Tag Archives: conscience

Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace 1.22, Conscience

23 Friday Apr 2021

Posted by in Abraham Kuyper

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO

CONSCIENCE AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen. 2:16-17

Kuyper begins this chapter with a discussion of conscience. In this opening section he presents two very different concepts of conscience and attributes the modern conscience to be a function of the Enlightenment. 

This discussion of conscience begins with the observation that Adam had no conscience, as we know it. This leads to a discussion of two ways of understanding conscience. In one manner, the newer understanding, conscience is a self-executing faculty which can determine whether a course of conduct is morally appropriate. This faculty as an innate knowledge of what God requires and functions as an “oracle” to our mind.

Functioning in this manner, conscience has an authority independent and over God’s Word. Not raised by Kuyper, but proof of his thesis can be found in the many concessions and transformations of Christian moral behavior and opinion in the world after Kuyper. God’s Word is either rejected or nuanced in such a way as to be meaningless. Any number of examples could be given on the evolution of Christian morality in a number of instances. 

The previous Reformed understanding of conscience before “rationalism was busy trampling faith,”  did not understand conscience as an independent “capacity” but rather as a recurrent reflective mode of thinking. Kuyper identifies three elements of this reflective thought: 

First, it knows the external law of God; the knowledge of good and evil. Second, we have a knowledge of ourselves and our actions. Third, there is a reflexive comparison of our conduct with knowledge of God’s law. He refers to this as a “higher impulse” and pursuant to the impulse we continually reflect on our life in comparison to the law. 

In this respect it then differs from the latter concept of conscience as an independent source of knowledge. 

In this understanding, the conscience is dependent upon the content of the external law which informs and forms the conscience. In looking at some pre-Enlightenment sources, it is possible to see an understanding consistent with Kuyper’s model:

False Rule. 3. Conscience. It is, saith one, my conscience. This is no rule for an upright man; the conscience of a sinner is defiled, Tit. 1:15 conscience being defiled may err; an erring conscience cannot be a rule, Acts 26:9. ‘I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus;’ he who is an heretic may plead conscience; admit conscience to be a rule, and we open the door to all mutinies and massacres; if the devil get into a man’s conscience, whither will he not carry him?

Thomas Watson, “The Upright Man’s Character,” in Discourses on Important and Interesting Subjects, Being the Select Works of the Rev. Thomas Watson, vol. 1 (Edinburgh; Glasgow: Blackie, Fullarton, & Co.; A. Fullarton & Co., 1829), 328. Here, he explicitly denies the conscience has any independent moral standard, but it is imported – at the very least one without salvation cannot have a properly functioning conscience. 

There are other uses which are ambiguous on this point, such as Manton’s “That true morality and good conscience cannot be had without the faith of the gospel; so that we are not only better provided, but indeed cannot perform such obedience as is acceptable to God without faith in Christ.” Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 17 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 429. The trouble for the unbeliever is the inability to pacify the conscience because he cannot live right. This raises the question, why does the unbeliever have any pangs of conscience if he is ignorant of the law?

Thomas Boston goes further and writes: “This moral law is found, 1. In the hearts of all men, as to some remains thereof, Rom. 2:15. There are common notions thereof, such as, That there is a God, and that he is to be worshipped; that we should give every one his due, &c. Conscience has that law with which it accuses for the commission of great crimes, Rom. 1 ult. This internal law appears from those laws which are common in all countries for the preserving of human societies, the encouraging of virtue, and the discouraging of vice. What standard else can they have for these laws but common reason? The design of them is to keep men within the bounds of goodness for mutual commerce.”Thomas Boston, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, Part 2, ed. Samuel M‘Millan, vol. 2 (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1848), 61.

And similarly by another, “but God hath given both light streaming forth from the word, and he hath given the eye of conscience, that by both these men might come assuredly to know that they are called out of darkness unto light.” James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 6 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 389.

In another place we see the conscience being deceived and thus judging wrongly: “Conscience is sometimes deceived through ignorance of what is right, by apprehending a false rule for a true, an error for the will of God: sometimes, through ignorance of the fact, by misapplying a right rule to a wrong action. Conscience, evil informed, takes human traditions and false doctrines, proposed under the show of Divine authority, to be the will of God.” James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 13.

Edwards occupies an interesting middle position, “Thus natural conscience, if the understanding be properly enlightened, and errors and blinding stupifying prejudices are removed, concurs with the law of God, and is of equal extent with it, and joins its voice with it in every article.” Jonathan Edwards, The Works of President Edwards (Worcester: Isaiah Thomas, Jun., 1808), 442–443. There is a natural conscience which would conform to the law of God, were it enlightened. 

And Luther held to a view that conscience can know of sin but not condemn the man as a sinner, “Zachman writes of Luther’s negative view of conscience: “The conscience can recognize sins (acts), but it cannot of itself, even under the external revelation of the law, acknowledge the person as sinner (nature). The subjective ability to feel oneself a sinner and to sense the wrath of God on sinners is thus a gift of God, and not an ability of conscience.” Justification is solely God’s work ex nihilo, not out of any preexistent salvific matters including human accretions, the murmuring of conscience, etc.” Dennis Ngien, Fruit for the Soul: Luther on the Lament Psalms (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2015), 155–156.

