Tag Archives: Repentance

Edward Taylor, Meditation 36.4 What strange strange am I

11 Thursday Nov 2021

Posted by in Edward Taylor, Grace

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

But did I say, I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

I eat my word, and wonder more that I

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

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

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

Of kindness, yet me thus vile with all

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

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

Summary:

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

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

Prosody:

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

But did I say, I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

I eat my word, and wonder more that I

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

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

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

Of kindness, yet me thus vile with all

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

The reason of’t, which makes my wonder rise

Notes

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

 I wonder Lord, to spy

Thyself so kind, and I so vile yet thine

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

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

and wonder more that I

No viler am, 

This will parallel 

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

Of kindness

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

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

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

As full of sin I am, as egg of meat

And a parallel:

yet me thus vile with all

Yet find thy golden rod my sin to treat.

And the the parallel with the second stanza:

I now unsay my say, I wonder more

Thou dash me not to pieces with thy maul

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

Look here at Taylor realizes:

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

But in the bed, Lord, of thy goodness lies

The reason of’t, 

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

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

which makes my wonder rise.

Thomas Adams, The Sinners Mourning Habit, Repentance

19 Tuesday Oct 2021

Posted by in Repentance, Thomas Adams, Thomas Adams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Adams now comes to repentance. The purpose of this discussion of repentance was not give a definition of it but to persuade one to repent. 

He begins in an interesting manner for one who seeks to persuade:

Repentance hath much acquaintance in the world, and few friends; it is better known than practiced.

He says that it is “every man’s medicine, a universal antidote.” But, perhaps because of its efficacy, it strangely can be seen an as encouragement to sin, “They make bold to sin, as if they were sure to repent.” And, “There is no such inducement to sin as the presumption that of ready repentance, as if God had no special riches of his own, and every sinner might command them at his pleasure.”

We suck in sin, the poison of that old serpent, and presume to drive it out again with repentance; but how if this herb of grace be not found in our gardens….However for soever we have run out, we hope to make all reckonings even when repentance comes; but what if repentance never comes.

Repentance is not something we can demand or command. Adams uses the language of riches and wealth of a king, which had dispense as he wishes. 

Since Thomas Brooks makes the same point, we can consider:

“Device (6). By persuading the soul that the work of repentance is an easy work, and that therefore the soul need not make such a matter of sin. Why! Suppose you do sin, saith Satan, it is no such difficult thing to return, and confess, and be sorrowful, and beg pardon, and cry, ‘Lord, have mercy upon me;’ and if you do but this, God will cut the score,1 and pardon your sins, and save your souls, &c. By this device Satan draws many a soul to sin, and makes many millions of souls servants or rather slaves to sin, &c.”

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), 31. In Precious Remedies Brooks gives this device and then a number of remedies to cure one of the falsehood. Taking the point that repentance is not something which can demand – it is a gift of grace, a treasure of God’s as Adams puts it:

“Remedy (5). The fifth remedy against this device of Satan is seriously to consider, That to repent of sin is as great a work of grace as not to sin.1 By our sinful falls the powers of the soul are weakened, the strength of grace is decayed, our evidences for heaven are blotted, fears and doubts in the soul are raised (will God once more pardon this scarlet sin, and shew mercy to this wretched soul?), and corruptions in the heart are more advantaged and confirmed; and the conscience of a man after falls is the more enraged or the more benumbed. Now for a soul, notwithstanding all this, to repent of his falls, this shews that it is as great a work of grace to repent of sin as it is not to sin. Repentance is the vomit of the soul; and of all physic, none so difficult and hard as it is to vomit. The same means that tends to preserve the soul from sin, the same means works the soul to rise by repentance when it is fallen into sin.”

Another point made by Adams is that repentance is not merely a magic recitation of words, 

Nor yet must we think with this one short word, “I repent,” to answer for the multitue of our offenses; as if we, that had sinned in parcels should be forgiven in gross…No let us reckon up our sins ot God in confession, that our hearts may find a plenary absolution. Nor is it enough to recount them, but we must recant them. 

Brooks makes a similar point, “Some ignorant deluded souls vainly conceit that these five words, ‘Lord! have mercy upon me,’ are efficacious to send them to heaven; but as many are undone by buying a counterfeit jewel, so many are in hell by mistake of their repentance. Many rest in their repentance, though it be but the shadow of repentance, which caused one to say, ‘Repentance damneth more than sin.’”

Adams makes another point about repentance, 

Wheresoever repentance is, she doth not deliberate, tarries not to ask questions and examine circumstances, but bestirs her joints, calls her wits and sense together; summons her tongue to praying, her feet to walking, her hand to working, her eyes to weeping, her heart to groaning. There is no need to bid her go, for she runs to the word for direction, to her own heart for remorse and compunction, to God for grace and pardon; and wheresoever she findeth Christ, she layeth faster hold on him than the Shunamite did on the feet of Elisha.

Repentance does not tarry, because there is no other defense from judgment:

We know there is no other fortification against the judgments of God but repentance. His forces be invisible, invincible; not repelled with sword and target; neither portcullis nor fortress can keep them out; there is nothing in the world that can encounter them but repentance.

Why then do we not repent if it is of such good? We fail to see our own sin aright. We lack humility because we do not understand God correctly. We lack repentance, because we see ourselves in too favorable a light and we see God’s judgment as too unlikely:

If we could truly weigh our iniquities, we must needs find a necessity either of repenting or of perishing. Shall we make God ot frown upon us in heaven, arm all his creatures against us on earth? [Edwards makes a similar point in Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.] shall we force his curses upon us and ours; take his rod and teach it to scourge us with all temporal plagues and not repent?

Shall we would our own consciences with sin, that they may wound us with eternal torments; make a hell in our bosoms here, and open the gates of that lower hell to devour us hereafter and not repent?

He then makes this interesting psychological point

If we could see the farewell of sin, we would abhor it, and ourselves for it.

There is a strange about sin where it makes itself welcome by distorting our true view of ourselves, of sin, and of God.

Thomas Adams, The Sinner’s Mourning Habit.2 (God will honor us)

15 Friday Oct 2021

Posted by in Repentance, Thomas Adams, Thomas Adams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Adams then turns to the phrase in Job, “I abhor myself.” (The ESV has “despise.”) This is a turn in the verse and the sermon which might seem most unwise to us. Adams recognizes that

It is a deep degree of mortification for a man to abhor himself. To abhor others is easy, to deny others more easy, to despise others most easy. But it is hard to despise a man’s self, to deny himself harder, hardest to abhor himself. Every one is apt to think well of himself. Not only charity, a spiritual virtue, but also lust, a carnal vice, begins at home. There is no direct commandment in the Bible for a carnal man to love himself, because we are all so naturally prone to it.

