (ESV) “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

[4] This would mean to become thoroughly acquainted with, understand well.

[5] John 6:35 (ESV)

35 Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

[6] Isaiah 12:1–3 (ESV)

You will say in that day:

                                    “I will give thanks to you, O Lord,

for though you were angry with me,

                                    your anger turned away,

that you might comfort me.

                  2                 “Behold, God is my salvation;

I will trust, and will not be afraid;

                                    for the Lord God is my strength and my song,

and he has become my salvation.”

3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.

[7] Hebrews 4:12 (ESV)  “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.”

[8] Proverbs 30:5 (ESV)

                  Every word of God proves true;

he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.

[9] Ephesians 6:16 (ESV)  “In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one.”

[10] By means of faith, we take up the Scripture and in so doing defend ourselves from the trial.

[11] Not what is said, but what is believed. True belief requires more than mere words. Thus, it is not merely what one professes but what one believes. “Many, I say, the most of men who live under the dispensation of the gospel, do wofully deceive their own souls in this matter. They do not believe what they profess themselves to believe, and what they think they believe.” John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6, “An Exposition on Psalm 130) (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 505.

[12] 1 Samuel 3 records an incident where God audibly calls to the young boy Samuel. Samuel thinks that Eli, the priest is calling him.

[13] 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (ESV) “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”

[14] Psalm 58:4–5 (ESV)

                  4                 They have venom like the venom of a serpent,

like the deaf adder that stops its ear,

                  5                 so that it does not hear the voice of charmers

or of the cunning enchanter.

[15] A “whetstone” is used to sharpen a knife. As soon as the Devil heard of the creation of Adam, it provoked the Devil to envy of the position to be granted to this new creature. 

Paradise Lost, Book I.

Who first seduc’d them [Adam and Eve] to that foul revolt?

Th’ infernal Serpent; he it was, whose guile

Stird up with Envy and Revenge, deceiv’d [ 35 ]

The Mother of Mankind, what time his Pride

Had cast him out from Heav’n, with all his Host

Of Rebel Angels, by whose aid aspiring

To set himself in Glory above his Peers,

He trusted to have equal’d the most High, [ 40 ]

If he oppos’d; and with ambitious aim

Against the Throne and Monarchy of God

[16] Genesis 3:15 (ESV)

                  15               I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and her offspring;

                                    he shall bruise your head,

and you shall bruise his heel.”

[17] Genesis 22:15–18 (ESV)

15 And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven 16 and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”

[18] As Moses comes down from the mountain with the tablets of the covenant realizes that the Israelites are committing idolatry. In his anger he smashes the tablets. Andrews references the interpretation that the Devil’s aim in provoking Israel to idolatry had as its ultimate aim provoking Moses to anger and so to break the tablets.

[19] The Devil cannot abide to hear the Word of God. This provides an interesting understanding of the temptation and Jesus’ response. It is not merely the logic but the fact of the quotations which provide the defense of Jesus. What then of the Devil’s quotation of Scripture. The argument would be that the Devil’s misuse is a distortion which he can bear.

[20] The penitential psalms are the 7 Psalms which particularly concern repentance: Psal. 6, 32, 38, 51, 102, 130. The story of Augustine copying out the Psalms is told variously, “Augustine caused David’s penitential psalms to be drawn upon the walls of his chamber, that he might read them as he lay in his bed; he read and wept, and wept and read.” Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart, vol. 4 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1867), 227.

[21] Isaiah 49:2 (ESV)

                  2                 He made my mouth like a sharp sword;

in the shadow of his hand he hid me;

                                    he made me a polished arrow;

in his quiver he hid me away.

[22] John 5:39–40 (ESV)  “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”

[23] The author of the 119th Psalm is unknown. Andrews takes it that David wrote this Psalm.

[24] Psalm 119:98–99 (ESV)

                  98               Your commandment makes me wiser than my enemies,

for it is ever with me.

                  99               I have more understanding than all my teachers,

for your testimonies are my meditation.

[25] 2 Timothy 2:24–26 (ESV)  “24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”

[26] Hebrews 4:1–2 (ESV) “Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them, but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened.”

[27] Access to the Bible, particularly in one’s own language was a primary element of the Reformation. Andrews is writing within memory of when access to the Bible could be quite difficult for most people. As to errors: There are two errors mentioned in this passage: One error is to have no access to the Bible. The second error is to have access to the Bible but to not believe it.

[28] A strong man needs not fear another whom he has disarmed and thrown out of his house. In the same way, the Devil, as a strong man, can disarm us by taking away from the Scripture.

[29] The passage refers to the Philistines, who were materially more advanced than the Israelites, had control over the blacksmiths Therefore, the Israelites could not forge iron weapons for themselves.  

[30] The Devil might as well let someone go ahead and do some charitable action, if someone so wished (list means to desire).

[31] The Devil can active offensively and conquer; not merely to say something which provokes a strong emotional response. This “offense” in terms of warfare.

[32] When Jesus referes to the Law as “Your Law”, he is telling the Jews that the Scripture was given to them. See, Romans 9:4.

[33] Luke 10:26 (ESV) “He said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? How do you read it?’” The importance for Andrews here is the “your law.”  

[34] Isaiah 29:11 (ESV) “And the vision of all this has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed. When men give it to one who can read, saying, ‘Read this,’ he says, ‘I cannot, for it is sealed.’”

[35] Not knowing the Scripture or not understanding what is read is just as the Devil wishes it to be.

[36] When we don’t know the Bible, we are vulnerable to the Devil’s temptation.

