• About
  • Books

memoirandremains

memoirandremains

Tag Archives: Repentance

Zachery Crofton, Repentance not to be Repented.7

25 Friday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

      SECOND PART OF CONVERSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

Job 22:1–3 (ESV)

22 Then Eliphaz the Temanite answered and said:

            2           “Can a man be profitable to God?

Surely he who is wise is profitable to himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A willingness to even suffer:

Not only doth he believe,

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

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

Under sharpest sorrows,

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

In saddest disasters he complains not,

because he hath sinned against the Lord.

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

for that God hath bid Shimei curse.

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

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

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

Ruth’s “Return”

23 Wednesday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Repentance, Ruth

If we hold this understanding of blessing, it makes some sense of Ruth’s ‘return’ (šûb) to Bethlehem. The narrator states that Naomi returned, but he/she also specifies that Ruth ‘returned from the country of Moab’ (1:22). In a physical sense, it makes no sense for Ruth to ‘return’ to Israel. Yet in a spiritual sense, it is only when Ruth repents – that is, turns to trust in Yahweh (1:16–17) – that she begins to be blessed and becomes a blessing to others.37 For it is through Ruth (and Boaz) that Naomi’s emptiness/hunger (1:21) is satiated by the end of the Ruth narrative (4:14–17). Thus, Naomi’s fullness can also be understood not only in physical terms, but also spiritual – a return to right relationship with Yahweh, and the blessings that flow from that relationship.

NEW STUDIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 41 Series editor: D. A. Carson Unceasing kindness A BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF RUTH Peter H. W. Lau and Gregory Goswell, 105

Zachery Crofton, A Repentance not to be Repented.6

22 Tuesday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is his caveat at length:

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

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

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

Zachery Crofton, A Repentance not to be Repented.5

18 Friday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Repentance, Repentance not to be Repented, Zachery Crofton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zachery Crofton, A Repentance not to be Repented.3

10 Thursday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachery Crofton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now comes the “second part of humiliation”:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the distinction between true and false repentance.

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

Zachary Crofton, Repentance not to be Repented.2

09 Wednesday Nov 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Puritan, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Faith, Puritan, Repentance, Zachary Crofton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zachary Crofton, Repentance Not to be Repented 1

31 Monday Oct 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Puritan, Repentance, Zachary Crofton

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

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

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

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

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

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

A tentative consideration of repentance and abuse

23 Sunday Oct 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Biblical Counseling

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Abuse, Biblical Counseling, forgiveness, Repentance

I present this with great trepidation. The issues involved are complex and sensitive. My thoughts here are tentative, and will without question involve further development. Yet, I present them for two reasons. One, writing helps me clarify my thoughts. Two, perhaps someone will be able to offer critique and nuance which I have missed.

The repentant abuser presents a very difficult problem for the counselor. [We will stipulate that the fact of the sinful conduct is unquestioned and concerns a significant mistreatment. This is not a questionable case.] Like the trolley problem, one is faced with seemingly irreconcilable choices.

On one side there are the commands respecting love, forgiveness, and the continuation of marriage. We are to love even our enemies (Matt. 5:43), that we forgive lavishly (Matt. 8:21-22), and that we forgive others as Christ forgave us. (Eph. 4:32)

In some situations, the cost of forgiveness will be some-thing which is of spiritual benefit. Learning to forgive and love is critical to our spiritual maturity. Sometimes the cost of forgiveness will be a loss of pride, or giving up my “right” to revenge. Sometimes the cost will be trusting God to make the necessary judgments and mete out the proper response.

Loss of material goods may be more difficult but may be necessary. We must have a willingness to perhaps be defrauded to protect the reputation and unity of the church. (1 Cor. 6:7)

But in matters of “abuse” the troubles involved become more complex. First is the nature of the injury: there is a loss to the body and the mind. It can be far easier to recover from a financial loss than a loss of trust between spouses, or between parent and child. Second, there is the question of restoration which is more urgent the closer the relationship between the two. A financial transaction may entail a relationship with two people only slightly related. But the betrayal of a friend, or a harm within a family forces the question of reconciliation and restoration.