This is considered madness and bad policy. A PhD psychologist writes (I am not going to link to the man, because I am not interested in causing conflict; rather I merely want to raise what is considered a truism), “We know it’s important to love ourselves. But what does it really mean to love and care for yourself?”

What then is meant by abhorring oneself? This is admittedly a strange idea. And in what way could Adams be advocating this is a spiritual good? He admits this is strange, “for a man to abhor himself, this is a wonder.”

But then he phrases the matter differently, and in a manner which may sound more comprehensible:

He that doth not admire himself is a man to be admired.

Adams begins to pick apart self-admiration,

It is against reason, indeed, that metals should make a difference of men; against religion that it should make a difference of Christian men. Yet commonly reputation is measured by the acre, and the altitude of countenance is taken by the pole of advancement. And as the servant values himself higher or lower according as his master esteems himself greater or less according as his master is, that, as his money or estate. 

The basis for the status is not in the man himself; it is in something outside of him. That is a curious thing: I am great because I have X.  But Adams takes the problem in a different direction: if we are going to be judged by our master, who then is that?

But the children of grace have learned another lesson—to think well of other men, and to abhor themselves. 

That seems odd, but it stems from the fact that we actually know ourselves:

And indeed, if we consider what master we have served, what wages we have deserved, we have just cause to abhor ourselves. What part of us hath not sinned, that it should not merit to be despised. Run all over this little Isle of Man [a human being] and find me one member that should not merit to be despised….Where is the innocency which desires not to stand only in the sight of mercy? There is our worst works wickedness, in our best weakness, error in all. What time, what place, are not witnesses against us?

Some of the language here has its basis in Romans 6:13, “Do not present your members [parts of your body] to sin as instruments of unrighteousness.” And, “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience which leads to righteousness.” (6:16)

In addition, one might balk at the standard for everything being sin: surely it is not that bad. It is not the case that everyone is always as bad as they could be. But rather that nothing is perfect and perfection is the standard. If we are to love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength; and to love our neighbor as ourselves; and to judge all actions against that standard, we see that we fail. 

The trouble is ontological, not just behavioral. The point is not that we don’t live up; it is even worse: we cannot live up to the standard.  “For by the works of the law no human being will justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” That everyone falls short is the point: it is that God may justify by grace as an act of mercy. 

When we look at ourselves, we have much to loath: we are our own worst enemies. Who would seek to justify the irrationality of humanity. Think of your life and be honest. Think of the causal unkindness; the selfishness and thoughtlessness; not mention worse acts of cruelty. 

Adams draws out the thought of the irrationality of sin. And then addresses another tact, “I do love God.”

That we love God far better than ourselves is soon said, but to prove it is not so easily done. He must deny himself, that will be Christ’s servant ….Many have denied hteir friends, many have denied their kindred, not a few have denied their brotehrs, some have denied their parents, but to deny themselves is a hard task. To deny their profits, to deny their lusts, to deny their reasons, to deny themselves? No, to do all this they utterly deny.

He then ends with this paradoxical promise which is at the heart of repentance and the Gospel:

Thus,

If we despise ourselves

            God will honor us

If we abhor ourselves,

            God will accept us

If we hate ourselves

            God will love us

If we condemn ourselves

            God will acquit us

If we punish ourselves

            God will spare us

Yea thus

If we seem lost to ourselves

            We shall be found on the Day of Jesus Christ.

Kierkegaard, What it means to seek God.7 The existential crisis

07 Thursday Oct 2021

Posted by in Kierkegaard, Kierkegaard, Repentance

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This brings us to the existential crisis which lies so importantly at the crux of Kierkegaard’s thought. (Now those who have much greater expertise may identify a different controlling idea in the Dane’s thinking, and will defer to their greater knowledge. But from what I have read, this seems to be the motivating conceit).

The one who, by reason, no longer experiences Romantic Wordsworthian Wonder at a flower or shadowy forrest, finds himself in a strange place. At this point, we know that there things which could inspire a lesser wonder and a lesser fear: a fear of an angel or devil; or a fear of some terror in the world. But all such fears can at most lead to superstition.

But there is a true and wonder and a true fear which can be experienced when the false fears are cleared away.

“True wonder and fear first appear only when he, just he, whether greatest or humblest, is alone with the omnipresent God.”

True wonder and fear fear appear only when he, just he, whether greatest or humblest, is alone with the omnipresent God

It matters nothing who the human being is when confronted with this God. All things in the creature matter nothing: that confrontation with God is a confrontation of pure fear and wonder. This fear and wonder are secure from an assault of reason: reason can merely clear away the creaturely wonders and fears.

“The experience here described was once the lot of every man in the moment of decision, when the sickness of the spirit struck in, and he felt himself imprisioned in existence, everlasting imprisoned.” What he means by this everlasting imprisonment I think must be mean the apparent inability to move past this confrontation.

The thought becomes particularly opaque (at least to me), but the sense seems to be unless one is changed at this confrontation, there is an imprisonment. This is the confrontation of “fear and trembling” and movement to the stage of faith (the “leap”).

Here is the salient passage, “Therefore the thing sought exists, the seeker himself was the place [because we find God in faith in the confession of sin — as will be explained later], but he is change, changed from having once been the place whether the thing sought was [this is the movement in the thought which I find confusing]. Oh, now there is no wonder, no ambiguity! When the soul apprehends this, its condition is fear and trembling in the consciousness of guilt, passion in the sorrow following remembrance, love in the repentance of the prodigal.”

I am not quite sure about that clause of the seeker having once been the place. But the remainder makes sense: this existential confrontation of the living God is the confrontation of a realization that of my guilt and of knowing that I am loved in the confession of and repentance from sin. It is the paradoxical moment of grace: that I am received precisely in the moment I realize I am bound to be cast-off.

God justifies the ungodly; God shows love for the unlovely. Indeed, it is precisely when one realizes one’s complete unworthiness that the Father welcomes in the prodigal and gives him the robe and the ring and fattened calf. If that moment is achieved, there is nothing in human existence which can equal it for importance.

There is one final note which to make about this section of the discourse concerning apologetics. It is a brief section, but it is worth considering. Someone may “wish” to say, “it is so hard to find Him [God] that some men even prove that He exists, and find evidence necessary.” At this point, one could accuse Kierkegaard of pure fideism: he merely asserts God exists. But he continues on at this point in a way which I think is helpful when we consider apologetics. “Let the work of proving it be hard and especially troublesome for him who tries to understand that it proves anything; for the author of the proof, it is easy because he has place himself outside, he does not deal with God, but considers something about God.”