[37] But since Jesus knew the Bible, the Devil’s trick could not work.

The Wonderful Combat, Sermon 2.4

16 Thursday Jun 2022

Posted by in Faith, Faith, Lancelot Andrewes, temptation

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

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)

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, 1.26

14 Tuesday Jun 2022

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper, Genesis, Glory

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Chapter 26

This chapter raises two issues, first the serpent. Kuyper takes it that Eve was surprised to hear from the Serpent. This is a disordering of nature: humans speak to and about animals, but speech moves in only one way.  She should have or must have realized this was some alien power. In Genesis 2:15, God instructed Adam to “keep” the Garden.  That would infer that something dangerous was about.

The verb sh-m-r, to keep, does mean (in appropriate places) an action to protect or preserve.  For instance, in 1 Samuel 25:12, David speaks of “guarding” Nabal’s property. As Wenham explains, “Similarly, שׁמר “to guard, to keep” has the simple profane sense of “guard” (4:9; 30:31), but it is even more commonly used in legal texts of observing religious commands and duties (17:9; Lev 18:5) and particularly of the Levitical responsibility for guarding the tabernacle from intruders (Num 1:53; 3:7–8). Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1987), 67.

This leads to the question, “Guard against what?” It does seem odd, at first glance, to see a command to “protect” when all is very good Adam is in Paradise. Thus, Kuyper is correct to see the implied danger in the command “to keep.”  Kuyper thinks she must have known of

When a beast appears disrupting the natural order, he should have been recognized immediately as the danger previously warned against. Kuyper asserts Eve did know this was the alien power.

The second issue addressed in this chapter is the counter-factual: What if they had withstood the test? They would have known God better as their king and law giver. Their sin did open up a world of knowledge to them. It was an actual form of knowledge, because God sought to bar them from the Garden by armed Cheribum.

Adam and Eve were deluded in what they obtained: they did not actually raise to the preeminence of determining right and wrong in an absolute sense; merely in a rebellious manner refusing to accept God’s pronouncement.  This disruption of the proper relationship with God has left us poor humans with a bad conscience.  He refers to that status as a “holy sensation to feel shame.”

We are thus left with shame were there was once honor.  It perhaps useful to note at this place that we are promise “honor” at the return of Christ (1 Peter 1:7) and we destined for “glory”. (Rom. 8:30) Such honor and glory will then replace all shame which we now experience.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 39.4

03 Tuesday May 2022

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Incarnation

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Fifth Stanza

I have no plea mine Advocate to give.

What now? He’ll anvil arguments great store

Out of his flesh and blood to make me live.

O dear bought arguments: good pleas therefor.

Nails made of heavenly steel, more choice than gold

Drove home, well clenched, eternally will hold.

Notes:

Since a lawyer is limited by the facts of the case (attorneys’ pleas spring from the state/

The case is in), and since this case is so dire, they “knock me down to woe”, the poet has nothing to help:

I have no plea mine Advocate to give.

There is nothing particularly musical about this line: it is a plain statement of fact. And this leaves him with the wholly prosaic question:

What now?

The first line and-a-half of this stanza contain no clever image, interesting musical devices. It is just a clear statement of fact. But when we turn to the Advocate’s work, the stanza becomes “poetic”. This is an interesting rhetorical tactic by Taylor, increasing the rhetorical fireworks when it comes to the Advocate’s work.

How will the Advocate plead for the poet, when the facts are against the poet?

            He’ll anvil arguments great store

Out of his flesh and blood

The image striking: the argument will come from the Advocate’s own “flesh and blood”. Moreover, he will not merely take these arguments, they will be hammered like a blacksmith with iron at a furnace, He’ll anvil arguments.

The picture is grotesque and wonderful: how does not take an hammer and anvil to one’s own body? And yet it is out of the body of the Advocate that the defense is raised.

Here is a central mystery of the Christian claim. All human beings have a body which is ultimate derived from the body of Adam. All people are of one body: “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Acts 17:26 (ESV) Thus, in both a representative and physical sense, all human beings are born “in Adam”.

The Son of God is “made flesh”. (John 1:14) Christ then lives a sinless life, and yet suffers the death allotted to all of Adam’s descendants. Being innocent, and being representative, he bears the weight of the judgment against sin: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” 1 Peter 2:24 (ESV) In the end he is vindicated (as evidenced by this resurrection, Romans 1:4). Christ becomes a new Adam. (Rom. 5:12-19) As raised, he stands as a new humanity.

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 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. 49 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) Much, much more could said on this point from the New Testament. But is without question the doctrine of the Apostles that the physical body of Christ in life, death, burial, and resurrection, becomes the plea for our salvation: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV) The way in which that life of Christ becomes our life is a further discussion. The point here is that Taylor says nothing but what the Bible teaches. In a roughly contemporary work, William Gurnal uses an image which reminds of the language here in Taylor:

“He lived and died for you; he will live and die with you; for mercy and tenderness to his soldiers, none like him. Trajan, it is said, rent his clothes to bind up his soldiers’ wounds; Christ poured out his blood as balm to heal his saints’ wounds; tears off his flesh to bind them up.”

William Gurnall and John Campbell, The Christian in Complete Armour (London: Thomas Tegg, 1845), 6.

These arguments made from the body of the advocate bring life, “to make me live.” As Paul writes: “But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” Romans 4:23–25 (ESV)

These arguments come at great cost, “O dear bought arguments”. They will also work, they are “good pleas.”