And Calvin, “In like manner, when men have an awareness of divine judgment adjoined to them as a witness which does not let them hide their sins but arraigns them as guilty before the judgment seat—this awareness is called “conscience.” It is a certain mean between God and man, for it does not allow man to suppress within himself what he knows, but pursues him to the point of making him acknowledge his guilt. This is what Paul means when he teaches that conscience testifies to men, while their thoughts accuse or excuse them in God’s judgment [Rom. 2:15–16]. A simple awareness could repose in man, bottled up, as it were. Therefore, this feeling, which draws men to God’s judgment, is like a keeper assigned to man, that watches and observes all his secrets so that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence that ancient proverb: conscience is a thousand witnesses.11 By like reasoning, Peter also put “the response11a of a good conscience to God” [1 Peter 3:21] as equivalent to peace of mind, when, convinced of Christ’s grace, we fearlessly present ourselves before God. And when the author of The Letter to the Hebrews states that we “no longer have any consciousness of sin” [Heb. 10:2], he means that we are freed or absolved so that sin can no longer accuse us.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 1181–1182.

This brings us on both sides of the Enlightenment. While none of these examples hold the conscience an infallible witness, there is at least a general sense of God’s law.

Oddly, Kuyper’s position in some way is closer to John Locke,  Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Book 1, Chapter 2:

“7. Men’s actions convince us that the rule of virtue is not their internal principle. For, if we will not in civility allow too much sincerity to the professions of most men, but think their actions to be the interpreters of their thoughts, we shall find that they have no such internal veneration for these rules, nor so full a persuasion of their certainty and obligation. The great principle of morality, “To do as one would be done to,” is more commended than practised. But the breach of this rule cannot be a greater vice, than to teach others, that it is no moral rule, nor obligatory, would be thought madness, and contrary to that interest men sacrifice to, when they break it themselves. Perhaps conscience will be urged as checking us for such breaches, and so the internal obligation and establishment of the rule be preserved.

“8. Conscience no proof of any innate moral rule. To which I answer, that I doubt not but, without being written on their hearts, many men may, by the same way that they come to the knowledge of other things, come to assent to several moral rules, and be convinced of their obligation. Others also may come to be of the same mind, from their education, company, and customs of their country; which persuasion, however got, will serve to set conscience on work; which is nothing else but our own opinion or judgment of the moral rectitude or pravity of our own actions; and if conscience be a proof of innate principles, contraries may be innate principles; since some men with the same bent of conscience prosecute what others avoid.

“9. Instances of enormities practised without remorse. But I cannot see how any men should ever transgress those moral rules, with confidence and serenity, were they innate, and stamped upon their minds. View but an army at the sacking of a town, and see what observation or sense of moral principles, or what touch of conscience for all the outrages they do. Robberies, murders, rapes, are the sports of men set at liberty from punishment and censure. Have there not been whole nations, and those of the most civilized people, amongst whom the exposing their children, and leaving them in the fields to perish by want or wild beasts has been the practice; as little condemned or scrupled as the begetting them? Do they not still, in some countries, put them into the same graves with their mothers, if they die in childbirth; or despatch them, if a pretended astrologer declares them to have unhappy stars? And are there not places where, at a certain age, they kill or expose their parents, without any remorse at all?”

This is a very preliminary exercise and I have never really thought the issue through before. I without question concur that the conscience can be informed and deformed, and it is certainly no infallible rule. But I don’t think the issue can settled as easily as before and after the Enlightenment. 

Thomas Manton Exegeting the Heart.2

21 Tuesday Aug 2018

Posted by in Exegeting the Heart, Thomas Manton, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

An interesting aspect of Puritan Preaching is much of it was deeply, if you will, psychological. An earlier post on this can be found here.

It routinely probed the heart of the hearers, picking apart the mechanisms and relationships between affections, behavior and thought in a way that rarely happens afterwards. It works at the human heart more like a novelist (at their best, novelists are far better psychologists than academic psychologist). Anyway here is Manton teasing out the relationships between fear, conscience, the Gospel, sin, et cetera.

Here, Manton tackles two issues: (1) What is the reason that human beings care not for the proclamation of the Gospel, (2) what lies behind fear. Manton relates the two issues in one paragraph:

Whose nature engageth him to hate sin and sinners: Hab. 1:13, ‘He is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity.’

I urge this for a double reason: partly because I have observed that all the security of sinners, and their neglect of seeking after pardon by Jesus Christ, it comes from their lessening thoughts of God’s holiness; and if their hearts were sufficiently possessed with an awe of God’s unspotted purity and holiness, they would more look after the terms of grace God hath provided; Ps. 50:21, ‘Thou thoughtest I was altogether such an one as thyself.’ Why do men live securely in their sins, and do not break off their evil course? They think God is not so severe and harsh, and so all their confidence is grounded upon a mistake of God’s nature, and such a dreadful mistake as amounts to a blasphemy: ‘Thou thoughtest I was altogether such an one as thyself.’