God is personal — absolutely so. Yet, so often in our theology of God, and particularly in apologetics, we can reduce God to an object of our consideration. We speak about God and reduce God to an inference. But for the one who knows God, we do not merely know about God. Indeed, we cannot now the most critical elements of Christianity by deduction from historical evidence. We could prove up the death and burial of Jesus. We can make a quite cogent argument for the Resurrection. All those facts could be unquestionably true, but they cannot lead us to understand that Jesus died for me. I cannot know God in Jesus Christ except by knowing in experience.

It is that experience which is the most critical event in the life of a human being. If our apologetics is to be greatest use it must be more than winning an argument over historical deduction. And we must be careful that we do not merely “something about God” rather than God.

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner 3.8

10 Friday Sep 2021

Posted by in Repentance, Richard Sibbes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

If these things are true, then what must we do? If this is what is entailed in repentance, then we must consider how far we fall short of repentance. It is interesting that Sibbes does not ask the question, see whether you fall short. Luther says in his famous 95 Theses that the Christian life is all one of repentance. And there was a saying of the Puritans that we must repent of our repentance. 

Use 1. Let us therefore enter into our own souls, and examine ourselves, how far forth we are guilty of this sin, and think we come so far short of repentance. 

He draws out one element of their sin: trust, or boasting in the creature:

For the ten tribes here, the people of God, when they repented, say, ‘Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses.’ He speaks comparatively, as trusted in. 

Therefore, let us take heed of that boasting, vain-glorious disposition, arising from the supply of the creature. Saith God, ‘Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom; neither let the mighty man glory in his might: let not the rich man glory in his riches; but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth this, that I am the Lord, which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth,’ &c., Jer. 9:23, 24.

This is sinful, because our glory is to be elsewhere:

Let a man glory that he knows God in Christ to be his God in the covenant of grace; that he hath the God of all strength, the King of kings and Lord of lords to be his: who hath all other things at his command, who is independent and all-sufficient. 

If a man will boast, let him go out of himself to God, and plant himself there; and for other things, take heed the heart be not lift up with them.

He now delineates why boasting or trust in the creature is sinful:

1. Consider what kind of thing boasting is. It is idolatry, for it sets the creature in the place and room of God.

2. And it is also spiritual adultery, whereby we fix our affections upon the creature, which should be placed on God; as it is in James, ‘Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?’ &c., James 4:4.

These last two explanations of the sinfulness of trusting in the creature draw upon a doctrine known as the “noetic effect” of sin: the way in which sin affects our thoughts and affections and perceptions. 

3. Habakkuk calls it drunkennness, Hab. 2:4, 5, for it makes the soul drunk with sottishness and conceitedness, so as a man in this case is never sober, until God strip him of all.

4. And then again, it puts forth the eye of the soul. It is a kind of white, that mars the sight. When a man looks to Asshur, horses, and to outward strength, where is God all this while? These are so many clouds, that they cannot see God, but altogether pore upon the creature. He sees so much greatness there, that God seems nothing. But when a man sees God in his greatness and almightiness, then the creature is nothing, Job 42:6. But until this be, there is a mist and blindness in the eye of the soul.

When we have identified the defects and limitations of our repentance, and have come to see the extent to which we still rely upon the creature, we must seek a change:

And when we have seen our guiltiness this way (as who of us in this case may not be confounded and ashamed of relying too much on outward helps?), then let us labour to take off our souls from these outward things, whether it be strength abroad or at home. 

We must not think that this reformation will come from our own devices:

Which that we may do, we must labour for that obedience which our Saviour Christ exhorts us unto in self-denial, Mat. 16:24, not to trust to our own devices, policy, or strength, wit, will, or conceits, that this or that may help us, nor anything. 

He makes an observation about the relationship between justification and sanctification: in both we cannot trust in ourselves: 

Make it general; for when conversion is wrought, and the heart is turned to God, it turns from the creature, only using it as subordinate to God. We see, usually, men that exalt themselves in confidence, either of strength, of wit, or whatsoever, they are successless in their issue.

It is a principle with God to thwart the creature who seeks to itself over the Creator:

For God delights to confound them, and go beyond their wit, as we have it, Isa. 30:3. They thought to go beyond God with their policy, they would have help out of Egypt, this and that way. 

What then does this look like? Does this mean that we should neglect any effort of our own? Some sort of “let go and let God” transformation? No. This would be relying upon the creature by ignoring obedience to what God has directed.

Oh, saith the prophet, but for all this, God is wise to see through all your devices; secretly hereby touching them to the quick, as sottish persons, who thought by their shallow brains to go beyond God. You think religious courses, and the obedience God prescribeth to you, to be idle, needless courses; but, notwithstanding, God is wise. He will go beyond you, and catch you in your own craft.

He now proves the point with biblical examples:

 ‘Therefore, the strength of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion,’ Isa. 30:3. Thus God loves to scatter Babels fabrics, Gen. 11:8, and holds that are erected in confidence of human strength against him. He delights to catch the wise in their own craft, to beat all down, lay all high imaginations and things flat before him, that no flesh may glory in his sight. There is to this purpose a notable place in Isaiah: ‘Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks,’ Isa. 50:11. For they kindled a fire, and had a light of their own, and would not borrow light from God: ‘Walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled.’ But what is the conclusion of all? ‘This shall ye have of mine hand.’ I dare assure you of this, saith the prophet. ‘You shall lie down in sorrow.’ Those that walk by the light and spark of their own fire, this they shall have at God’s hands: ‘they shall lie down in sorrow.’

He cautions against taking the counsel of your age. There is always some sort of “religious” or “spiritual” wisdom which is popular in any time or place. But we are not to trust in these things. Pilgrim’s Progress has a notable picture of this error when the smooth talking Worldly Wiseman misleads Christian and draws him out of the way.

Sibbes comes to an exhortation. There is a school of thought which counsels that such exhortations should always be addressed as “You.” I prefer the method of Sibbes here to use the “we”: Let us. He is not standing above the congregant but alongside. I know these traps and errors so well because I have wrestled with him. Come with me and I will show you through:

Let us therefore take heed of carnal confidence. 

Carnal confidence is an abstraction. To say this and nothing more is to say nothing sensible. The abstraction is fine to introduce an idea, but it must be followed up with something concrete: What does that “carnal confidence” look like in practice?

You have a number who love to sleep in a whole skin, and will be sure to take the safest courses, as they think, not consulting with God, but with ‘flesh and blood.’ It might be instanced in stories of former times, how God hath crossed emperors, and great men in this kind, were it not too tedious. 