Ship’s Nail, courtesy Neil Cummings

The final couplet makes an in ironic use of nails:

Nails made of heavenly steel, more choice than gold

Drove home, well clenched, eternally will hold.

At one level, “nails” references the strength of this argument: They are “heavenly steel.” They are more precious that gold. And they have been fit so well, that the argument will be valid for all eternity: “Drove home, well clenched, eternally will hold.”

The final line contains two pauses, which slows down and underscores the proposition raised: This argument will stand.

The use of nails as the image for the argument then alludes to the basis for the argument: Christ’s sacrificial death. He was nailed to the tree, and in so doing, our sins were nailed to the tree. In this seeming loss, there was victory:

11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Colossians 2:11–15 (ESV)

Thomas Boston, The Crook in the Lot.6 (the sovereignty of God)

29 Saturday Jan 2022

Posted by in Sovereignty, Thomas Boston

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

IV.       HOW IS GOD INVOLVED IN THE PLACING OF THE CROOK IN THE LOT?

Boston provides the following outline for the next section of his work:

Having seen the crook itself, we are, in the next place, to consider of God’s making it. And here is to be shown, (1.) That it is of God’s making. (2.) How it is of his making. (3.) Why he makes it.

A.        God lays the crook in the lot

First, That the crook in the lot, whatever it is, is of God’s making, appears from these three considerations

1.         The crook follows as a “penal evil”

The crook, however it comes, is one sense always a “penal evil.” By this Boston means that it comes as a “punishment or affliction.” A crook is by definition something which hurts, it causes harm in terms of its experience (even if the eventual outcome results in something better).

First, It cannot be questioned, but the crook in the lot, considered as the crook, is a penal evil, whatever it is for the matter thereof: that is, whether the thing in itself, its immediate cause and occasion be sinful or not, it is certainly a punishment or affliction.

This does not mean there is a one-to-one correspondence between what we suffer and some particular conduct on our behalf.  We cannot look at someone who suffers a lingering disease and saw: this person clearly committed a great sin. This is what Boston means by “whether the thing in itself, its immediate cause and occasion be sinful or not.”

Jesus specifically rejects such thinking:

There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? 3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? 5 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

Luke 13:1–5 (ESV)

What then could possibly be the connection between the falling tower and punishment, if those particular men were not uniquely deserving of death? All death comes as the result of sin’s presence in the world. All of us have been conceived under a sentence of death. To be born is to be brought into a world where the only exit will be death.

Death is the punishment which God has brought upon the world for the presence of sin. And in that sentence of death come all of the lesser trials and losses. God takes complete ownership of sentence. Thus, if God is the only ultimate author of the sentence (God being the only one capable of enforcing the judgment), and God takes credit for such being in the world, and if such is in the world, then God must be the ultimate responsible party:

Now, as it may be, as such holily and justly brought on us, by our sovereign Lord and judge, so he expressly claims the doing or making of it, Amos 3:6. “Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” Wherefore, since there can be no penal evil, but of God’s making, and the crook in the lot is such an evil, it is necessarily concluded to be of God’s making.

At this point, someone will ask, yes but what of evil brought upon one in which the pain brought is the result of an actual sin? How is God responsible for a murder? That is an issue which Boston will address later in this work. But that is a real and significant question to be considered.

2.         As a general matter, God is sovereign over all that takes place

The Scripture is plain that God is sovereign over all that takes place in human life:

It is evident from the scripture-doctrine of divine providence, that God brings about every man’s lot and all the parts thereof. He sits at the helm of human affairs, and turns them about whithersoever he listeth [he desires or he pleases]

“Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven and in earth, in the seas and all deep places,” Psal. 135:6. There is not any thing whatsoever befals us without his over-ruling hand.

This must be grasped:

With reference to the government of Providence, it is said of God, that “he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth.” Even insensible matter is under his control. Fire and hail, snow and vapour, and stormy wind, fulfil his word: and with reference to intelligent agents, we are told that he maketh the most refractory, even the wrath of man, to praise him, and the remainder of wrath he restrains. The whole Bible exhibits Jehovah as so ordering the affairs of individuals, and of nations, as to secure the grand purpose he had in view in creating the world,—viz., the promotion of his own glory, in the salvation of a multitude which no man can number, of all nations, and kindreds, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues. One of the most prominent distinctions between divine revelation and ordinary history is, that when the same general events are narrated, the latter exhibits—(it is its province so to do—it is not able indeed to do more,) the agency of man, the former, the agency of God. Profane history exhibits the instruments by which Jehovah works; the finger of divine revelation points to the unseen but almighty hand which wields and guides the instrument, and causes even Herod and Pontius Pilate, together with the Jews and the people of Israel, to do what the hand and the counsel of God determined before to be done.—George Payne, in “Lectures on Christian Theology,” 1850.

C. H. Spurgeon, The Treasury of David: Psalms 120-150, vol. 6 (London; Edinburgh; New York: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), 194.

Boston underscores this point with the observation that God’s providence is comprehensive when it comes to our life:

The same providence that brought us out of the womb, bringeth us to, and fixeth us in, the condition and place allotted for us, by him who hath determined the times and the bounds of our habitation, Acts 17:26. It over-rules the smallest and most casual things about us, such as hairs of our head falling on the ground, Matth. 10:29, 30. A lot cast into the lap, Prov. 16:33.

