Category Archives: Sunday School Lesson

Larger Catechism 194, Forgiving Others, pt. 2

The Larger Catechism

Question 194 (pt. 2)

194. Q. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?

…

As we forgive

This phrase (as we forgive our debtors) can raise some interesting questions. The way the Larger Catechism interprets it is the following: “which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offenses.” I believe the way our divines interpreted that clause will help us immensely. We need to do several things to rightly understand the last clause of this petition. We need to, 1) exegete and understand the phrase, 2) clear up a few misunderstandings, 3) draw out its implications, and 4) address a few difficult cases.

1. Interpreting the phrase

The phrase “as we forgive our debtors” uses a very important word “as”. The subordinate conjunction “as” (ὡς) tells us that our forgiveness of others go hand in hand with our petition for forgiveness.[1] As Robert Guelich says, the clause expresses an action “concomitant with the petition.”[2] It is something we ourselves are doing. The request does not envision a scenario where the petitioner is unwilling to forgive.

Leon Morris makes a very helpful observation: “We should notice that it is debtors that are forgiven, not “debts.” Both, of course, are involved, but it is the person on whom the emphasis falls.”[3] Forgiveness is not abstract; we are forgiving persons, persons in debt to us, “our debtors.” That is, a real offense of some sort has occurred (not merely personal but sinful, see below).

The aorist tense “we forgive” (ἀφήκαμεν) should be taken to mean what many call the Aramaic “present perfect” (perfectum praesens) or a “Semitic perfect” indicating an action that is taking place here and now.[4] That is why our English translations utilize the present tense.

So, what we are asking from heaven (from God) is being liberally dispensed on earth (by us). “We cannot honorably try to be on speaking terms with God the Father where we have not sincerely sought to be on speaking terms with some problematic other.”[5] That would be ludicrous. In fact, verses 14 & 15 develop this more fully. “For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” The two go together (see especially Mt. 18:15-20; 21-35).

What is meant is, that we ourselves must cultivate a spirit of forgiveness towards those who seem to have wronged us, before we venture to claim forgiveness for ourselves. God has more to forgive to each individual than any human being can have; and He is more ready to forgive: it is impossible for me to equal Him in this.[6]

This “spirit of forgiveness towards those who seem to have wronged us” serve as a testimony to us that something has changed in us.

Our divines described it this way, we can ask for forgiveness from our heavenly Father — “which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offenses.” If we are reluctant and hard hearted towards someone else, how can we approach God and ask for forgiveness? Regarding the person who says, “I’ll never forgive you!”, one commentator says, “is not penitently aware of his sins, but only vengefully aware of another man’s sins.”[7]

To not forgive reveals two things. One, it reveals our wicked blindness to our own offenses against God. Two, the person has no living reality in his heart to indicate that God had forgiven him in the first place; there is no corresponding testimony. D. A. Carson well summarized the teaching of the New Testament on forgiveness (Mt. 6:12, 14, 15; Lk. 11:4; 6:37; Mt. 18:21-35):

These passages must neither be explained away nor misinterpreted. On the one hand, they must stand in all their stark demand: there is no forgiveness for those who do not forgive. One the other hand, in the light of all that the New Testament writers say about grace and change of heart, it would be obtuse to understand these passages as if they were suggesting that a person could earn forgiveness by forgiving others. The point is more subtle. It is that people disqualify themselves from being forgiven if they are so hardened in their own bitterness that they cannot or will not forgive others. In such cases, they display no brokenness, no contrition, no recognition of the great value of forgiveness, no understanding of their own complicity in sin, no repentance.[8]

2. Misunderstandings

The phrase “as we forgive…” can easily be misunderstood. We must rightly understand what our Lord is teaching lest we suffer under some gross misunderstanding. We recognize that in the light of the rest of the NT teaching, we cannot draw certain conclusions from this text. These are some of the common mistakes that do not take into account the rest of the Bible’s teaching.

a. It is not a meritorious condition.