In Sibbes’ day there was great and often violent conflict over religious disputes: At this time, one’s religion and one’s political allegiance were not easily separable. The religious disputes had very tangible political consequences. Thus, some would seek to be of no firm religious position so as to avoid any political difficulty. The same would be one now who religious convictions drift with the latest popular conceit. The rapid change in doctrinal statements beginning in the early 20th century would be this same process in modern garb:

But for present instance, you have many who will be of no settled religion. Oh, they cannot tell, there may be a change. Therefore they will be sure to offend neither part. This is their policy, and if they be in place, they will reform nothing. Oh, I shall lay myself open to advantages, and stir up enemies against me. And so they will not trust God, but have carnal devices to turn off all duty whatsoever. It is an ordinary speech, but very true, policy overthrows policy. It is true of carnal policy. 

But to do this is not a way to safety:

When a man goes by carnal rules to be governed by God’s enemy and his own, with his own wit and understanding, which leads him to outward things, this kind of policy overthrows all policy, and outward government at length. Those that walk religiously and by rule, they walk most confidently and securely, as the issue will shew. Therefore, consider that, set God aside, all is but vanity. And that,

First, In regard they do not yield that which we expect they should yield. There is a falsehood in the things. They promise this and that in shows, but when we possess them, they yield it not. As they have no strength indeed, so they deceive.

2. Then, also, there is a mutability in them; for there is nothing in the world but changes. There is a vanity of corruption in them. All things at last come to an end, save God, who is unchangeable.

He will conclude here with the vanity of the creature. This final section is a plea to not trust in the creature, because the creature will disappoint us. The repentance concerned a trust in the creature and not God. In this section, he is pleading with us to avoid the sin in the first place. 

To bring us to this point he uses a combination of logical argument and emotional persuasion. 

3. Then again, besides the intrinsical vanity in all outward things, and whatsoever carnal reason leads unto, they are snares and baits unto us, to draw us away from God, by reason of the vanity of our nature, vainer than the things themselves. 

Consider the sentence just quoted: The danger of the vanity is that it is a “snare and bait.” This sort of language may seem a bit distant from our experience, but physical traps to catch animals. These images would have brought to mind crushed limbs, blood, death.

Therefore take heed of confidence in anything, or else this will be the issue: we shall be worse than the things we trust. 

This is an interesting observation: If I trust in this creature, I will become worse than the creature I have trusted. How can he prove this up?

‘Vanity of vanities, all things are vanity,’ Eccles. 1:1; and man himself is lighter than vanity, saith the psalmist, Ps. 62:9. He that trusts to vanity, is worse than vanity. A man cannot stand on a thing that cannot stand itself,—stare non stante. A man cannot stand on a thing that is mutable and changeable. If he doth, he is vain with the thing. 

The argument here is quite similar to the conclusion of Shakespeare’s Sonnet 94, “Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.” A human being who has been corrupted by trusting in a vain creature has become worse than even the creature.

Even as a picture drawn upon ice, as the ice dissolves, so the picture vanisheth away. So it is with all confidence in the creature whatsoever. It is like a picture upon ice, which vanisheth with the things themselves. He that stands upon a slippery thing, slips with the thing he stands on. 

Here again he relies upon a very common experience to prove his point. At this time, Europe was moving into what was know as the “Little Ice Age.” Sibbes readers or hearers would have been intimately acquainted with ice.

He then argues that this proposition is so obvious to all that one does not revelation to know that it is true. It is a point which cannot be avoided:

If there were no word of God against it, yet thus much may be sufficient out of the principles of reason, to shew the folly of trusting to Asshur, and horses, and the like.

He ends with a conclusion and a series of six exhortations in the form of “let us”:

Let this be the end of all, then, touching this carnal confidence: to beware that we do not fasten our affections too much upon any earthly thing, at home or abroad, within or without ourselves. For ‘God will destroy the wisdom of the wise,’ 1 Cor. 1:19. 

First:

Let us take heed, therefore, of all false confidence whatsoever.

Second, 

Let us use all outward helps, yet so as to rely upon God for his blessing in the use of all. And when they all fail, be of Jehoshaphat’s mind: ‘Lord, we know not what to do,’ 2 Chron. 20:12. 

The rationale: 

The creature fails us, our helps fail us; ‘but our eyes are upon thee.’ So when all outward Asshurs, and horses, and helps fail, despair not; for the less help there is in the creature, the more there is in God. As Gideon with his army, when he thought to carry it away with multitudes, God told him there were too many of them to get the victory by, lest Israel should vaunt themselves of their number, and so lessened the army to three hundred, Jud. 7:2; so it is not the means, but the blessing on the means which helps us. If we be never so low, despair not. 

Third,

Let us make God ours, who is all-sufficient and almighty, and then if we were brought a hundred times lower than we are, God will help and raise us. Those who labour not to have God, the Lord of hosts, to go out with their armies, if they had all the Asshurs and horses in the world, all were in vain. It was therefore a good resolution of Moses. Saith he to God, ‘If thy presence go not with us, carry us not hence,’ Exod. 33:15. He would not go one step forward without God. 

This last line if a fine aphorism:

So, if we cannot make God our friend to go out before us, in vain it is to go one step forward. 

Fourth,

Let us therefore double our care in holy duties, renewing our covenant with God, before the decree come out against us. The more religious, the more secure we shall be. If we had all the creatures in the world to help us, what are they but vanity and nothing, if God be our enemy! These things we know well enough for notion; but let us labour to bring them home for use, in these dangerous times abroad. 

Fifth,

Let us begin where we should, that our work may be especially in heaven. 

Sixth

Let us reform our lives, being moderately careful, as Christians should, without tempting God’s providence, using rightly all civil supports and helps seasonably, and to the best advantage; for, as was said, the carelessness herein for defence may prove as dangerous and fatal to a State, as the too much confidence and trust in them.

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner, 3.7

04 Saturday Sep 2021

Posted by in Repentance, Richard Sibbes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Sibbes has been arguing that it is ultimately irrational to put our trust in the creature. To this extent, he has been making an objective argument. At this point, he makes an observation of the subjective nature of repentance. The one who is repentant will naturally (if you ) not put trust in the creature.  He argues that means of repentace, the relationship to God has changed and therefore, the relationship to the creature likewise changes.

So we see the second point made good, that these outward things of themselves cannot help. Therefore comes this in the third place:—

Obs. That when God alters and changes and mouldeth anew the heart of a man to repentance, he altereth his confidence in the creature.

A Christian State will not trust in Asshur, nor in horses. It is true both of State and persons. 