There is a profoundly difficult aspect of God’s sovereignty which concerns our decisions and our will. It is one thing for God be sovereign over the rainfall and the sunshine, but is God sovereign over our decisions:

Yea, the free acts of our will, whereby we choose for ourselves, for, even “the king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water,” Prov. 21:1. And the whole steps we make, and which others make in reference to us; for “the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps,” Jer. 10:23.

And this applies to all sorts of human actions:

And this, whether these steps causing the crook to be deliberate and sinful ones, such as Joseph’s brethren selling him into Egypt; or whether they be undesigned, such as manslaughter purely casual, as when one hewing wood kills his neighbour with the head of the axe slipping from the helve, Deut. 19:5.

Boston does not unwrap the quandary of God’s providence and human decision making not being the actions of a puppet. But he does begin to open the puzzle as to how God could be involved in sinful actions:

For there is a holy and wise providence that governs the sinful and the heedless actions of men, as a rider doth a lame horse, of whose halting, not he, but the horse’s own lameness, is the true and proper cause; wherefore, in the former of these cases, God is said to have sent Joseph into Egypt, Gen. 45:7. And, in the latter, to deliver one into his neighbour’s hand. Exod. 21:13.

This then raises the confusing question of how could God be sovereign over all, and God order that sin not be committed, and also be sovereign over sin (even if it is permitted and not mandated)? While Boston will spend more time on this question, below, the unwrapping of that riddle is not his aim here. A useful article to begin wrestling with that question can be found here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god

3.         God’s providence is sure

The decisions of God are not potential or suggestive. God’s will is certain and his decrees unchangeable:

Lastly, God hath, by an eternal decree, immoveable as mountains of brass, (Zech. 6:1.) appointed the whole of every one’s lot, the crooked parts thereof as well as the straight. By the same eternal decree, whereby the high and low parts of the earth, the mountains and the valleys, were appointed, are the heights and depths, the prosperity and adversity in the lot of the inhabitants thereof, determined; and they are brought about, in time, in a perfect agreeableness thereto.

If God’s will is set and established before I am even more, then this crook has been laid in my lot from prior to my existence. It was here before I came upon it as I moved through time. It is as if one were hiking through the mountains and came upon a ravine without a bridge. The ravine was there before I began my hike. It could never have not been there when I came to that place:

The mystery of providence, in the government of the world, is, in all the parts thereof, the building reared up of God, in exact conformity to the plan in his decree, “who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will,” Eph. 1:11. So that there is never a crook in one’s lot, but may be run up to this original. Hereof Job piously sets us an example, in his own case, Job 23:13, 14. “He is in one mind, and who can turn him? And what his soul desireth, even that he doth. For he performed the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him.”

4.         Consideration

This is not an easy matter to assimilate into one’s thinking. The argument from harm, that a good God could not possibly permit harm (and thus either God cannot prevent it, or God is not good, or there is no God), seems to be a baseline assumption of human beings.  When we pray that God remove a trouble, I know from experience (my own and others) and that we seem to believe that such trouble may have come as a surprise to God.

That it is God’s will that such trouble come upon us, is a difficult thing to understand.  Especially when we also consider promises such as “all things work together for good.” What sort of good entails me watching my child die?

Perhaps our trouble is that we fundamentally misunderstand ourselves, our world, our place in the world, God, and how these things go together.

It is a trite analogy, but it may begin to open a door as to how to think about such things as our trials: A small child cannot understand that candy which tastes good is not good for you. That broccoli which does not taste good is good for you. That the pain of a vaccination is good because it prevents a disease. And so on. Children simply lack the experience and ability to comprehend the incomprehensible things we tell them, things which are true.

If such happens between us and our children, then how much more would there be limits on our understanding compared to an infinite, eternal, all wise God? Think of how little we actually know about what God is doing with creation. Yes, we are not completely ignorant. But think for a moment of how little you can really understand about hints such as:

9 and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God, who created all things, 10 so that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.

Ephesians 3:9–10 (ESV). The glib answer “the angels are watching” does not begin to plumb the mystery hinted at here.

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner 4.3

31 Friday Dec 2021

Posted by in Faith, Faith, Richard Sibbes, Richard Sibbes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

John Street (director of the MABC program at TMU) when teaching on the change which should take place in the Christian refers to the passage in Ephesians 4, where Paul writes a thief must stop stealing and then get a job and give to others. To merely stop stealing is to be a thief between jobs. But to work and give is to be something new. John Owen explains that the death of sin is to abound in grace:

The first is, How doth the Spirit mortify sin?

I answer, in general, three ways:—

[1.] By causing our hearts to abound in grace and the fruits that are contrary to the flesh, and the fruits thereof and principles of them.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 19.

Sibbes makes a similar point about faith. It is not sufficient to merely stop trusting in the creature, we must put our trust in God:

Obs. That it is not sufficient to disclaim affiance in the creature, but we must pitch that affiance aright upon God.

We must cease one thing and begin another. Our faith will be somewhere. If we take it off of the creature and do not place it upon God, we will be like the soul where a demon has been driven out only to return with others worse than himself. Thus, the Scripture commands us repeatedly to take our trust off of the creature and to place it upon God:

We must not only take it off where it should not be placed, but set it where it should be. ‘Cease from evil, and learn to do well,’ Isa. 1:16, 17. Trust not in the creature. ‘Cease from man,’ as the prophet saith, ‘whose breath is in his nostrils,’ Isa. 2:22; ‘Commit thy ways to God, trust in him,’ Ps. 37:5. 