Vos mentioned that the Dispensationalists believe that this “condition” represents the Old Testament (cf. Vos, 572). The NT, they say, is free from all such conditions. It would be entirely wrong to make this petition a meritorious condition — that is, because of my forgiveness, I’ve placed God in debt to me. I’ve earned it. Calvin says,

This condition is added, that no one may presume to approach God and ask forgiveness, who is not pure and free from all resentment. And yet the forgiveness, which we ask that God would give us, does not depend on the forgiveness which we grant to others: but the design of Christ was, to exhort us, in this manner, to forgive the offenses which have been committed against us, and at the same time, to give, as it were, the impression of his seal, to ratify the confidence in our own forgiveness. (Calvin on Mt. 6:12)

It all depends on how we define “condition.” Calvin’s explanation differs from this Roman Catholic commentator who said, “This is the condition which God requires of us, and if it be fulfilled, He readily forgives, and if it be not fulfilled, He will not forgive…”^{^[9]} This quid pro quo interpretation cannot be correct. This petition assumes the petitioner’s right standing before God since he addresses him as “Our Father.”[10] God is already his heavenly Father and in that vital covenant relationship, the believer petitions his Father for forgiveness. He never possessed the relationship with God through his merit and he has never received forgiveness on account of his own behavior. Why would he do so now on something so serious as his own sins?

b. It is not a perfect forgiveness that Jesus has in mind.

Another Roman Catholic commentator interpreted the phrase in this way, “We will receive God’s mercy only to the extent [emphasis added] that we show mercy to those who have trespassed against us…”[11] Let us hope not. We are laced with sin through and through. We have never perfectly forgiven other people’s sins.

This also helps us to refute the first misunderstanding as well. If in fact our forgiveness serves as the meritorious condition for God to forgive us, then have we ever truly forgiven in a meritorious manner? How do we know when we did? Is our own forgiveness therefore always up in the air, uncertain, etc.?

c. It is not in reaction to or in view of our forgiveness.

This relates to the first one. Does God forgive us as He sees us going through with our obedience of forgiveness? To state it more clearly, does our God forgive us after we have forgiven others? Let this example clarify the issue.

The same Catholic scholar cited above said, “The word as does not denote the measure, or the rule which God follows in the forgiveness of sins: for we ought to pray that more may be forgiven us by God than others owe us—but the inductive cause which may move God to forgive…”[12] Everything he said is spot on except the last statement. The author argues that the “inductive cause” is our forgiveness. That is, what induces, moves, compels, God to forgive is our own forgiveness. God is, therefore, forgiving us on the basis of our own forgiveness and not on the basis of Christ. This is patently wrong.

Though he did not use “merit” language, he did resort to a medieval subtlety. God is acting on what we do. Since man cannot merit anything from God, God will honor what we do. This minimal act you perform will get God to be gracious to you.[13] What induces God to forgive you is your willingness to forgive. This is semi-Pelagianism against which the Reformers revolted.

Our Lord has taught us to say, “We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty…” (Lk. 17:10). God doesn’t lower his standard to forgive us. He also does not forgive us because we first forgave because God is a debtor to no man. Our ability to forgive is a living testimony of God having already forgiven us. We can only forgive because he enables us to. Our forgiveness earns nothing, especially God’s forgiveness: “What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” (1Cor. 4:7)

3. Implications and Applications

a. It is about a real sin and not merely having your “feelings” hurt.

We can sinfully feel offended quite easily. We can feel sinned against. Was it a sin or simply our pride? “He didn’t look at me right.” “He didn’t recognize me.” “She didn’t appreciate what I did for her.” “She should have picked me, called me, chose me, etc.” Notice, a real debt has incurred, the kind of “debt” analogous to the ones we have incurred against God.

I believe some of our unforgiving spirit has more to do with our own foolish pride than anything else. Love bears all things except wounded pride. Love is not irritable or resentful. “How sad is it, that, for every slight wrong, or disgraceful word, men should let malice boil in their hearts!”[14] How sad indeed!

b. It is not about you!

Forgiveness is not about the psychological benefits one receives from forgiving the offender. It is not about “mental health.” Though there is some truth to that, it simply is not given any prominence in the New Testament. The stress falls on the “eternal benefits of being right with God.”[15] We must forgive because this is what God has called us to do and our fellowship with Him is paramount. This supposed psychological benefit, however true it might be, masks the deeper issue if we focus on it. It hides a deep theological truth. We are so self-centered, that even in this arena, we virtually reduce forgiveness to personal benefit. What if “mental health” was not in any way diminished if we did not forgive? What if the opposite was true? What if my resentment actually energized me? What if it liberated me to do things that I thought I couldn’t do?