Sin has as a primary mechanism, the ability to reject the knowledge of God’s holiness and wrath. In making this point, Manton is echoing Romans 1: First we reject the knowledge of God’s hold wrath against sin; then we fall into every sort of sin.

Well, if rejecting knowledge of God’s holy wrath leads to such ill, why do we do it: because we are afraid to consider the alternative:

The other reason is this, particularly because I observe the bottom reason of all the fear that is in the hearts of men is God’s holiness: 1 Sam. 6:20, ‘Who is able to stand before this holy God?’ and ‘Who would not fear thee? for thou art holy,’ Rev. 15:4. We fear his power; why? because it is set on work by his wrath. We fear his wrath; why? because it is kindled by his justice and righteousness. We fear his righteousness, because it is bottomed and grounded upon his holiness, and upon the purity of his nature.

Manton seems to be making a broader point, however. He speaks of all fear having as its base the fear of God’s holiness. This then creates a prison:

I observe, that the law-covenant is in the scripture compared to a prison, wherein God hath shut up guilty souls, Rom. 11:32, ‘He hath concluded or shut them up, that he may have mercy upon them;’ Gal. 3:21, ‘He hath shut them up under sin.’ The law is God’s prison, and no offenders can get out of it till they have God’s leave; and from him they have none, till they are sensible of the justice and righteousness of that first dispensation, confess their sins with brokennness of heart, and that it may be just with God to condemn them for ever.

This creates an interesting series of conflicting motives and irrationalities within the human heart. On one hand there is the fear of God exposing one’s sin — because such exposure is dreadful: it is the door to all doom and thus creates a constant fear. Yet, to not expose that sin creates a prison in the other direction.

This precarious position is made worse by the “danger” of a tender conscience:

What kind of hearts are those that sin securely, and without remorse, and are never troubled? Go to wounded consciences, and ask of them what sin is: Gen. 4:13, ‘Mine iniquity is greater than I can bear;’ Prov. 18:14, ‘A wounded spirit, who can bear?’ As long as the evil lies without us, it is tolerable, the natural courage of a man may bear up under it; but when the spirit itself is wounded with the sense of sin, who can bear it? If a spark of God’s wrath light upon the conscience, how soon do men become a burden to themselves; and some have chosen strangling rather than life. Ask Cain, ask Judas, what it is to feel the burden of sin. Sinners are ‘all their lifetime subject to this bondage;’ it is not always felt, but soon awakened: it may be done by a pressing exhortation at a sermon; it may be done by some notable misery that befalls us in the world; it may be done by a scandalous sin; it may be done by a grievous sickness, or worldly disappointment. All these things and many more may easily revive it in us. There needs not much ado to put a sinner in the stocks of conscience. Therefore do but consider to be eased of this burden; oh the blessedness of it!

That last bit could lead to a fascinating psychological question: what sort “ado” must be kept in place to protect the conscience from sin?

But there is another problem with sin: not only is it dangerous to be exposed, but it is loathsome. Manton proves this by an interesting point: we despise sin when we see it in another — but we do not want to see it ourselves:

a wicked person is a vile person in the common esteem of the world: horrible profaneness will not easily down. Nay, it is loathsome to other wicked men. I do not know whether I expound that scripture rightly, but it looks somewhat so, ‘Hateful and hating one another.’ We hate sin in another, though we will not take notice of it in ourselves. The sensuality and pride and vanity of one wicked man is hated by another; nay, he is loathsome to himself. Why? because he cannot endure to look into himself. We cannot endure ourselves when we are serious. ‘They will not come to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved.’ And we are shy of God’s presence; we are sensible we have something makes us offensive to him, and we hang off from him when we have sinned against him; as it was David’s experience, Ps. 32:3. That was the cause of his silence: he kept off from God, having sinned against him, and had not a heart to go home and sue out his pardon. Oh, what a mercy is it, then, to have this filth covered, that we may be freed from this bashful inconfidence, and not be ashamed to look God in the face, and may come with a holy boldness into the presence of the blessed God! Oh, the blessedness of the man whose sin is covered!

Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 185. This makes an interesting bit of comparison with Nietzsche’s ressentiment (but that is for another time). There is also an interesting question here about those who are peculiarly offended by another’s pride, or envy, or anger (even when it is not directly directed to them).