The relationship to God changes:

The reason will follow after in the end of the verse, ‘For in thee the fatherless findeth mercy.’ Because, when a man hath once repented, there is a closing between God and him, and he seeth an all-sufficiency in God to satisfy all his desires. Therefore he will use all other things as helps, and as far as it may stand with his favour. 

This new relationship to God causes a new understanding of God:

For he hath Moses’s eye put in him, a new eye to see him that is invisible, Heb. 11:27, to see God in his greatness, and other things in their right estimate as vain things. What is repentance but a change of the mind, when a man comes to be wise and judicious, as indeed repentant men are the only wise men? 

We understand God as constant and able in a manner that the creature cannot be:

Then a man hath an esteem of God to be El-shadai, all-sufficient, and all other things to be as they are, uncertain; that is, they are so today, as that they may be otherwise to-morrow, for that is the nature of the creatures. They are in potentia, in a possibility to be other things than they are. God is alway ‘I am,’ alway the same. There is not so much as a shadow of changing in him. 

This sight of God then leads to a change in the way the creature is understood. Before looking here, consider the matter. The way in which we know and understand a thing depends upon its context. We know things in some sort of relationship. Consider some trinket which bears a sentimental attachment: This trinket was my mother’s and so it is valuable to me. I have never seen this trinket before and so it is worthless to me. The same item has different meaning due to its relationship to us. 

As we know things in their relationship to God and us, our valuation of the thing will change. You could understand repentance as in part a continual revaluation of the creature (and Creator).

Wherefore, when the soul hath attained unto this spiritual eyesight and wisdom, if it be a sinful association with Egypt or Asshur, with this idolater or that, he will not meddle; and as for other helps, he will not use them further than as subordinate means. When a man is converted, he hath not a double, not a divided heart, to trust partly to God and partly to the creature. If God fail him,* he hath Asshur and horses enough, and association with all round about. But a Christian he will use all helps, as they may stand with the favour of God, and are subordinate under him. Now for trial.

By “trial” Sibbes means let us consider this matter in our own lives:

Quest. How shall we know whether we exceed in this confidence in the creature or not?

Sibbes provides two tests: First: We can know that we have placed excess trust in the creature when the creature fails us. Second: How do we think, act, and speak about the relationship to the creature? Are we conscious that this is a means to be used by God and not a means which is effacious in itself?

Sol. 1. We may know it by adventuring on ill courses and causes, thinking to bear them out with Asshur and with horses. But all the mercenary soldiers in the world, and all the horses at home and abroad, what can they do when God is angry? Now, when there is such confidence in these things as for to out-dare God, then there is too much trust in them. That trust will end in confusion, if it be not repented of, for that lifts up the heart in the creature. And as the heathen man observes, ‘God delights to make great little, and little great.’ It is his daily work to ‘cast down mountains, and exalt the valleys,’ Isa. 40:4. Those that are great, and boast in their greatness, as if they would command heaven and earth, God delights to make their greatness little, and at length nothing, and to raise up the day of small things. Therefore the apostle saith, ‘If I rejoice, it shall be in my infirmities,’ 2 Cor. 12:9, in nothing else; for God delights to shew strength in weakness.

2. By security and resting of the soul in meaner things, never seeking to divine and religious helps when we are supplied with those that are outward. For these people, when they trusted to Assyria and Egypt, those false supports and sandy foundations, they were careless of God, and therefore must trust in somewhat else. Wherefore, if we see a man secure and careless, certainly he trusts too much to uncertain riches, to Asshur, to Egypt, to friends, or to outward helps. His security bewrays that. 

He restates this test in a positive manner. What would it look like to use the creature in the proper manner?

If a man trust God in the use of the means, his care will be to keep God his friend by repentance and daily exercises of religion, by making conscience of his duty. But if he trust the means and not God, he will be careless and weak in good duties, dull and slow, and, out of the atheism of his heart, cry, Tush! if God do not help me, I shall have help from friends abroad, and be supported with this and that at home, horses and the like, and shall be well.

* That is, the ‘double-minded’ man.—G.

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner 3.4

27 Friday Aug 2021

Posted by in Richard Sibbes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

(The previous post on these sermons may be found here)

Thus much in general, which things premised, I come to the forenamed particulars. 

First,

Doct. That naturally we are apt and prone to confidence in outward helps and present things.

He develops this point using a conception from Augustine, that with the Fall the love of humanity turns inward and away from God. It creates a defect in the functioning of the creature. This is an idea which even more importantly derives from Paul, particularly Romans 1, particularly 1:25, “they worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” If you couple that with 2 Cor. 3:18, you can see that proper functioning of the human creature takes place when the creature is rightfully reflecting the Creator. In Col. 3:10 Paul writes that we are “being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” This is the “new self”.

This came to our nature from the first fall. 

What was the most basic event of the Fall?

What was our fall at first? A turning from the all-sufficient, unchangeable God, to the creature. 

Thus, sin is relational:

If I should describe sin, it is nothing but a turning from God to one creature or other. When we find not contentment and sufficiency in one creature, we run to another. 

The proposition is then illustrated by something familiar to all. A note on the illustration, the point is not to demonstrate the preacher’s brilliance, but to make it easier for the listener to grasp and retain the abstract principle:

As the bird flies from one tree and bough to another, so we seek variety of contentments from one thing to another. Such is the pravity of our nature since the fall. This is a fundamental conclusion. 

He here provides some evidence: we must have external support to function correctly. He considers the matter at a “psychological” proposition. He states and elaborates the proposition, then provides a brief illustration. The illustration is common and easy to understand. Remember the hearer of a sermon does not have the ability to re-wind or underscore or ponder during the sermon:

Man naturally will, and must, have somewhat to rely on. The soul must have a bottom, a foundation to rest on, either such as the world affords, or a better. Weak things must have their supports. As we see, the vine being a weak thing, is commonly supported by the elm, or the like supply. 

He then reiterates the evidentiary argument, but this time he substitutes “soul” for “man” and explains the same state as a “spiritual” matter (rather than a bare “psychological”) proposition:

So is it with the soul since the fall. Because it is weak, and cannot uphold nor satisfy itself with itself, therefore it looks out of itself. Look to God it cannot, till it be in the state of grace; for being his enemy, it loves not to look to him or his ways, or have dealing with him. 

He has stated the proposition, provided some evidence for the proposition and then concludes:

Therefore it looks unto the creature, that next hand unto itself. This being naturally since the fall, that what we had in God before when we stood, we now labour to have in the creature.

Having established the observation, then gives the reason why such takes place. The first “reason” is given briefly because it is primarily a summary of above. 

Reason 1. Because, as was said, having lost communion with God, somewhat we must have to stay the soul.