Forgiving others reveals the heart of our relationship with our Savior: “forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” (Eph. 4:32) Ultimately, all sins are against God (Ps. 51:4): “what gives sin its deepest odium, its most heinous hue, is that it offends the God who made us and who stands as our Judge.”[16] Forgiveness is about God and His holiness; it is not about our “mental health.”

c. It hurts

Forgiving someone else hurts. No matter what we do, however we argue our case, present our position, etc. the other person will not feel the pain we might feel. Forgiving the one who offended us often hurts us; we must absorb the pain of their sins against us (verbal to physical abuse, continued misunderstanding, etc.). “They clearly don’t understand what they did and seem to make light of what has happened!” Forgiving them does not mean they have to “experience” what we did.

The offender’s crime against us is nothing compared to our weighty offenses against God. I do not discount the scar, the enormous pain and suffering, the great injustice, the deep emotional impact, etc. of the person’s offense or debt. We are to forgive as God in Christ forgave us. It is through the power and healing grace of His forgiveness that we can forgive others. We don’t have an exhaustive knowledge of their repentance or lack thereof. To expect a certain depth and degree of contrition from them, to have them grovel before us, etc. is to demand from them some sort of atonement. We must not act as popes or priests demanding some works of penance from them. John Stott says,

Once our eyes have been opened to see the enormity of our offense against God, the injuries which others have done to us appear by comparison extremely trifling. If, on the other hand, we have an exaggerated view of the offenses of others, it proves that we have minimized our own. It is the disparity between the size of debts which is the main point of the parable of the unmerciful servant. Its conclusion is: ‘I forgave you all that debt (which was huge) …; should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ (33).[17]

Talk is cheap, one might say, because he didn’t go through what I did! But is the grace of God in Christ foiled because of your experience? Can his forgiveness of your great sins not liberate you to forgive others? Does his command somehow lose its force because your pain is so deep? Is it not theologically proper to say that when you see your sins properly before an august holy God, then your “exaggerated view of the offenses of others” will all of sudden change? Did not your Lord forgive all your debts? Or are you saying what He forgave was nothing compared to what you are called to forgive?

d. Forgive myself?

Some may say, “I can forgive others but I just can’t forgive myself.”[18] Without getting into all that might be involved in this, a few things should be noted. First of all, YOU ARE NOT so special. If God forgave you, then you can surely forgive yourself. God is holier than you and if He is able, then you must. Also, if Christ’s blood washed away your sins and His atonement purchased your pardon, then you are forgiven in Him. To say you can’t forgive yourself is to say that His shed blood is ineffective or inconsequential to you.

If truth be told, the person simply is not coming to terms with the fact that he or she failed and sinned grievously. Your sins are worse than you think. What you can’t forgive in yourself is not nearly half as wicked as you really are. You have an inflated view of yourself. Faith, if you believe, requires that you accept the forgiveness He offers. If He forgave, then it is forgiven. PERIOD!

4. Difficult Cases

The ideal scenario we would love to face is to have our dear brother in Christ know he really sinned (“big time”) against us. He comes with great humility and grief in his heart begging our forgiveness. In our humble super spiritual demeanor, we grant the pardon and we all live happily ever after and skip merrily to the celestial city!

But sin has not only caused offenses in our relationships, it has also sinfully complicated all the variables in these relationships. That is, it is never a simple matter. The offenders never seem to understand how badly they hurt us. Their apologies seem so mechanical. Most of all, it appears to have cost them nothing. To make matters worse, many of them remain oblivious to their incredible offenses or they maintain their absolute innocence in the matter (when you feel that nothing could be farther from the truth) — in fact, they even have the gall to look at you with astonishment as if to suggest that you are the one with “issues.” That is, to them, this “problem” says something more about about you than their supposed offense.

We have all felt keenly such things. Unfortunately, we cannot deal with all the facets of this problem. We will attempt to make general applications from various Bible passages. Good men have differed in this area. It seems to me that their differences are at times semantic and at other times a matter of emphasis.