Third, the decision of one person can affect the good of another. A parent who “forgives” a spouse may endanger the children.

At this point, we must consider the significant biblical demands of persistence of the marriage and the abhorrence of divorce. We cannot take lightly the importance of maintaining the relationships between parents and children. In fact, we cannot ever completely eviscerate the fact of parent child relationship because parent and child are defined by the fact of the other and the fact of the relationship. I cannot not be the son of my father.

So, when we consider the potential of abuse within the scope of the family, the complications are at their height. Familial relationship are both more intimate and more persistent than other relationships. Forgiveness among relative strangers is easier to negotiate, because the restoration requires little. Forgiveness and restoration within a family, cannot be collapsed into the model of a personal slight among relative strangers within a congregation.

However, there are countervailing demands. First, there are commands to protect the weak. The counselor is in a position where such requirements are required. Second, we must recognize that for the abuser, the day-to-day life in the relationship as parent or child actually constitutes a temptation to sin. The duty to avoid occasions for sin applies here. To put the abuser into the relationship is thus a danger to the abuser and those who have been abused.

When confronted with the apparent repentance of an abusive spouse/parent, how do we weigh the seemingly contradictory considerations.

Too often, counselors resolve the conflict by simply favoring one command over another. The marriage must be maintained. The weak must be protected.  When the counselor takes one set of considerations over the other, the counselor has become a participant in sin.

The resolution of this seeming quandary is not to ignore some biblical injunction in favor of another but rather to understand more fully the importance and nature of repentance.

While repentance entails at the very least a show of remorse and a request for forgiveness, it is also true that talk can be cheap. False repentance, cheap grace, and easy believism are condemned from the pulpit, but too often accepted in the counseling room. This is especially to be weighed when we know from experience that abusive parents and spouses often present elegant apologies replete with biblical injunctions.  Abusers are often charismatic and charming. Those injured are often frantic, fearful, angry, distrustful.

A better understanding of true repentance in practice, a knowledge of those fruits of repentance, would help greatly here. A truly repentant spouse/parent would be deeply considerate of the fear and distrust of those who were hurt. Rather than rushing to be back in the house, the truly repentant spouse would be cautious and wanting to make the spouse or child felt safe and loved.

The thief in Mosaic law was required to include tangible restoration as part of his repentance. But when it comes to the injury wrought by one who has misused the trust and dependence of a family to cause injury, it has been too common to settle merely for words without tangible repentance.

I do not presume to have a sure-fire litmus test for judging repentance in such situations. But what I have seen as a too common carelessness in judging repentance.

I conclude with the hesitation I raised at the first. This is not a final or definitive statement, but rather a preliminary and cautious ask for comment.

Edward Taylor, Meditation 40 conclusion (Was ever heart like mine)

07 Tuesday Jun 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Edward Taylor

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Edward Taylor, Edward Taylor Meditation 40, poem, Poem Analysis, Poetry, Poetry Analysis, Repentance, Was ever heart like mine

Tenth Stanza

Lord take thy sword: these Anakims destroy:                                  55

Then soak my soul in Zion’s bucking tub:

With holy soap and nitre, and rich lye

From all defilement me cleanse, wash, and rub.

Then rinse and wring me out till th’water fall

As pure as in the well: not foul at all.                                              60

Eleventh Stanza

And let thy sun shine on my head out clear

And bathe my heart within its radiant beams:

Thy Christ make my propitiation dear.

Thy praise shall from my heart break forth in streams.

This reaching virtue of Christ’s blood will quench                         65

Thy wrath, slay sin, in thy love me bench.

Notes

These two stanzas should be taken together for they concern the resolution of the whole. Since there is hope, the poet presses his case. In this he makes three interrelated petitions.