The second “reason” brings in a new element: the ability of Satan to deceive. This is an interesting explanation, he puts Satan’s work at the level of “fancy.” By “fancy” he means something like “imagination”. The basic understanding of the psychology here is that something is observed and recognized. Next, the fancy operates upon the thing seen to provide understanding of it. We see things, and then the fancy, which has been influenced, will mis-value the thing seen. This is not a passive process of being solely acted upon, because this “spirit of error join[s] with our own spirit[], and with the deceit of our nature[]”.

2. Secondly, Because Satan joins with our sense and fancy, by which we are naturally prone to live, esteeming of things not by faith and by deeper grounds, but by fancy. Now, fancy having communion with sense, what it discovers and presents for good and great, fancy makes it greater. And the devil, above all, having communion with that faculty of fancy, and so a spirit of error being mixed therewith, to make our fancy think the riches of the world to be the only riches; the greatness and goodness of the creature to be the only greatness and goodness; and the strength thereof the only strength. This spirit of error joining with our own spirits, and with the deceit of our natures, makes us set a higher value on the creature, enlargeth and enrageth the fancy, making it spiritually drunk, so as to conceive amiss of things.

What then do we do with this information? When we are injured by reliance upon the creature, it is a good gift of God: we are being taught that we are trusting in the wrong things (the creature) rather than the Creator.

Use. Briefly for use hereof, it being but a directing point to others. Let us take notice of our corruption herein, and be humbled for it; taking in good part those afflictions and crosses which God sends us, to convince and let us see that there is no such thing in the creature as we imagined; because naturally, we are desperately given to think that there is somewhat more therein than there is. Now affliction helps this sickness of fancy, embittering unto us all confidence in the creature. Therefore it is a happy and a blessed thing to be crossed in that which we over-value, as these Israelites here did the Assyrians and the Egyptians: for being enemies, they trusted in a ‘broken reed,’ 2 Kings 18:21, as we shall see further in the second point.

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner, 3.3

13 Friday Aug 2021

Posted by in Hosea, Repentance, Richard Sibbes

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The previous post on this work is found here:

At this point, Sibbes makes two general observations about the nature of repentance itself. The first is that repentance takes place within the whole of our relationship to God: If we are truly repentant, that will be reflected by the expression of prayer and praise toward. And, conversely, if we do not repent and yet seek to enter into this intimate relationship with God, our prayer and praise will be not accepted. Second, he stress the particularness of repentance. 

But, to make way to these things, we must first observe two things for a preparative.

Doctrine. First, That reformation of life must be joined with prayer and praise. 

There was prayer before, and a promise of praise; but, as here, there must be joined reformation of their sin. 

This observation comes from the text of the passage. Hosea 14:1 contains the command to repent. Verse 2 provides, 

Take with you words and return to the LORD;

Say to him, Take away all iniquity

Accept what is good,

And we will pay with bulls the vows of our lips.

Verse 3 containes the details of the repentance (which will be discussed, below). Notice something here about the nature of his exegesis: He is not merely looking at the text of the passage and saying, this means this. He is thinking about the context of the passage: not merely to understand the words, but to understand the reason why these matters are placed together. The passage does not expressly state the doctrine proposed by Sibbes. But, by thinking carefully about the passage, Sibbes has seen what the passage does: It contains a command, but it also provides a model. 

And, so that his understanding does not become fanciful, he is able to anchor individual elements of the chain with other passages which are explicit about the relationship:

That it must be so, it appears, first, for prayer. It is said, ‘If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear my prayer,’ Ps. 66:18. And for praise, ‘The very sacrifice of the wicked (who reforms not his ways) is abominable,’ Prov. 15:8. So that, without reformation, prayer and praise is to no purpose. 

Therefore, it is brought here after a promise of praise. Lord, as we mean to praise thee, so we intend a thorough reformation of former sins, whereof we were guilty. We will renounce Asshur, and confidence in horses, idols, and the like. 

Notice how he does not delay application to the end of the sermon, but makes the application in his exegesis. Moreover, note the tone of the application: it is not bare command, but rather it is exhortation “let us.”

Therefore, let us, when we come to God with prayer and praise, think also of reforming what is amiss. Out with Achan, Josh. 7:19. If there be any dead fly, Eccles. 10:1, or Achan uncast out, prayer and praise is in vain. 

Achan coveted gold and sinned against God’s explicit command. Eccl. 10:1 is the source of the proverbial “fly in the ointment.” Our prayer or praised mixed with unrepentant sin is nauseous. He then proves this point by citing to two other passages which are consistent with his observation:

‘Will you steal, lie, commit adultery, swear falsely, and come and stand before me,’ saith the Lord, by the prophet Jeremiah, Jer. 7:9. Will you offer to pray to me, and praise me, living in these and these sins? No; God will abhor both that prayer and praise, where there is no reformation. ‘What hast thou to do to take my name in thy mouth, since thou hatest to be reformed, and hast cast my words behind thee, saith God,’ Ps. 50:16, where he pleads with the hypocrite for this audacious boldness in severing things conjoined by God. 

He returns to the original point in much the manner of a recapitulation which restates the original them but also makes use of the “development”.

Therefore, as we would not have our prayers turned back from heaven, which should bring a blessing upon all other things else: as we would not have our sacrifices abominable to God, labour to reform what is amiss, amend all, or else never think our lip-labour will prove anything but a lost labour without this reformation.

Here he makes an observation about the nature of repentance: In this he makes an interesting psychological observation. It is a common that you must repent of all sin. Sibbes unpacks what is so easily done: to reserve one sin:

A second thing, which I observe in general, before I come to the particulars, is,

Doctrine. That true repentance is, of the particular sin which we are most addicted to, and most guilty of.

The “particular” sin he takes directly from the text. If time permitted, we could tie these particular sins to their development throughout the Scripture. What strikes me at this moment is the degree to which these particular sins could be charged against contemporary Christians in N.A. There is an excessive trust in and reliance upon political means, various forms of power (on right and left). There is a commensurate lack of trust in the power of “normal means of grace,” the providence of God, the wisdom of God to the point that politics and power become idolatrous (and the idols were seen as means to obtain and expend supernatural power, which is often the way in which we view God as a charging station for our political position). 

The particular sin of this people, whom God so instructs here, was their confidence in Assyria, horses, and idols. 

Note the connection between the particular and the many (note also the structure of this paragraph proposition and illustration/application:

Now therefore repenting, they repent of the particular, main sins they were most guilty of; which being stricken down, all the lesser will be easy to conquer. As when Goliath himself was stricken down, all the host of the Philistines ran away, 1 Sam. 17:51. So when Goliath shall be slain in us, the reigning, ruling, domineering sin, the rest will easily be conquered.