How Conscience Functions

16 Thursday Aug 2018

Posted by in Preaching, Thomas Manton, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

By comparison with Spurgeon’s “argumentation”, here is a section from Thomas Manton who is in fact making an argument. In the First Sermon of Twenty Sermons (Vol. 2, pp. 175, et seq.) Manton is Psalm 32:1-2:

Psalm 32:1–2 (AV)

1  Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. 2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Manton purposefully makes an argument, stating propositions and inferences which lead from one to the other:

The necessity that lies upon us, being all guilty before God, to seek after our justification, and the pardon of our sins by Christ. That it may sink the deeper into your minds, I shall do it in this scheme or method:—First, A reasonable nature implies a conscience; a conscience implies a law; a law implies a sanction; a sanction implies a judge, and a judgment-day (when all shall be called to account for breaking the law); and this judgment-day infers a condemnation upon all mankind unavoidably, unless the Lord will compromise the matter, and find out some way in the chancery of the gospel wherein we may be relieved. This way God hath found out in Christ, and being brought about by such a mysterious contrivance, we ought to be deeply and thankfully apprehensive of it, and humbly and broken-heartedly to quit the one covenant, and accept of the grace provided for us in the other.

 Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 178–179.

Here, Manton is not interested in necessarily creating an emotional response but rather in providing information: He is making an argument to change the way in which his hearers think: “That may sink deeper into your minds.” This is ultimately a mechanism to transform another’s affections, but the effect — if successful — is more lasting than merely provoking an emotion.

It is possible to provoke an emotion which results in no change. An emotion can arise and subside — and be very powerful in while in crest, but become invisible when it wanes. 

Interestingly, in the first section of his argument, Manton notes how an emotion can have a passing effect, for the worse:

A reasonable nature implies a conscience; for man can reflect upon his own actions, and hath that in him to acquit or condemn him accordingly as he doth good or evil, 1 John 3:20, 21. Conscience is nothing but the judgment a man makes upon his actions morally considered, the good or the evil, the rectitude or obliquity, that is in them with respect to rewards or punishment. As a man acts, so he is a party; but as he reviews and censures his actions, so he is a judge. Let us take notice only of the condemning part, for that is proper to our case. After the fact, the force of conscience is usually felt more than before or in the fact; because before, through the treachery of the senses, and the revolt of the passions, the judgment of reason is not so clear. I say, our passions and affections raise clouds and mists which darken the mind, and do incline the will by a pleasing violence; but after the evil action is done, when the affection ceaseth, then guilt flasheth in the face of conscience. As Judas, whose heart lay asleep all the while he was going on in his villainy, but afterwards it fell upon him. Thou hast ‘sinned in betraying innocent blood.’ When the affections are satisfied, and give place to reason, that was before condemned, and reason takes the throne again, it hath the more force to affect us with grief and fear, whilst it strikes through the heart of a man with a sharp sentence of reproof for obeying appetite before reason. Now this conscience of sin may be choked and smothered for a while, but the flame will break forth, and our hidden fears are easily revived and awakened, except we get our pardon and discharge. A reasonable nature implies a conscience.

 Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 2 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1871), 179. Let’s pick apart the psychology of the conscience and passions:

First provides a definition for conscience:

Conscience is nothing but the judgment a man makes upon his actions morally considered

Conscience is a internal examination of our actions: Was that good or bad? Well, if we have this ability to judge ourselves, why do we not always choose the good? Because conscience varies in its strength:

After the fact, the force of conscience is usually felt more than before or in the fact; 

Here is an interesting notice: we feel conscience more plainly after we sinned than before. Manton places the fault in a thoughtless flood of “passions”:

because before, through the treachery of the senses, and the revolt of the passions, the judgment of reason is not so clear. 

In short, the desire for sin will swamp our conscience. The reason cannot function in the face of the dark desire:

I say, our passions and affections raise clouds and mists which darken the mind, and do incline the will by a pleasing violence; but after the evil action is done, when the affection ceaseth, then guilt flasheth in the face of conscience. 

The result of this passion and sin is the return of conscience, which leaves us alone with guilt:

As Judas, whose heart lay asleep all the while he was going on in his villainy, but afterwards it fell upon him. Thou hast ‘sinned in betraying innocent blood.’ When the affections are satisfied, and give place to reason, that was before condemned, and reason takes the throne again, it hath the more force to affect us with grief and fear, whilst it strikes through the heart of a man with a sharp sentence of reproof for obeying appetite before reason. 

Then passions — being a sort judgment — will appear pile upon the judgment of the conscience and bring on to despair. What then can be done in such a circumstance:

Now this conscience of sin may be choked and smothered for a while, but the flame will break forth, and our hidden fears are easily revived and awakened, except we get our pardon and discharge. A reasonable nature implies a conscience.

Do the Commands of God Create Moral Duties for Those Who do not Believe in God?

01 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Ethics, Francis Schaeffer, Romans, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

I will post a review of the remarkable book Did God Really Command Genocide by Paul Copan & Matthew Flannagan. For the moment, I offer the following addendum to a discussion and objection to the Divine Command Theory of ethics (the understanding that something is morally obligatory because God commands it to be so, whether or not human beings understand the source of that obligation).