Conditional and Unconditional Forgiveness

Before answering some of the more difficult cases, let us first map out the Bible’s teaching. Jay Adams and Christ Brauns both argue for what we may call “conditional forgiveness.”[19] That is, there is forgiveness only if the other person asks for forgiveness. D. A. Carson and John MacArthur, on the other hand, teach that “conditional forgiveness” does not represent the Bible’s complete teaching on forgiveness.[20] They argue that the Bible in fact call for unconditional forgiveness.

Brauns, interestingly, takes some of the passages used by men like Carson and MacArthur (though he is not arguing specifically against them) to make them fit his position. He says those passages imply the condition of repentance.[21] MacArthur argues that Jay Adams is doing the same. Once Adams defined forgiveness as conditional, no other definition is permitted.[22]

The conditional passages are evident.[23] “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.” (Lk. 17:3; cf. Mt. 18:15-17) This passage presupposes repentance. “This is not an invitation to be naïve about your brother’s inconsistency; it does not mean that he should be trust as if he had no track record of untrustworthiness. What is at issue is a person’s sheer willingness to forgive.”[24] We are called to forgive if they repent (perhaps because we confronted him).

But does that mean every offense demands confrontation? Is there no room for overlooking, suffering the wrong, etc.? But the Bible also exhorts us to unilaterally overlook, at least, petty offenses. MacArthur says, “Forgive unilaterally, unconditionally. Grant pardon freely and unceremoniously. Love demands this.”[25] Where do we find this? In 1 Peter 4:8, “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” Grudem says of this verse in his commentary, “Where love abounds in a fellowship of Christians, many small offences, and even some large ones, are readily overlooked and forgotten. But where love is lacking, every word is viewed with suspicion, every action is liable to misunderstanding, and conflicts abound – to Satan’s perverse delight…”[26] Other passages substantiate the same point. Prov. 10:12 says, “Hatred stirs up strife, but love covers all offenses.” In another Proverb, it says that “Whoever covers an offense seeks love…” (17:9). Love does not “take into account a wrong suffered” (1Cor. 13:5, NASB). Watson notes, “It is more honor to bury an injury than to revenge it. Wrath denotes weakness; a noble heroic spirit overlooks a petty offence.”[27]Is not covering someone’s offense the very heart of forgiveness? That is the way Ps. 32:1 defines it, “How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered!” (cf. Ps. 85:2) James 5:20 says that “whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” Covering sin is therefore another way of forgiving sin.[28]

So we have passages that teach that a believer can and must unilaterally (at times) forgive or cover sins. In Mark 11:25, Jesus teaches us to immediately forgive when we are praying. “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” MacArthur says, “That describes an immediate forgiveness granted to the offender with no formal meeting or transaction required. It necessarily refers to a pardon that is wholly unilateral, because this forgiveness takes place while the forgiver stands praying.”[29] This is no easy matter but something of this must be found in our understanding and practice of forgiving.

Paul tells us that we are to forgive “just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” (Eph. 4:32) Adams argues that since we had to repent before we were forgiven, the same condition applies in our relationships. Of course there are times where repentance is necessary (some heinous sins, etc.). Again, MacArthur is helpful here: “When Scripture instructs us to forgive in the manner we have been forgiven, what is in view is not the idea of withholding forgiveness until the offender expresses repentance.”[30] That is, the point was not to teach us, “Don’t dare forgive until they repent!” MacArthur further argues, “The emphasis is on forgiving freely, generously, willingly, eagerly, speedily — and from the heart [cf. Mt. 18:35]. The attitude of the forgiver is where the focus of Scripture lies, not the terms of forgiveness.”[31] (emphasis added)

We obviously ought to confront at times and of course the Mt. 18 process must be followed. The only thing we need to remember is that there are times for unilateral acts of forgiveness. Wisdom, good judgment, etc. must guide us here. Some of these following points are drawn from Brauns but they are reiterated by all the writers in one form or another.

a. Reconciliation has not necessarily occurred

If the person has not asked for forgiveness, in your heart you have already forgiven or are ready to forgive but you have not achieved reconciliation. But just because we have not been fully reconciled to our brother does not mean we can remain angry and bitter. “Transparently, reconciliation is a good thing if it can be achieved, but the goal of reconciliation should not become a cloak for nursing bitterness because it cannot be achieved.”[32]

Adams says no transaction has taken place, hence no forgiveness. Driscoll says you have forgiven them in your heart but no reconciliation has been achieved (as does Carson). None of these men argue (whichever side we might hold) that we are therefore free to be bitter.