Here, he develops the application of repenting of the particular:

Use. Therefore let us make an use of examination and trial of our repentance.

Stop and ask yourself, am I truly repentant of the particular sin(s) which most beset me? “If it be sound”: if you are truly repentant for the particular;

 If it be sound, it draws with it a reformation; as in general, so especially of our particular sins. As those confess and say, ‘Above all other things we have sinned in this, in asking a king,’ 1 Sam. 12:8. We were naught, and had offended God many ways before; but herein we have been exceeding sinful, in seeking another governor, being weary of God’s gracious government over us. 

True repentance of the particular sin will bring about a general reformation of the soul before God.  He now makes this point with a precise description and then an illustration:

So a gracious heart will say, I have been a wretch in all other things, but in this and that sin above all other. Thus it was with the woman of Samaria, when she was put in mind by Christ of her particular grand sin, that she had been a light woman, and had had many husbands, he whom she lived with now not being her husband, John 4:18. This discovery, when Christ touched the galled part, did so work upon her conscience that it occasioned a general repentance of all her other sins whatsoever. 

This exposing to us our particular sin is a great part of the work which the Spirit does when he brings conviction:

And, indeed, sound repentance of one main sin will draw with it all the rest. And, for the most part, when God brings any man home to him, he so carries our repentance, that, discovering unto us our sinfulness, he especially shews us our Delilah, Isaac, Herodias, our particular sin; which being cast out, we prevail easily against the rest. 

Repentance can actually be a dodge and a cover for sin: If X is my great sin, I will happily repent of Y that I may retain X.

As the charge was given by the king of Aram against Ahab, ‘Fight neither against great nor small, but only against the king of Israel,’ 2 Chron. 18:30; kill him, and then there will be an end of the battle. So let us not stand striking at this and that sin (which we are not so much tempted to), if we will indeed prove our repentance to be sound; but at that main sin which by nature, calling, or custom we are most prone unto. Repentance for this causes repentance for all the rest; as here the church saith, ‘Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses,’ &c.

Here is something interesting: The one who retains a sin may be in the place of putting a great show of work as a means of atonement or payment for the sin which is kept. 

It is a grand imposture, which carries many to hell; they will cherish themselves in some gross main sin, which pleases corrupt nature, and is advantageous to them; and by way of compensation with God, they will do many other things well, but leave a dead fly to mar all; whereas they should begin here especially. 

Thus much in general, which things premised, I come to the forenamed particulars. 

The Sinner’s Mourning Habit

07 Saturday Aug 2021

Posted by in Job, Repentance, Thomas Adams, Thomas Adams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

This sermon by Thomas Adams was preached on March 29, 1625, just after the death of King James

The Sinner’s Mourning-Habit

(A habit here means an outfit, the way one dresses in mourning.)

The text given is Job 42:6, “Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent and dust and ashes.” 

Adams begins with the implicit question, How does God speak to us, what does God do to gain our attention?

Affliction is a winged chariot, that mounts the soul toward heaven; nor do we ever rightly understand God’s majesty as when we are under our own misery….The Lord hath many messengers by which he solicits man….But among them all, none dispatcheth the business surer or sooner than affliction; if that fail of bring a man home, nothing can do it.

God had used affliction to gain the attention of Job and Job’s repentance here in “dust and ashes” is the end of that work. Where we may consider three degrees of mortification: the sickness, the death, and the burial of sin. 

To study God is the way to make a humble man; and a humble man is in the way to come unto God.

Adams comes to the first word of the text, “Wherefore.”  This establishes the basis upon which Job was humbled. Adams sees two elements here: (1) God’s majesty and (2) God’s mercy as the basis for Job’s humility.

As to majesty, “Mathematicians wonder at the sun, that, being so much bigger than the earth, it doth not set it on fire and burn it to ashes: but here is a wonder, that God being so infinitely great, and we so infinitely evil, we are not consumed.”

As to mercy: Meditating upon the mercy of God is the great means to humble us, “nothing more humbles a heart of flesh.”

It is a certain conclusion, no proud man knows God.

Humility is not only a virtue itself, but a vessel to contain other virtues: like embers, which keep the fire alive that is hidden under it. It empieth itself by a modest estimation of its own worth that Christ may fill it….All our pride, O Lord, is from want of knowing thee.

Next words, “I abhor myself. It is a deep degree of mortification for a man to abhor himself.”

He that doth not admire himself is a man to be admired.

He that doth not admire himself

Is a man to be admired

But the children of grace have learned another lesson – to think well of other men, and to abhor themselves. And indeed, if we consider what master we have served, and what wages deserved, we have just cause to abhor ourselves. What part of us hath not sinned that it should not merit to be despised?

He then asks this question, which raises a fascinating psychological question as to the nature of self-centeredness and more particularly the sin-centeredness of human beings. Perhaps this centering upon sin is truly what is at issue in narcissism rather than the bare “self.” Here is Adams’ observation on this point:

That we love God far better than ourselves is soon said; but to prove it is not so easily done. He must deny himself that will be Christ’s servant, Mark viii. 34. Many have denied their friends, may have denied their kindred, not a few have denied their brothers, some have denied their own parents; but to themselves, this is a hard task. To deny their profits, to deny their lusts, to deny their reasons, to deny themselves? No, do to all this they utterly deny.

But this denial of self and abhorrence of the sin which inhabits this is the heart of repentance.

Thus, if we deny ourselves, 

God will honor us.

If we abhor ourselves,

God will accept us.

If we hate ourselves, 

God will love us.

If we condemn ourselves, 

God will acquit us.

If we punish ourselves,

God will spare us. 

Yea, thus if we seem lost to ourselves,

We shall be found in the day of Jesus Christ.

Next, he comes to the words, “I repent.” Rather than explain the nature of repentance, Adams’ goal is to bring us to repentance. He begins by noting that for many the potential for repentance perversely becomes an encouragement to sin. But such thinking is faulty, repentance – true repentance – can never be a basis to encourage sin: “repentance is a fair gift of God.” 

Man’s heart is like a door with a spring-lock; pull the door after you, it locks of itself, but you cannot open it again without a key. Man’s heart naturally locks out grace; none but he that hath the key of the house of David, Rev. iii.7, can open the door and put it in. God hath made a promise to repentance, not of repentance; we may trust to that promise, but there is no trusting to ourselves.

We have no promise that God will grant us repentance, and without repentance there is no reconciliation with God. True repentance does not lie in magic words nor in our natural ability. True repentance is something given and granted by God. 

Nor yet must we think with this one short word, ‘I repent,’ to answer for the multitude of our offenses; as if we, that had sinned in parcels, should be forgiven in gross….Nor is it enough to recount them, but we must recant them….