An objection discussed on page 155 of the book raise by philosopher Wes Morriston:

In order to successfully issue a command, one must deliver it to its intended recipients. This brings us back to the problem of the reasonable nonbeliever. On the fact if, God has not succeeded in speaking to her. And since she is a reasonable non-believer, God has not even succeeded in putting her in a  position in which she should have have heard a divine command. How then, can she be subject to God’s commands? How can her moral obligations be understood by reference to what God has commanded her to do?

Copan and Flannagan respond to the argument in terms of its philosophical merits. What I propose to add to their argument is a Scriptural response. Paul in Romans 1 & 2 directly addressed Morriston’s argument. In Romans 1, Paul explains that human beings actively seek to suppress the knowledge of God and his ethical condemnation of human sin:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Romans 1:18–21 (ESV). Yet, despite the fact that human beings (the “reasonable nonbeliever”) deny any knowledge of God or God’s moral communication, human beings are well aware of the moral content of God’s communication: “Though they know God’s righteous decree” (Rom. 1:31). The “reasonable nonbeliever” apprehends God’s moral communication (“righteous decree”) in their conscience (which is exactly the basis upon which Morriston and other atheists seek to condemn the God of Scripture for being immoral). Paul makes clear that God’s moral authority is not premised upon the unbeliever being consciously aware of God having issued the command. The unbeliever’s moral conscience is a sufficient ground:

12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Romans 2:12–16 (ESV). Francis Schaeffer in his book The Church in a Post Christian Culture puts it this way:

Let me use an illustration again that I have used in other places. If every little baby that was ever born anywhere in the world had a tape recorder hung about its neck, and if this tape recorder only recorded the moral judgments with which this child as he grew bound other men, the moral precepts might be much lower than the biblical law, but they would still be moral judgments. Eventually each person comes to that great moment when he stands before God as judge. Suppose, then, that God simply touched the tape recorder button and each man heard played out in his own words all those statements by which he had bound other men in moral judgment. He could hear it going on for years—thousands and thousands of moral judgments made against other men, not aesthetic judgments, but moral judgments. Then God would simply say to the man, though he had never heard the Bible, now where do you stand in the light of your own moral judgments. The Bible points out in the passage quoted above that every voice would be stilled. All men would have to acknowledge that they have deliberately done those things which they knew to be wrong. Nobody could deny it.

Francis A. Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer: A Christian Worldview, vol. 4 (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1982), 41–42.

 

Conscience is an elastic and very flexible article

05 Monday Sep 2016

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,


    So saying, Mr. Quilp put his hat on and took himself off, and Mrs. Quilp, who was afflicted beyond measure by the recollection of the part she had just acted, shut herself up in her chamber, and smothering her head in the bed-clothes bemoaned her fault more bitterly than many less tender-hearted persons would have mourned a much greater offence; for, in the majority of cases, conscience is an elastic and very flexible article, which will bear a deal of stretching and adapt itself to a great variety of circumstances. Some people by prudent management and leaving it off piece by piece like a flannel waistcoat in warm weather, even contrive, in time, to dispense with it altogether; but there be others who can assume the garment and throw it off at pleasure; and this, being the greatest and most convenient improvement, is the one most in vogue.          

The Old Curiosity Shop

We are not born six feet high

18 Thursday Apr 2013

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Discipleship, Faith, Hebrews, Puritan, Richard Sibbes, William Romaine

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Many Christians become discouraged and struggle with sin — thinking themselves to have no faith. Yet they are mistaken in the matter, because they have confused the benefits of a lively faith with faith itself. It is as if a man with a wife thought himself unmarried because he has no children. Or, as Romaine will write, it as if a man complains that he has no apples without bothering to see if he has a tree:

How many errors in judgment, and consequent mistakes in practice, prevail at this day, chiefly arising from confounding faith with its fruits; and from not distinguishing between the word of God believed, and what will follow upon believing it aright! [Believing typically produces the fruit of assurance. However, the fruit of assurance is not faith: it is something produced by true faith.]

Thus, some make assurance to be of the essence of faith, others make it appropriation, and many make it consist in an impression upon the mind, that Christ loved me, and gave himself for me. These are fruits— what faith should produce, but not what it is. These are effects of faith working, and not definitions of the nature of faith.

A believer should be exhorted to make his calling and election sure; for it is his privilege. He ought to give all diligence to attain assurance, to appropriate Christ with all his blessings to himself, and to be clearly persuaded that Christ loved him, and gave himself for him. These are blessed fruits of believing. May God give his people more of them. But then the tree must be before the fruits, and the fruits grow upon the tree. Faith is first, and faith derives its being from believing the word of God, and all its fruits are continued acts of believing.

William Romaine “Treatises on the life, walk, and triumph of faith.”

Confusion here leads to much mischief in one’s spiritual life. The poor Christian looks for the fruit of assurance, finds none and then decides he has no faith — which throws him into despair. The despair and anxiety thus seek relief. Since he cannot turn to God for relief (since he has convinced himself he probably has no faith and thus no right basis to come to God), he turns from God and seeks a sin to settle his heart. Sin, being antithetical faith, merely stirs his bad conscience more and he becomes ever more discouraged — and now has seemingly better grounds to doubt his faith.