A helpful observation I once heard may help us here. If in fact we have not fully dealt with the matter in our hearts, then interactions with the other person will bring those unresolved heart issues to the forefront (anger, discomfort, suspicion, and even a sinful cruel [unstated] desire to see them hurt, etc.).

b. You must not attempt to avenge yourself.

In Romans 12:17-21 we are told to repay no one evil for evil (v. 17). Verse 21 says, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” In the middle of this passage, we are instructed to never avenge ourselves (v. 19). Because of the offense, our hearts react and attempt to retaliate. Some have argued that revenge is “healthy.”[33]

We must be clear and honest about this. Revenge comes in many forms — it is often not acted out in the most noticeable manner. We can inflict revenge with our silent treatment, by withholding affections or greetings, giving an icy reception, backbiting, wishing them harm (or just some pain), slighting all good reports of the offender, etc. We can commit all these sins with a sanctimonious smile! We must not return evil for evil, even if our evil is lesser than their offense — our retaliation tends to be very subtle. It also means that the past offense (and our present suffering) does not justify our present sinful behavior!

Ezekiel Hopkins taught that forgiveness consisted in these two things. 1) “In abstaining from the outward acts of revenge upon them.” This corresponds to our “b”. 2) “In the inward frame and temper of our hearts towards them; bearing them no grudge nor ill-will; but being as much in charity with tem, as though they had never offended us.”[34] This is similar to our “c” below to which we must now turn.

c. Positively show love.

In Rom. 12:20, Paul instructs us to feed our enemy and give him a drink if he is thirsty. Verse 9 says that love must be genuine. In so doing, we heap coals on his head. What this means is summarized quite well by Douglas Moo, “Acting kindly toward our enemies is a means of leading them to be ashamed of their conduct toward us and, perhaps, to repent and turn to the Lord whose love we embody.”[35] It will not infallibly shame them but that is in the Lord’s hands. To argue that our acts of kindness is a means of heaping judgment on them (and in turn, we are to be motivated by this) seems to run contrary to the tenor of the whole passage.

We must do good to and for them. What they need, what is best for them, etc. must determine our actions. Indifference is not an option. Again, let us be careful here. We can too easily say something like, “Well, it does them no good if we help them out. They’ll never learn their lesson.” Of course in some situations those words may apply but too often we use those words to withhold doing them good in order to subtly display our displeasure. Were we honest with our hearts, we would confess that our words came not from charity but from resentment, bitterness, etc.

5. What if?

a. Must I always forgive if they repent?

Our Lord tells us that we must always forgive (“I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” Mt. 18:22). Surely, if they repent, we must forgive. Even in this area, we must give the benefit of doubt to the offender. In our sinful wounded state, all their petitions for pardon will always appear half-hearted and not genuine.

We must also remember if we do not forgive or we are unforgiving as a person, then the Mt. 18 parable has much to say to us: “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (v. 35)

b. What if the other person does not repent and ask for forgiveness? Must I forgive him?

The debate centers on this issue. Adams and Brauns says that no forgiveness can be granted if they do not repent and ask for it. Carson and MacArthur teach that we must forgive unilaterally though no reconciliation has occurred.

Couple things should guide us, irrespective of our position. One, we should not be bitter against them — such heart sins can lead to other sins. Two, we should not always seek to “confront” incessantly. This will often produce more problems and will not work towards reconciliation. Three, we should foster reconciliation by the way we treat them.