He then makes an argument from common grace. We can read in many heathen authors the reasonable argument that we must stop trusting in the creature. The world will disappoint us. It reminds me of the Fire Sermon of Buddha, ““Everything, monks, is burning. What, monks, is everything that is burning? The eye, monks, is burning, form is burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning. The feeling that arises dependent on eye-contact, whether pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral, that also is burning. 

With what is it burning? It is burning with the fire of passion, the fire of hatred, the fire of delusion. I declare that it is burning with the fire of birth, decay, death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair.” 

He can see the vanity of the creature, but he then can offer no solution beyond rejecting creation. 

This much can be seen without grace:

The heathen, by the light of nature, knew this, that for the negative there is no trusting in the creature, which is a vain thing. They could speak wonderful wittily* and to purpose of these things, especially the Stoics. They could see the vanity of the creature. But for the positive part, where to place their confidence, that they were ignorant in. And so for the other part here, ‘Neither will we say any more to the works of our hands, Ye are our gods.’ Idolaters can see the vanity of false gods well enough. 

But this rejection is insufficient; it is not salvation:

It is not enough therefore to rest in the negative part. A negative Christian is no Christian; 

There must be a movement to trust in God

Oh! such make religion nothing but a matter of opinion, of canvassing an argument, &c. But it is another manner of matter, a divine power exercised upon the soul, whereby it is transformed into the obedience of divine truth, and moulded into it. So that there must be a positive as well as a negative religion; a cleaving to God as well as a forsaking of idols.

* That is, ‘with wit’ = wisdom.—G.

Romans 12, How to Live Together, 5.5

19 Sunday Dec 2021

Posted by in Church Conflict, Incarnation, Romans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Incarnation

5 Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, 

                        “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, 

but a body have you prepared for me; 

            6           in burnt offerings and sin offerings 

you have taken no pleasure. 

            7           Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, 

as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’ ” 

Hebrews 10:5–7.

There is a tendency among human beings to either deny there is a soul, or to deny the body matters and the spirit is all. But the Scripture will have none of that.

The importance of the human being is seen when consider the most spiritual topics, God. While God does not have a body like a man; the Son of God became incarnate as a man (while in manner being degraded in any manner as God). The Incarnation is a mystery beyond all mysteries. But is also the basis of how we must understand all other things:

The incarnation of God, therefore, is the supreme mystery at the center of our Christian confession, and no less at the center of all reality. Consequently, all conceptions of reality that fail to see and savor that all things hold together in Christ, and that he is preeminent in all things, can never be anything but abstract conceptions of virtual realities—that is, invariably hollow and ultimately vacuous concepts pulled away from reality.

John C. Clark and Marcus Peter Johnson, The Incarnation of God: The Mystery of the Gospel as the Foundation of Evangelical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015), 12.

There are many things which could be said of the Incarnation, but one thing which must be understood is the profound importance of the human body. To battle on our behalf, it was first necessary for the Son of God to have the body of a human being, and that the human body was the location of that conflict. Consider this verse:

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, [he shares our nature]

that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, [he destroys death from the position of a human body]

Hebrews 2:14. Think of how the Scripture speaks of our Savior. His announcement into this world is an announcement of being born a human being:

30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.” 

Luke 1:30–33.  Jesus is born. He is wrapped in cloth. He is laid in a manager – and at the end of his life he will again be wrapped in cloth and this time laid in a tomb. 

The crucifixion is the killing of his body. And the resurrection is the resurrection of his body.  And he is Ascended, reigning forever in a body.

The proof of the Resurrection is that his body is no longer in the tomb:

5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” 

Matthew 28:5–7. When he proves to the Disciples he has risen, it is the proof of his body:

24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” 

26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” 

John 20:24–29. That body is the residence of all our blessing:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

Ephesians 1:3. Indeed our salvation is bound upon with the identification of our body with his:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrectionlike his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Romans 6:1–11. Our life is a participation in the life of Christ, in his death, in his burial, in his resurrection.  

The presentation of our bodies in a living sacrifice is premised upon this union with Christ. We can offer no sacrifice apart from him:

24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him. 

Hebrews 9:24–28. The sacrifice of his body is the only sacrifice for sin; a sacrifice never to be repeated. It is a sacrifice rendered “once.” 

We can only understand the sacrifice of our body in light of the sacrifice of his body and our union to that sacrifice. 

Indeed, it is in our union to Christ, a union which is not merely some intellectual proposition, but a sort of union which involves the body of our Ascended Incarnate Lord and our body is the premise of our sacrifice:

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” 

John 14:6 We cannot offer something to the Father but in the life of the Son. We know the Father in knowing the Son. “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” John 14:9. Now these are deep waters in which it is very easy to get lost and drown. For our purposes we need merely assert that our approach to God is only in Jesus Christ, not around him. 

Jesus has made a way for his by taking our nature, by being found in a body which was offered as a sacrifice – and which was received for the forgiveness of sin. We participate in that life, that sacrifice, that resurrection. To participate in that life entails a life our body.  

What you must understand, the human body is the battlefield upon which God defeated his enemies. We participate in that victory in the identification of our life in this body with the life of the Incarnate Son of God. This identification is so great, that the Church, the sum of the redeemed are referred as the Body of Christ. 

The logic of Paul’s argument of how we are to live—and that manner of life is the nature of the “living sacrifice” commanded—is wholly premised upon our identification in the body of Christ. 

The Incarnation makes the life of the Church possible and is the basis for that life.

Seeing more clearly how the life of our body is joined up with the life of Jesus will be the next point.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 36.8, What a strange, strange thing am I

11 Saturday Dec 2021

Posted by in Assurance, Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

But am I thine? Oh! What strange thing’s in me?