What he forgets is that he is living by sight — he is making his sense to control his thinking — and not by faith. He fails to remember that faith grows into assurance. But just as a human is not born the size of an adult, so faith is not born with full fledged assurance:

When faith cometh by hearing, then we assent to the truth of what God hath said, and we rely upon his faithfulness to make good what he has promised. Assurance is this faith grown to its full stature: but we are not born six feet high.

The remedy here is plain enough: repent, return to Christ. As Richard Sibbes wrote in The Bruised Reed:

1. What should we learn from this, but to `come boldly to the throne of grace’ (Heb. 4:16) in all our grievances? Shall our sins discourage us, when he appears there only for sinners? Are you bruised? Be of good comfort, he calls you. Conceal not your wounds, open all before him and take not Satan’s counsel. Go to Christ, although trembling, as the poor woman who said, `If I may but touch his garment’ (Matt. 9:21). We shall be healed and have a gracious answer. Go boldly to God in our flesh; he is flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone for this reason, that we might go boldly to him. Never fear to go to God, since we have such a Mediator with him, who is not only our friend but our brother and husband. Well might the angel proclaim from heaven, `Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy’ (Luke 2:10). Well might the apostle stir us up to `rejoice in the Lord alway: and again I say, Rejoice’ (Phil. 4:4). Paul was well advised upon what grounds he did it. Peace and joy are two main fruits of Christ’s kingdom. Let the world be as it will, if we cannot rejoice in the world, yet we may rejoice in the Lord. His presence makes any condition comfortable. `Be not afraid,’ says he to his disciples, when they were afraid, as if they had seen a ghost, `It is I’ (Matt. 14:27), as if there were no cause of fear where he was present.

2. Let this support us when we feel ourselves bruised. Christ’s way is first to wound, then to heal. No sound, whole soul shall ever enter into heaven. Think when in temptation, Christ was tempted for me; according to my trials will be my graces and comforts. If Christ be so merciful as not to break me, I will not break myself by despair, nor yield myself over to the roaring lion, Satan, to break me in pieces.

The solution for a bad conscience is not to wallow in one’s misery, or run from Christ, or ignore one’s conscience. Rather, the solution for sin and sorrow is repentance and Christ. He appears upon a throne of grace to receive sinners. Faith strides into the throne room, seeking grace.

Christopher Love, The Mortified Christian: Case Four: What Symptoms Mark a Sin as One’s “Bosom Sin”?

09 Wednesday Jan 2013

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Christopher Love, Mortification, Puritan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a category of sin which the Puritans referred to variously as one’s “bosom”[1] or “darling” sin.[2] Sometimes they used the line of Lot referring to Zoar, “Is it not a little one?” (Genesis 19:20).

Love gave two categories of symptoms to mark the “bosom” sin. First, a bosom sin is the sin of frequency and ease. It is the one which promises the greatest delights and which will command the most attention. It is the sin which draws other sins into its wake to support and protect its continuance.

Second, and perhaps surprisingly, Love notes that the bosom sin also draws the greatest pains of conscience:

That sin is most unmortified in you which of all other sins most vexes and galls your conscience; for the conscience is God’s messenger in you to check you when you are ill and speak of peace to you when you do well.

It is sin which perplexes you when you are in trouble or trial, on a sickbed or death bed; it is the sin which your enemies raise against you. It is the sin which, when reproved, strikes hardest at your conscience. Love draws out an implication: This is why a general complaint of sin may be tolerated by a congregation, while a specific rebuke will draw ire.

Thomas Brooks, in The Crown and Glory of Christianity gives an indication of how the holy heart responds to bosom sins. While the bosom sin seeks protection, the dearest friend of Christ seeks out the bosom sin with greatest force. Note: to get the correct feel of Thomas Brooks, you must read him aloud. Pay attention to the pacing and sounds and parallels and contrasts. Spurgeon’s favorite Puritan was Thomas Brooks – and that can be seen in Spurgeon’s sermons:

(3.) Thirdly, As a holy heart rises against the least sins; so a holy heart rises against bosom-sins, against constitution-sins, against those that either his calling, former custom, or his present inclination or condition, do most dispose him to. It is true, a prodigal person may abhor covetousness, and a covetous person may condemn prodigality: a furious person may hate fearfulness, and a fearful person may detest furiousness.

But now the hearts of those that are holy rise against complexion sins, against darling sins, against those that make for present pleasure and profit, against those that were once as right hands and right eyes; that were that to their souls, that Delilah was to Samson, Herodias to Herod, Isaac to Abraham, and Joseph to Jacob: Ps. 18:23, ‘I was also upright before him; and I kept myself from mine iniquity;’ that is, from my darling sin, whereunto I was most inclined and addicted. What this bosom-sin was that he kept himself from, is hard to say. Some suppose his darling sin was lying, dissembling; for it is certain, he often fell into this sin: others suppose it to be some secret iniquity, which was only known to God and his own conscience: others say it was uncleanness, and that therefore he prayed that ‘God would turn away his eyes from beholding vanity,’ Ps. 119:37: others judge it to be that sin of disloyalty, which Saul and his courtiers falsely charged upon him. It is enough for our purpose that his heart did rise against that very sin, that either by custom or some strong inclination he was most naturally apt, ready, and prone to fall into.