There are times when we must not forgive unilaterally. Personal sins can be forgiven, covered, etc. and the offense absorbed, as it were. But other sins will require confrontation.[36] Some soul-threatening sins cannot be overlooked. 1) “If you observe a serious offense that is a sin against someone other than you, confront the offender.” Those sins are not yours to forgive. Justice demands that it be dealt with. For example, “You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute.” (Ex. 23:6) 2) “When ignoring an offense might hurt the offender, confrontation is required.” (cf. Gal. 6:1-2) Secret sins discovered, heinous sins committed, etc. Theses include “serious doctrinal error, moral failure, repeated instance of the same offense [note, real offense], sinful habits or destructive tendencies, …” 3) “When a sin is scandalous or otherwise potentially damaging to the body of Christ, confrontation is essential.” 4) “Any time an offense results in a broken relationship, formal forgiveness is an essential step toward reconciliation.” Again, it is assumed that the offense is real and sinful. “Whether harsh words have been exchanged or an icy silence prevails, if both sides know that a breach exists, the only way to resolve matters is by the formal granting of forgiveness.” (131)

c. What if the person is dead?

Jay Adams says, “Since such people cannot repent and seek forgiveness from you, you cannot grant forgiveness to them. In prayer you may simply tell God of your desire to forgive and your determination to rid your heart of all bitterness and resentment toward them. That is all you can do and all you need to do. Those Christians who died before reconciliation have now been glorified and made perfect. They don’t need your forgiveness.”[37]

d. What if I forgave but I still struggle with bitterness?

Forgiveness, once offered, does not mean we forget or that the consequences still do not continue on. Samuel Storm makes five helpful observations in this matter. He calls them “Five Myths about Forgiveness.”[38]

1. Contrary to what many have been led to believe, forgiveness is not forgetting. 2. Forgiving someone does not mean you no longer feel the pain of their offense. 3. Forgiving someone who has sinned against you doesn’t mean you cease longing for justice. Forgiveness does not mean that you close your eyes to moral atrocity and pretend that it didn’t hurt or that it really doesn’t matter whether or not the offending person is called to account for his/her offense. 4. Forgiveness does not mean you are to make it easy for the offender to hurt you again. 5. Forgiveness is rarely a one-time, climatic event. It is most often a life-long process. However, forgiveness has to begin somewhere at some point in time.

e. Don’t be stupid!

See #4 of Samuel Storm’s Five Myths. He says, “They may hurt you again. That is their decision. But you must set boundaries on your relationship with them. The fact that you establish rules to govern how and to what extent you interact with this person in the future does not mean you have failed to sincerely and truly forgive them. True love never aids and abets the sin of another. … Forgiveness does not mean you become a helpless and passive doormat for their continual sin.”

f. Can we ever apply the imprecatory Psalms on them?

We cannot deal with this fully here except to say that the imprecatory Psalms can be used ecclesiastically and theologically (with God’s glory in mind) — but with care. It is not to be used for personal revenge and personal hurts you have experienced from someone. David’s role as a mediator king in the redemptive historical situation in which existed looked forward to final judgment of the wicked. It is not personal hatred but righteous anger against God’s enemies. “Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord, and abhor those who rise up against you?” (Ps. 139:21, 22)

PASSAGES TO PONDER

Mt. 5:23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

Mk. 11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.”

Col. 3:12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive.

Eph. 4:31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

[1] Luke 11:4 uses “for” (γὰρ) — “for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us.”

[2] Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 294.

[3] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 147.

[4] David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 138; R. H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 108; Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, vol. 1 (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1987), 252. But taking it in the traditional aorist tense also works.

[5] Bruner, Matthew, 253.

[6] Alfred Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1917), 102.

[7] Leon Morris, Matthew, 147.

[8] Carson, Love in Hard Places, 79.

^{^[9]} Cornelius à Lapide, The Great Commentary of Cornelius À Lapide, Volume 1: S. Matthew’s Gospel—Chaps. 1 to 9, trans. Thomas W. Mossman, Third Edition (London: John Hodges, 1887), 273.

[10] Cf. Bruner, Matthew, A Commentary, 253.

[11] Curtis Mitch and Edward Sri, The Gospel of Matthew, Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010), 107. The clause may not be as restrictive if I interpret it to mean, “We will receive God’s mercy only if we show mercy to those who have trespassed against us…” That may be the authors’ intention.

[12] a Lapide, 273.

[13] See our notes on Calvin’s Institutes (3.4.2). Facientibus quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam (“To those who do what is in them, God will not deny grace”)!

[14] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 253.

[15] D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002), 79-80.

[16] Carson, Love in Hard Places, 77.

[17] John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 149-150.