If we could truly weigh our iniquities, we must needs find a necessity of either repenting or of perishing. 

Shall we make God frown upon us in heaven, 

Arm all his creatures against us on earth? 

Shall we force his curses upon us and ours;

Take his rod, and teach it to scourge us with all temporal plagues; 

And not repent?

Shall we wound our consciences with sin, 

That they may wound us with eternal torments;

Make a hell in our bosoms here, 

And open the gates of that lower hell to devour us hereafter, 

And not repent?

Do we give by sin Satan a right to us

A power over us

An advantange against us: 

And not labor to cross his mischiefs by repentance?

Do we cast brimstone into that infernal fire, 

As if it could not be hot enough, or we should fail of tortures expect we make ourselves our own tormentors?

And not rather seek to quench those flames without penitent tears?

How then will we put off sin? We cannot look to repentance as a remedy to sin if we look to it as an excuse for sin. We start with looking to the end of sin, “If we could see the farewell of sin, we would abhor it and ourselves for it.” Look at the consequence which will flow from the sin: what will happen? How will your conscience stand? 

Finally the phrase, “Dust and ashes.” 

This is a wonderful line, “I have but on stair more, down from both text and pulpit, and this a very low one, ‘Dust and ashes.’”

What keeps us from thinking of this end? 

How may doth the golden cup of honor make drunk, and drive from all sense of mortality. Riches and heart’s ease are such usual intoxications to the souls of men, that it is rare to find any of them so low as dust and ashes.

Dust as the remembrance of his original; ashes, as the representation of his end. Dust, that was his mother; ashes, that shall be the daughter of our bodies.

Dust the matter of our substance, the house of our souls, the original grains whereof we were made, the top of all our kindred. The glory of the strongest man, the beauty of the fairest woman, all is but dust. Dust, the only compounder of differences, the absolver of all distinctions. 

Who can say which was the client, which the lawyer; 

which the borrower, which the lender; 

which the captive, which the conqueror, 

when they all lie together in blended dust?

….

Dust, 

The sport of the wind,

The very slave of the besom [a broom].

This is the pit from whence we are digged, 

And this is the pit into which we shall be resolved.

As he writes later, we are made from dust and live in the empire of dust.

I conclude

I call you not to casting dust on your heads

Or sitting in ashes

But to that sorrow and compunction of souls

Whereof the other was but an external symbol or testimony.

Let us rend our hearts and spare our garments

Humble our souls without afflicting our bodies. Is. lviii.5. 

It is not the corpse wrapped in dust and ashes,

But a contrite heart, 

Which the Lord will not despise. Ps. li. 17.

Let us repent our sins 

And amend our lives;

So God will pardon us by the merits

Save us by the mercies,

And crown us with the glories of Jesus Christ.

Richard Sibbes, The Backsliding Sinner 3.2 (the two parts of repentance)

25 Friday Jun 2021

Posted by in Repentance, Richard Sibbes

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

An examination of the promises made in repentance. Sibbes will identify two: a leaving off, and a taking on. Although mentioned here, it is the pattern also found in Ephesians 4: The thief does not merely need to leave off stealing; he also must get a job and give. Owen explains mortification as abounding in the grace contrary to the sin. Thus, the remedy for greed is thankfulness. 

After this their solemn covenant and promise of yielding praise to God, that if he would forgive all their sins, and do good to them, then he should have the best they could do to him again: praise here is a promise of new obedience, which hath two branches,

1. A renunciation of the ill courses they took before.

‘Asshur shall not save us; we will not ride upon horses; neither will we say any more to the works of our hands, Ye are our gods.’

2. Then there is a positive duty implied in these words, ‘For in thee the fatherless findeth mercy.’

I admit, I find Sibbes’ argument that positive duty is implied in the second clause difficult to follow. He is going to provide an explanation in the paragraph below. But the explanation actually supports a different proposition: The reason why I will not trust in Assyria is that such trust is ill-founded and unneeded. I can trust you. Even the weakest, the fatherless can find trust in you.

Whereof, the one springs from the other; ‘Asshur shall not save us, we will not ride upon horses; neither will we say any more to the works of our hands, Ye are our gods.’ Whence comes all these? ‘For in thee the fatherless findeth mercy.’ Thou shalt be our rock, our trust, our confidence for ever. What will follow upon this? ‘Asshur shall not save us any longer; we will not ride upon horses,’ &c. For we have pitched and placed our confidence better; on him in whom ‘the fatherless findeth mercy.’

‘Asshur shall not save us.’ The confidence which this people had placed partly in Asshur, their friends and associates, and partly in their own strength at home, now promising repentance, they renounce all such confidence in Asshur, horses and idols. ‘Asshur shall not save us,’ &c.

He gives some consideration to the proposition that the people should not trust in Assyria. He begins by noting that the prophets note the running back and forth between Egypt and Assyria, hoping that one would save the from the other:

First, for this, ‘Asshur shall not save us,’ that is, the Assyrians, whom they had on the one side, and the Egyptians on the other: it being, as we see in the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, ordinary with God’s people, in any distress, to have recourse to the Assyrians, or Egyptians, as if God had not been sufficient to be their rock and their shield. We see how often the Lord complains of this manner of dealing. ‘Woe unto them that go down into Egypt for help, and stay on horses, and trust in chariots, because they are many,’ &c., Isa. 30:2, and 31:1. The prophets, and so this prophet, are very full of such complaints: it being one of the chief arguments he presseth, their falseness in this, that in any fear or peril, they ran to the shelter of other nations, especially these two, Egypt and Assyria, as you have it, ‘Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east wind; he daily increaseth lies and desolation, and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt,’ Hosea 12:1, that is, balm, who had this privilege above all other nations, to abound in precious balms; which balm and oil they carried into Egypt, to win their favour against the Assyrians. Sometimes they relied on the one, and sometimes on the other, the story and causes whereof were too tedious to relate. 

He then draws a conclusion: We will continue to trust in the untrustworthy creature until a supernatural help comes to set out trust upon the trustworthy Creator:

Wherefore I come to the useful points arising hence. ‘Asshur shall not save us.’

1. That man, naturally, is prone to put confidence in the creature.

2. That the creature is insufficient and unable to yield us this prop to uphold our confidence.

3. That God’s people, when they are endowed with light supernatural to discern and be convinced hereof, are of that mind to say, ‘Asshur shall not save us.’

Having made theses observations, he goes onto explicate these propositions in three “doctrines”: Our repentance must include prayer and praise. (2) Our repentance must be directed to the sin to which we are “addicted.” (3) It is our nature to trust present creaturely things. But, these things cannot help us.