Idolatry was the darling sin of the people of Israel; they called their idols delectable, or desirable things, Isa. 44:9; they did dearly affect and delight in their idols; but when God should come to put a spirit of holiness upon them, then their hearts should rise in hatred and detestation of their idols, as you may see in Isa. 30:18, 25; mark ver. 22, ‘Ye shall defile also the covering of thy graven images of silver, and the ornament of thy molten images of gold: thou shalt cast them away as a menstruous cloth; thou shalt say unto it, Get thee hence.’ They were so delighted and enamoured with their idols, that they would deck them up in the greatest glory and bravery; they would attire them with the most rich, costly, pompous, and glorious raiment. Oh, but when a spirit of holiness should rise upon them, then they should defile, deface, and disgrace their idols, then they should so hate and abhor them, they should so detest and loathe them, that in a holy indignation they should cast them away as a menstruous cloth, and say unto them, Get ye hence, pack, begone, I will never have any more to do with you. God hath now made an everlasting divorce between you and me.

And so in Isa. 2:20, ‘In that day’—that is, in the day of the Lord’s exaltation in the hearts, lives, and consciences of his people, ver. 17—‘a man shall cast his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats.’ In the day of God’s exaltation they shall express such disdain and indignation against their idols, that they shall take not only those made of trees and stones, but even their most precious and costly idols, those that were made of silver and gold, and cast them to the moles and to the bats; that is, they shall cast them into such blind holes, and into such dark, filthy, nasty, and dusty corners, as moles make underground, and as bats roost in: so when holiness comes to be exalted in the soul, then all a man’s darling and bosom sins, which are his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, these are with a holy indignation cast to the moles and to the bats; they are so loathed, abandoned, and cashiered, that he desires they may be for ever buried in oblivion, and never see the light more. Idols were Ephraim’s bosom-sin: Hosea 4:17, ‘Ephraim is joined,’ or glued, ‘to idols, let him alone;’ but when the dew of grace and holiness fell upon Ephraim, as it did in chap. 14:5–7, ‘Then saith Ephraim, What have I any more to do with idols?’ ver. 8.

Now Ephraim loathes his idols as much or more than before he loved them; he now abandons and abominates them, though before he was as closely glued to them, as the wanton is glued to his Delilah, or as the enchanter is glued to the devil, from whom by no means he is able to stir. Ephraim becoming holy, cries out, ‘What have I any more to do with idols?’ Oh, I have had to do with them too long and too much already! Oh, how doth my soul now rise against them! how do I detest and abhor them! surely I will never have more to do with them. But now unholy hearts are very favourable to bosom-sins; they say of them, as Lot of Zoar, ‘Is it not a little one? and my soul shall live!’ Gen. 19:20. And as David spake of Absalom, 2 Sam. 18:5, ‘Deal gently for my sake with the young man, even with Absalom.’ ‘Beware that none touch the young man Absalom,’ ver. 12. ‘And the king said, Is the young man Absalom safe?’ ver. 29.

An unholy heart is as fond of his bosom-sins as Herod was of his Herodias; or as Demetrius was of his Diana; or as Naaman was of the idol Rimmon, which was the idol of the Syrians; or as Judas was of bearing the bag; or as the Pharisees were of having the uppermost seats, and of being saluted in the market-place with those glorious titles, ‘Rabbi, rabbi.’ Bosom-sins have at least a seeming sweetness in them; and therefore an unholy heart will not easily let them go. Let God frown or smile, stroke or strike, lift up or cast down, promise or threaten, yet he will hide and hold fast his darling sins; let God wound his conscience, blow upon his estate, leave a blot upon his name, crack his credit, afflict his body, write death upon his relations, and be a terror to his soul, yet will he not let go his bosom-lusts. He will rather let God go, and Christ go, and grace go, and heaven go, all go, than he will let some pleasurable or profitable lusts go.

An unholy heart may sigh over those sins, and make war upon those sins, that war against his honours, profits, or pleasures, and yet at the same time make truce with those that are as right hands and right eyes; an unholy person may set his sword at the breasts of some sins, and yet at the same time his heart may be secretly courting of his bosom-sins.

But now a holy heart rises most against the Delilah in his bosom, against the Benjamin, the son, the sin, of his right hand. And thus you see how a holy heart hates and disdains all sins; he abhors small sins as well as great, secret sins as well as open, and bosom-sins as well as others that have not that acquaintance and acceptance with the soul.