[18] Admittedly, this language is not used in Scripture. Our self-centered culture has twisted the biblical truth of God’s forgiveness into more self-preoccupation. Jay Adams addresses this issue and makes some helpful observations, see From Forgiven to Forgiving: Learning to Forgive One Another God’s Way (USA: Calvary Press, 1994), 61-64.

[19] Jay E. Adams, From Forgiven to Forgiving: Learning to Forgive One Another God’s Way (USA: Calvary Press, 1994); Chris Brauns, Unpacking Forgiveness: Biblical Answers for Complex Questions and Deep Wounds (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008).

[20] D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002); John MacArthur, The Freedom and Power of Forgiveness, Reprint ed. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009).

[21] Brauns, Unpacking Forgiveness, 145-146.

[22] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 120.

[23] In these two paragraphs, I am carefully following MacArthur.

[24] Carson, Love in Hard Places, 81.

[25] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 121.

[26] Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, vol. 17 (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 181. MacArthur also says something similar: “Real love should cover the vast majority of transgressions, not constantly haul them out in the open for dissection (1 Pet. 4:8)” (MacArthur, Forgiveness, 123).

[27] Thomas Watson, The Lord’s Prayer (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1965), 252.

[28] See comments to this effect in Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 250.

[29] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 121.

[30] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 118.

[31] MacArthur, Forgiveness, 118-119.

[32] Carson, Love in Hard Places, 82.

[33] Brauns cites a website excerpt without listing the site, see Unpacking Forgiveness, 131.

[34] Ezekiel Hopkins, The Works of Ezekiel Hopkins, 3 vols. (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1997), 1:220.

[35] Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 789.

[36] Here, I will follow John MacArthur’s examples, pp. 128-134.

[37] Adams, From Forgiven to Forgiving, 35.

[38] I downloaded a pdf of “Forgiveness: What it is, What it is Not.”

Larger Catechism 194, Forgiveness, pt. 1

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 194

194. Q. What do we pray for in the fifth petition?

A. In the fifth petition, (which is, Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,[1265]) acknowledging, that we and all others are guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby become debtors to the justice of God; and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt:[1266] we pray for ourselves and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith, acquit us both from the guilt and punishment of sin,[1267] accept us in his Beloved;[1268] continue his favour and grace to us,[1269] pardon our daily failings,[1270] and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness;[1271] which we are the rather emboldened to ask, and encouraged to expect, when we have this testimony in ourselves, that we from the heart forgive others their offenses.[1272]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[1265] Matthew 6:12. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. [1266] Romans 3:9-22. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one…. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God, etc. Matthew 18:24-25. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. Psalm 130:3-4. If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared. [1267] Romans 3:24-26. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. [1268] Ephesians 1:6-7. To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. [1269] 2 Peter 1:2. Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord. [1270] Hosea 14:2. Take with you words, and turn to the LORD: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously: so will we render the calves of our lips. Jeremiah 14:7. O LORD, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name’s sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee. [1271] Romans 15:13. Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. Psalm 51:7-10, 12. Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me…. Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit. [1272] Luke 11:4. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Matthew 6:14-15. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 18:35. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

Introduction

Many years ago, someone asked me if I ever run out things to pray for. The person seemed pretty convinced that more often than not, we will face periods of sheer dumbness. It seems reasonable – all the bases are covered, there is nothing else to pray for. We are done for the day; the list has been prayed through, the matter is concluded, we go on to the next thing scheduled for the day. Will believers run out of things to pray for? Our inability to pray, this “dumbness,” may in fact come from several factors.

It can come from our carnality. We are so caught up with the ways of the world or simply living in disobedience that we remain speechless before God. The soul is not interested in addressing God because it refuses to forsake its love affair with sin. Another reason may be insensibility. The “sense” of want or the awareness of one’s deep spiritual need does not press in on the mind and heart. There is no feeling, no sense of urgency, no sense of dread, etc. This spiritual numbness creates dumbness.

Still there is the conviction of sin that might prevent a person from praying. He is so overwhelmed and feels so guilty, he cannot even groan. Though this is a better situation (since he is sensible of something important), it can easily lead to despair and will issue in full unbelief if left in this condition.