Enriched thus by thy legacy? Yet find

When one small twig’s broke off, the breach should be

Such an enfeebling thing upon my mind.

Then take a pardon from thy store, and twist

It in my soul for help. ‘Twill not be missed.

Having affirmed that God is filled with a liberality which the world cannot contain, he turns to himself again and ask, am I thine?

This may seem logically erroneous, because he seems to have resolved that issue previously. But to think in this manner fails to understand the psychology of repentance which Taylor displays in this passage. He does not doubt either the goodness of God or the depth of his sinfulness. He confesses both with elaborate attention. 

The question is whether that goodness in God belongs to him.

The question of assurance has been a dogged question in Christian theology. There have been debates about whether it should even be something permitted as a concept absent some direct revelation from heaven. 

Protestant theology through Luther and Calvin affirms the rightness of a sense of assurance and thereafter developed theological explanations for assurance. Puritan theology, in particular, gave profound attention to the question of assurance. 

We could consider assurance from two perspectives: the matter observed objectively as a doctrine; and the matter observed subjectively as a matter of self-examination. 

Taken from either direction Taylor’s subjective experience, struggling  with assurance while faced with his own sense of sin is coherent with Puritan theology. Two examples from the vast corpus may help support this proposition:

“(2.) When assurance is actually stronger than diffidence, and doth certainly prevail against distracting fears, then it is to be accounted certain assurance, though it be still imperfect.—The truth and the degree of a believer’s assurance doth hold proportion to the truth and degree of his grace; and by this proportion of one to the other they do very much illustrate each other. Thus, First: There is an analogy between grace and assurance, in this, that as grace may be true, although it be not perfect, so may assurance be true assurance when imperfect. Again: As where sin reigns there is no grace, so where doubting reigns there is no assurance; but as when grace prevails, it is accounted true grace, so when assurance prevails over doubts, it is to be reckoned true assurance. Lastly. Where grace is perfect without sin, (as in heaven,) there assurance will be perfect without all doubt, and not till then.”

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 6 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 381. And John Owen:

“Self-condemnation and abhorrency do very well consist with gospel justification and peace. Some men have no peace, because they have that without which it is impossible they should have peace. Because they cannot but condemn themselves, they cannot entertain a sense that God doth acquit them. But this is the mystery of the gospel, which unbelief is a stranger unto; nothing but faith can give a real subsistence unto these things in the same soul, at the same time. It is easy to learn the notion of it, but it is not easy to experience the power of it. For a man to have a sight of that within him which would condemn him, for which he is troubled, and at the same time to have a discovery of that without him which will justify him, and to rejoice therein, is that which he is not led unto but by faith in the mystery of the gospel. We are now under a law for justification which excludes all boasting, Rom. 3:27; so that though we have joy enough in another, yet we may have, we always have, sufficient cause of humiliation in ourselves. The gospel will teach a man to feel sin and believe righteousness at the same time. Faith will carry heaven in one hand and hell in the other; showing the one deserved, the other purchased. A man may see enough of his own sin and folly to bring “gehennam è cœlo,”—a hell of wrath out of heaven; and yet see Christ bring “cœlum ex inferno,”—a heaven of blessedness out of a hell of punishment. And these must needs produce very divers, yea, contrary effects and operations in the soul; and he who knows not how to assign them their proper duties and seasons must needs be perplexed. The work of self-condemnation, then, which men in these depths cannot but abound with, is, in the disposition of the covenant of grace, no way inconsistent with nor unsuited unto justification and the enjoyment of peace in the sense of it. There may be a deep sense of sin on other considerations besides hell. David was never more humbled for sin than when Nathan told him it was forgiven. And there may be a view of hell as deserved, which yet the soul may know itself freed from as to the issue.”

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 547.

This struggle with one’s faith seeking assurance was a matter not uncommon among the Puritans. The whole could be a matter of mere morbid self-introspection leading to despair unless a clear eye is kept upon the absolutely graciousness of God.

A key to seeing this in Taylor’s poem is the use of the word “strange.” When he looks at himself he calls himself a “strange strange thing.” His strangeness in that instance is willingness to sin and lack of hatred for his sin. But here he sees something strange – but it is come from God:

                        What strange thing’s in me?

Enriched thus by thy legacy?

In himself he is strange to not love God more. And here he sees a strange work of God to enrich him by God’s grace.

I must admit I am not quite sure of his reference here:

                                    Yet find

When one small twig’s broke off, the breach should be

Such an enfeebling thing upon my mind.

I don’t know what he means by a twig being broken off. In the next lines he will speak to how little he will be asking from God (because God’s well of grace is so great), and that could be a possible reference to this “small twig”. 

It could be that the broken twig is his own conscious introspection, because that does seem to be “enfeebling.” But as it stands, I am not sure of Taylor’s purpose with these two lines.

The remainder is clear enough, however:

Then take a pardon from thy store, and twist

It in my soul for help. ‘Twill not be missed.

The pardon will not be missed on God’s part, because God has such great store of grace. He asks that God take a pardon and then “twist in my soul for help.”

This is striking language: He is not asking for a pardon which does not remedy. He is not saying forgive me as much as change me: forgive and change my life. 

The pardon is ineffective if it were merely a legal declaration: It is that: God does objectively forgive, but that forgiveness is transformative. 

Bonhoffer’s language of cheap grace comes at this concept from another direction but has the same basic aim: The effect of grace is not merely outside the human subject. It is something which happens to us; it transforms in forgiving us.