First, there is the petition to kill his devilish enemy:

Lord take thy sword: these Anakims destroy:

Anakim is a reference to an enemy of Israel whom God destroyed to save the people. Deut. 2:21.  The Devils are here referred to as “Anakims.” References to the destruction of Anakim, used as a figure or illustration was not uncommon among the Puritans, for instance: “Jesus doth not free us from Egypt, but from wrath to come: 1 Thes. 1:10, ‘To wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.’ He doth not vanquish Anakims, but the devil; to deliver us from the hurt and fear of him: Heb. 2:14, ‘That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.’ He doth not only lead us into Canaan, but into heaven, into a better land of promise.” Thomas Manton, The Complete Works of Thomas Manton, vol. 19 (London: James Nisbet & Co., 1874), 455.

Second, is the petition to be cleansed from sin:

Then soak my soul in Zion’s bucking tub:

With holy soap and nitre, and rich lye

From all defilement me cleanse, wash, and rub.

Then rinse and wring me out till th’water fall

As pure as in the well: not foul at all.

Buck here refers to alkaline lye used to bleach linen or yarn. This was referred as “buck washing.” Nitre is potassium nitrate, used for washing. The plea here is for every sort of bleach and cleanser to be used on his heart and to make him clean from all sin.

The biblical allusion which seems closest comes David’s prayer of repentance in Psalm 51”

Psalm 51:1–12 (ESV)

            1           Have mercy on me, O God,

according to your steadfast love;

                        according to your abundant mercy

blot out my transgressions.

            2           Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,

and cleanse me from my sin!

            3           For I know my transgressions,

and my sin is ever before me.

            4           Against you, you only, have I sinned

and done what is evil in your sight,

                        so that you may be justified in your words

and blameless in your judgment.

            5           Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,

and in sin did my mother conceive me.

            6           Behold, you delight in truth in the inward being,

and you teach me wisdom in the secret heart.

            7           Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;

wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

            8           Let me hear joy and gladness;

let the bones that you have broken rejoice.

            9           Hide your face from my sins,

and blot out all my iniquities.

            10          Create in me a clean heart, O God,

and renew a right spirit within me.

            11          Cast me not away from your presence,

and take not your Holy Spirit from me.

            12          Restore to me the joy of your salvation,

and uphold me with a willing spirit.

The prayer for cleansing continues into the next stanza where he prays that having been scrubbed he may be set out to dry, like washed clothes.

And let thy sun shine on my head out clear

And bathe my heart within its radiant beams:

The third petition is for forgiveness of his sin, “propitiation”:

Thy Christ make my propitiation dear.

“Thy Christ” comes from Psalm 2:2

Psalm 2:2 (ESV)

            2           The kings of the earth set themselves,

and the rulers take counsel together,

against the Lord and against his Anointed, saying,

Anointed is “Christ” (κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ)

The poem then ends with the praise for what God has done for him:

Thy praise shall from my heart break forth in streams.

This reaching virtue of Christ’s blood will quench                         65

Thy wrath, slay sin, in thy love me bench.

The last line explains that the blood of Christ will turn away judgment (thy wrath), turn his heart from sin (slay sin), and will leave him resting in the love of God (in thy love me bench).

Thomas Boston, The Crook in th

25 Friday Feb 2022

Posted by memoirandremains in Repentance, Thomas Boston, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Repentance, The Crook in the Lot, Thomas Boston

  1. The pain of the Crook produces conviction of sin.

God often uses difficulty in life to alert us to the presence or persistence of unrepentant sin. The relationship between the advent of the pain and the recognition of sin may vary from circumstance to circumstance. For instance, in Psalm 32, the crook of physical and emotional pain seems to be a pang of conscience:

Psalm 32:1–5 (ESV)
1 Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven,
whose sin is covered.
2 Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity,
and in whose spirit there is no deceit.
3 For when I kept silent, my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
4 For day and night your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Selah
5 I acknowledged my sin to you,
and I did not cover my iniquity;
I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,”
and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah

In other instances, the consequences which naturally flow from sin, such as illness from excessive abuse of drugs. In Deuteronomy, the Lord promises that living in accord with the law will protect against particular diseases, “And the LORD will take away from you all sickness, and none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which you knew, will he inflict on you, but he will lay them on all who hate you.” Deuteronomy 7:15 (ESV)

We can think of other examples. When one neglects his family, he will likely suffer the consequence:

Proverbs 27:8 (ESV)
8 Like a bird that strays from its nest
is a man who strays from his home.

bird’s nest in a forest author: Jan Helebrant location: Czech Republic http://www.juhele.blogspot.com license CC0 Public Domain Dedication

A bird without a nest will certainly suffer for it.

A third relationship may be that pain itself causes us to search for the cause of the pain and to examine our life more fully:

Thirdly, Conviction of sin. As when one, walking heedlessly, is suddenly taken ill of a lameness; his going halting the rest of his way convinceth him of having made a wrong step; and every new painful step brings it afresh to his mind: so God makes a crook in one’s lot, to convince him of some false step he hath made, or course he hath taken. What the sinner would otherwise be apt to overlook, forget, or think light of, is by this means, recalled to mind, set before him as an evil and bitter thing, and kept in remembrance, that his heart may every now and then bleed for it afresh.

There can also be the pain of shame resulting from being found out:

Thus, by the crook, men’s sin finds them out to their conviction, as the thief is ashamed when he is found, Numb. 32:23. Jer. 2:26.

And as an example, he points to Joseph’s brothers,

The which Joseph’s brethren do feelingly express, under the crook made in their lot in Egypt, Gen. 42:21. “We are verily guilty concerning our brother,” chap. 44:16. “God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants.”

Typically, there is some relationship between the crook (which comes to bring repentance) and the sin which occasioned it, so that the pain causes one to remember the sin:

The crook in the lot doth usually, in its nature or circumstances, so natively refer to the false step or course, that it serves for a providential memorial of it, bringing the sin, though of an old date, fresh to remembrance, and for a badge of the sinner’s folly, in word or deed, to keep it ever before him.

He then gives examples from the life of Jacob, where God brought sorrow matched to Jacob’s sin:

When Jacob found Leah, through Laban’s unfair dealing, palmed upon him for Rachel, how could he miss of a stinging remembrance of the cheat he had seven years at least before put on his own father, pretending himself to be Esau? Gen. 27:19. How could it miss of galling him occasionally afterwards during the course of the marriage? He had imposed on his father the younger brother for the elder: and Laban imposed on him the elder sister for the younger. The dimness of Isaac’s eyes favoured the former cheat: and the darkness of the evening did as much favour the latter. So he behoved to say, as Adonibezek in another case, Judg. 1:7. “As I have done, so God hath requited me.”

In like manner, Rachel dying in child-birth, could hardly evite a melancholy reflection on her rash and passionate expression, mentioned Gen. 30:1. “Give me children, or else I die.”

And Job says, in his pain he remembers his sin:

Even holy Job read, in the crook of his lot, some false steps he had made in his youth many years before, Job. 13:26. “Thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.”

The application of this point is clear. When in trouble, we would be wise to seek to see whether the trouble has come to cause repentance. This by no means should be taken as saying that all trouble is a result of sin. Job’s friends seemed to believe such a thing. Often there is no clear connection. But when we see ourselves plunged into depression, anxiety, fear, financial troubles, personal troubles, it would be wise to look around and ask, is there a sin of which I refuse to repent?

← Older posts

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.4
  • Anne Bradstreet Meditations: Consider
  • Those unheard are sweeter
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.3
  • Weakness

Categories

Archives

Recent Posts

  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.4
  • Anne Bradstreet Meditations: Consider
  • Those unheard are sweeter
  • Thomas Traherne, The Soul’s Communion with her Savior, Book 1.1.3
  • Weakness

Blog at WordPress.com.

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

Loading Comments...