Real holiness will never mix nor mingle itself with any sin, it will never incorporate with any corruption. Wine and water will easily mix, so the wine of gifts and the water of sin, the wine of civility and the water of vanity, the wine of morality and the water of impiety, will easily mix; but oil and water will not mix, they will not incorporate; so the oil of grace, the oil of holiness, will not mix; it will not incorporate with sin, the oil of holiness will be uppermost.

Mark, natural and acquired habits and excellencies, as a pregnant wit, an eloquent tongue, a strong brain, an iron memory, a learned head, all these, with some high speculations of holiness, and some profession of holiness, and some commendations of holiness, and some visible actings of holiness, are consistent with the love of lusts, with the dominion of sin: witness the Scribes and Pharisees, Judas, Demas, and Simon Magus; but the real infused habits of true grace and holiness, will never admit of the dominion of any sin, whether great or little, whether secret or open.

 

Thomas Brooks, The Complete Works of Thomas Brooks, Volume 4, ed. Alexander Balloch Grosart (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1867), 116-18.

[1]

God often hews men by the sword of his word in that ordinance, strikes directly in their bosom-beloved lust, startles the sinner, makes him engage unto the mortification and relinquishment of the evil of his heart. Now, if his lust have taken such hold on him as to enforce him to break these bands of the Lord, and to cast these cords from him,—if it overcomes these convictions, and gets again into it old posture,—if it can cure the wounds it so receives,—that soul is in a sad condition.

John Owen, vol. 6, The Works of John Owen., ed. William H. Goold (Edinburg: T&T Clark), 49. Or:

It is possible there may be a falling out with a bosom sin, and that which has been much loved may be no less hated

David Clarkson, The Works of David Clarkson, Volume II (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1864), 256.

[2]

Because the gospel puts persons upon very hard service, upon very difficult work, pulling out a right eye, cutting off a right hand, offering up an Isaac, throwing overboard a Jonas, parting with bosom lusts and darling sins. Herod heard John Baptist gladly, till he came to touch his Herodias, and then off goes his head. As they say, John 6, ‘This is a hard saying, and who can abide it?’ and from that time they walked no more with him. This is a hard gospel indeed, and at this their blood riseth.

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

A darling sin.—Any bosom-sin, as it fills and employs every faculty, so it debauches, monopolizes, and disorders them all. Grace, though it rule every faculty, yet ruffles none; it composes the mind, and employs the memory in a rational manner; it rules, like a just king, orderly: but the serving of any lust breeds a civil war between one faculty and another; and that distracts the whole soul, whereby every power thereof is weakened; and, particularly, the memory, being pressed to serve the stronger side, is so stuffed with the concerns of that tyrant-lust, that it cannot intend any spiritual matter. And therefore, whatever “right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee,” (Matt. 5:29,) or else thy memory will never be cured. A table-book that is written and blotted all over, must be wiped before you can write any new matter upon it; and so must the lines of thy darling sin be effaced by real mortification, before any good things will abide legible in thy memory.

James Nichols, Puritan Sermons, Volume 3 (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 354.

Tests from Christopher Love as to True Mortification

22 Thursday Mar 2012

Posted by in 1 John, Biblical Counseling, Christopher Love, Discipleship, Preaching

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

One great error of a believer to think that true mortification is no mortification (there is also the opposite fault, which we will consider separately). It is a great deceit of sin to convince the true Christian that he has no true salvation. The poor Christian with the tender conscience sees the swells of temptation and sin, certain that shipwreck has come. He looks at the persistence of temptation and sin and falls to despair. Such despair itself is a tactic of sin, for the Christian in despair is a great who has given up the rope of hope, the anchor cast within the veil. He has lost a great means of sanctification:

 And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. 1 John 3:3 (ESV)

Thus, in Biblical Counseling and discipleship – and in preaching (which can only amplify the wrong) –we must be careful to not strike hard on the conscience of one who has truly gained in the mortification of sin.  Christopher Love offers seven (which I have reduced to six) notes and caveats for the tender conscience:

First, look to see if this is merely an external temptation – or a desire which arises from one’s own heart.  We cannot be responsible for temptations – indeed, the Lord himself was sorely tempted and this without sin (Heb. 2:18).

Second, the believer’s heart may still throw up filth and mire, “Yet, if these motions [thoughts, feelings, temptations] are not yielded to with a ready and willing consent, but are resisted and opposed, these sins will never be damning sins to you.”

Third, the fact that you see more sin in your heart may because your conscience is more tender than before, “Many men, after long conversion, see more of the workings of sin in their hearts than ever they did discover before or at their first conversion.” Sometimes the knowledge of,  arises from “the increase of light that God puts into the soul.”

Fourth, consider the normal tenor of your life – not the exception. Mortification is a movement, sanctification is progressive. We cannot tell one’s life from a snap shot – watch the movie.

Fifth, sometimes the activity of sin will lead to greater sanctification: If sin prompts you toward great watchfulness against sin, greater humiliation for sin, this will lead to greater sanctification.

Sixth, “the stirrings of sin in your hear may be so ordered by God as to make them a means to engage you to a fuller mortification of your sins.”