The whole of this transformation goes well beyond this note, but it must be understood in part to get a purchase on Taylor’s thought. The reason for our irrationality is our distance from God. Our trouble is that we are wrong with God. 

We do not function correctly except in relationship to God. But sin creates a breach in that relationship and renders us a “strange strange thing.” When God’s grace remedies that breach, it creates a “strange thing” in us, because it transforms us. We come into relationship. 

In that relationship, the introspection and self-diagnosis of sin does not destroy the human because it drives us to Christ and forgiveness. 

That is the key difference between bare guilt and conviction. Guilt is a sight of our failure. Conviction is a sight sin which drives to us to Christ. The Puritans referred to guilt as “legal” but that drive to Christ as “gospel.” 

Edward Taylor, Meditation 36.4 What strange strange am I

11 Thursday Nov 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Grace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

But did I say, I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

I eat my word, and wonder more that I

No viler am, though all o’re vile do shine

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

Nay did I say, I wonder t’see thy store

Of kindness, yet me thus vile with all

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

The reason of’t, which makes my wonder rise.

Summary:

These two stanzas cover the same problem from different perspectives. He takes issue with himself over his complaint that he “vile” despite the grace of God. He has asked, If I belong to God’s and God’s grace is effacious, then why am I not more holy?

He turns that question on its head. First, says, rather than wonder why I am so vile; I so should rather ask the question why I am not worse. Second, the real mystery here is not my sin but God’s mercy? Why would he be merciful to me?

Prosody:

To this point, the poem has not been very lyrical. Yet with these two stanzas we see a marked turn in the attention paid to sound. Of particular note is the long I repeated; most noticeably in the I-VILE. 

But did I say, I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

I eat my word, and wonder more that I

No viler am, though all o’re vile do shine

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

Nay did I say, I wonder t’see thy store

Of kindness, yet me thus vile with all

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

The reason of’t, which makes my wonder rise

Notes

But did I say, the parallel will be made with the next stanza, “Nay did I say”. By asking this question twice, he is calling into question his own self-understanding. There is a movement of thought as he holds up the potential responses to his wonder at his own sin. 

 I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

While the verb “spy” may be attributed solely to the rhyme, the emphasis of the verb is on scrutiny and attention. Since the whole of the poem is a psychological and theological investigation of himself, to spy this out is appropriate.

I eat my word, This brings us to the next parallel between the stanza: He will “eat”, then “unsay”  the word he has said. There is a sort of repentance in this, he looks to himself and realizes the error.

and wonder more that I

No viler am, 

This will parallel 

Nay did I say, I wonder t’see thy store

Of kindness

He wonders at himself and at God. But now rather than wondering at the presence of any sin, he wonders at the lack sin! Why am I not even more vile than I presently appear? The parallel then helps with the understand: I am not more vile because the store of God’s grace is so extensive.

The mystery of grace has not transformed: Why am I not perfect if grace “works?” Instead, look at the mystery of grace that he has restrained so much sin.

though all o’re vile do shine This is a fascinating line, particularly in the context of Taylor’s standard imagery. Bright, shine, light are all characteristic he applies to God; while to himself and sin it is a matter of dark and shadow. But here, his vileness shines! The idea of sinfulness so extraordinary that it “lights-up” is strking. 

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

And a parallel:

yet me thus vile with all

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

And the the parallel with the second stanza:

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

The “rod” would be a rod of correction. But the correction is not destruction. As a side note, too much preaching aims at bare guilt, which is a psychological state of feeling bad for having done something wrong. The trouble with guilt is that standing alone it goes nowhere: Okay, I’m guilty. Since the feeling is bad, one merely tries to overcome the bad feeling. What is needed is repentance. It is the kindness of God which moves us to repentance: “God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance.” Romans 2:4

Look here at Taylor realizes:

Why doesn’t God destroy me? The goodness of God (Romans 2:4 in the KJV uses the word “goodness” rather than “kindness” as the English translation of chréston)

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

The reason of’t, 

The addition of a bed of goodness creates a certain peace and restfulness to the whole which is remarkable. 

And now the wonder shifts. At the first, he wondered at his own sin. Now he wonders at the goodness, the kindness, the grace of God:

which makes my wonder rise.

An argument for freedom of conscience, 1661 (part 1, with comments)

28 Wednesday Jul 2021

Posted by in law, Politics, Theology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The following is a remarkable document from 1661, which was presented onto Parliament in England and which seeks for religious tolerance for everyone. Moreover, it is supported in points by statements made by the Stuart kings (James & Charles) It was presented within one year of restoration of Charles II in May 1600. The men who published the document were Quakers. 

The document is written in the form of a series of short propositions. Following the propositions, I will provide a brief comment and try to follow the movement of their (often ingenious) argument. 

I have also modernized the spelling in places.

The title page reads:

Liberty of Conscience ASSERTED, And SEVERAL REASONS RENDRED, Why no Outward Force, nor Imposition, ought to be used in Matters of Faith and Religion: With several SAYINGS, Collected from the Speeches and Writings of KING JAMES, And KING CHARLES the First.

John Crook

Samuel Fisher

Francis Howgill

Richard Hubberthorne.


Acts 5. 38, 39.

Now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this Counsel, or this Work, be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found fighters against God.

This was delivered into the hands of the Members of both Houses of Parliament, the last day of the Third Month, 1661.

London, Printed for Robert Wilson, in Martins Le Grand, 1661.

Liberty of Conscience Asserted, &c.

LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE ought to be allowed in the days of the Gospel in the free Exercise of it to God-ward (without Compulsion) in all things relating to His Worship, for these Reasons following.

Comment:  The liberty asserted is liberty of conscience with respect to religious practice. The argument is premised upon specifically Christian considerations.  There is an interesting phrase, “in the days of the Gospel.” It is unclear whether the authors are referencing all of the time after Christ, or whether they mean a specific period within recent history. If so, the reference would be post-reformation, and likely post-Mary with a knowledge of the Marian suppression of Protestantism. 

1. Because the General and Universal Royal Law of Christ Commands it Matt. 7. 12. All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the Law and Prophets. That which every man would have and receive from another, he ought by Christ’s Rule to give and allow it to another. But every man is willing to have the Liberty of his own Conscience, Therefore ought to allow it to another.

Comment: Here they give a ground for freedom of conscience: (1) It is grounded in a command of Christ. They define this command as “general” and “royal”. By general, it is a law which would apply to all persons and all places. By being “royal” it would be supreme. In addition, the phrase “royal law” coupled to “liberty” is used in James 2:

James 2:8–13 (AV) 

8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. 

While the text does deal specifically with the point raised, linguistically the combination of “royal law” and “law of liberty” is suggestive.

(2) This is an argument which goes to the moral weight of being a human being: You must be protected in your freedom of conscience because you are a human being. This remains true even if I believe you are wrong. 

This is remarkable change from what has been the case in much of human history. When it comes to religion, the belief has typically been that the religious coherence of everyone in the group is necessary to protect the group. If you antagonize a god, we all may be in danger. 

Notice also that your practice may be gravely offensive to me. 

2. Because, No man can persuade the Conscience of another, either what God is, or how he should be worshipped, but by the Spirit, which God hath given to instruct man in the ways of Truth.

Comment: The rationale here is again explicitly Christian. This one takes a somewhat different tack: Rather than argue from the dignity of a human being, this one argues from the work of God. Rather than seeing religion as merely the outward working of a rite, or a publicly approved confession, it is a primarily an inward matter. 

3. Because, All Obedience or Service that is obtained by force, is for fear of Wrath, and not from Love, nor for Conscience sake; and therefore will but continue so long as that fear or force abides upon them.

Comment: This again argues to the fact of subjective conversion: You can make someone engage in a behavior or say as word. What is the value of that? You have not really gained their heart or mind. As soon as they can escape the tyranny, they will. 

4. Because, That by forcing, No man can make a Hypocrite to be a true Believer; but on the contrary, many may be made Hypocrites.

Comment: This turns the religious conformity argument on its head. To be a hypocrite is to falsely profess a faith. You do not really believe X, you are mere pretender. Well then, if you goal is coerce conduct in public, you can do so. But, you cannot argue that you giving honor to God because such conduct can only have the effect of creating one is in greater rebellion against God.

This raises the stakes: Are you truly seeking to honor God or to obtain political power? You can get one, but not other by coercion.

5. Because, That in all forced Impositions upon men’s Consciences there is something of the Wrath of man exercised, which works not the Righteousness of God, but rather begets Enmity in the heart one towards another.

Comment: This argument takes up the argument of point 4 and then enlarges the sphere of sin. You not only make the man coerced a worse sinner, you are actually sinning yourself when you coerce another. This argument comes from James 1:20, “for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.” You are provoking anger in another which is sinful in you. Thus, you cannot coerce religion in the name of God without becoming the enemy of God.

You are also increasing the sum-total of sin by creating enmity between men. 

6. Because, that by forcing any thing upon men’s Consciences, as to matters of Faith and Worship, many are hardened in their hearts against the things imposed; when as otherwise, through Love and gentle Instructionstheir hearts might be persuaded to willing Obedience.

Comment: Continuing in the line of argument that you are actually working against God in your attempt to force religious compliance, he uses the argument that forcing another results in their being unwilling to hear your case. Perhaps you are making a good point, but who will hear when your crushing their liberty?

This creates an interesting move in this overall argument. In point 2 above, he states that true faith will be ultimately a work of God. Therefore, being a work of God, how can someone be persuaded without compromising God’s sovereignty in the work? A resolution of this conflict can be seen by understanding that there are matters upon Christian must agree: those are matters determined by the Spirit of God that God is and is to be worshipped. But, there may be matters which are more open to variation. This will followed upon in point 8, below.

7. Because, That Persecution for Conscience contradicteth Christ’s Charge, Matt. 13. who bids, that the Tares(or false worshippers) be suffered to grow together in the Field(or World) till the Harvest (or End of the World.)

8. Because, Force is contrary to the End for which it is pretended to be used (viz.) the preservation and safety of the Wheat, which End is not answered by Persecution,because the Wheat is in danger to be plucked up thereby, as Christ saith.

Comment: These two points should be seen together. In Matthew 13, Jesus tells a parable of a farmer who planted his field in wheat. In the evening, an enemy also planted seeds of a plant which looked almost identical to wheat. As the plants grow, it can be difficult if not impossible to tell the difference.  The farmer forbids his servants from try to separate the wheat and the weeds so that they don’t accidentally destroy the crop. 

Jesus says this is the nature of the Church: it will contains wheat and weeds. It will be very difficult to tell them apart. Therefore, not until the end will there be a separation of the two. The Church will always involve this confusion. If you, even if you are right, seek to tear out every weed may find that you are also tearing out wheat. 

The argument is again: You cannot coerce another’s conscience as a Christian without contradicting your claim to be a Christian.