Perhaps a far too common condition among the saints of God is that we tend to be too busy, preoccupied, and distracted. Running too fast and furious with many interests and concerns have crowed out our need for prayer. Some of these concerns may be legitimate, some perhaps neutral, etc. but in the end, our hearts have plunged themselves into those diversions so thoroughly that when it comes to praying, we can say little to nothing because the “other” concerns have grabbed our attention and affections.

These are all spiritual problems and most likely, the same person could (after giving up on prayer) speak energetically about anything else. That reveals much and speaks volumes regarding the spiritual decay.

Now coming back to the question. Theologically speaking, we should never be speechless because the fifth petition assumes something about our real problem. “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” (Mt. 6:12) We have enough sins to compel us to pray and enough to preoccupy our prayers. If nothing else comes to mind, surely there is something to confess! If we are not unacquainted with ourselves and not strangers to God’s holy standards, then we can (and should) confess our sins.

Thomas Ridgley beautifully connects this petition with the fourth. This flow in the Lord’s Prayer ought to be remembered:

Having been directed, in the former petition, to pray for outward blessings, we are now led to ask for forgiveness of sin. It is with very good reason that these two petitions are joined together; inasmuch as we cannot expect that God should give us the good things of this life, which are all forfeited by us, much less that we should have them bestowed on us in mercy and for our good, unless he is pleased to forgive those sins whereby we provoke him to withhold them from us. Nor can we take comfort in any outward blessings, while our consciences are burdened with a sense of the guilt of sin, and we have nothing to expect, as the consequence of it, but to be separated from his presence.[1]

Debts or Trespasses?[2]

Matthew 6:12 uses the word that must be translated as “debts” — “and forgive us our debts (ὀφειλήματα), as we also have forgiven our debtors (ὀφειλέταις).”[3] Almost every translation uses “debts” but the Catholics in the English speaking world continue to use “trespasses” (even though the Vulgate has “debita nostra” as well as their Douay translation). The Book of Common Prayer (1559) used “trespasses” while John Wycliffe early on used “debts” (dettis) in 1382. William Tyndale’s New Testament translation (1526) however ended up with “trespasses” and he maintained the same translation of v. 12 in 1533 in his exposition upon Matthew chs. 5-7.[4] Perhaps his influence through Coverdale came into The Book of Common Prayer?

Modern Catholics recognize that the word ought to be translated as “debts” but ever since they began to pray the Lord’s Prayer in English (as opposed to Latin), it was “trespasses.” Even the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church uses “trespasses.”[5] Nevertheless, it is more accurate to translate it as “debts.”

Apparently the Greek word for debt was equivalent to the Aramaic word for sin as a debt.[6] The Targums used the Aramaic word to mean sin or transgression.[7] Clearly our sins place us in an indebted situation, as something owed to God. Something has to be done to clear our debt created by our sins (“debtors to the justice of God”).

Acknowledging our Guilt, Debt, and Incapacity

In this petition, we are in fact “acknowledging, that we and all others are guilty both of original and actual sin, and thereby become debtors to the justice of God; and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt…” Three things are mentioned in this clause. One, we are acknowledging our guilt. An “uneasiness” should pervade our hearts as we come to Him (as we ponder ourselves). We know we are guilty for our “original and actual sin.” That is, we recognize we are tainted by a sinful nature and that we are also guilty on account of our actual sins against God. Rom. 3:9-22 clearly and emphatically teaches that we are “all under sin.” Though we may not “feel” it, we acknowledge it since it is a fact. Our inability to sense and feel this sin and its corresponding guilt indicates how deeply sin has infected our judgment and sense. Vos makes this helpful observation:

The guilt of sin is an unpopular idea today; the man-centered religion of recent decades has tried to avoid this idea or explain it away. Sin is regarded as a misfortune or calamity, rather than as something deserving blame and punishment. Consequently, many modern people regard themselves as quite righteous; or if they think of themselves as sinners, they feel that they are to be pitied and consoled rather than judged and condemned. (Vos, 566)

Two, we are also admitting that we are in debt to God — “debtors to the justice of God.” Acknowledging our guilt means that we have become debtors to God. God requires holiness and we have fallen short of His glory (Rom. 3:23). Jesus tells a most searching parable of the unmerciful or unforgiving servant in Mt. 18:21-35. In it, Jesus equates the debt with sin. He concludes, “So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.” (v. 35) Jesus is teaching us that our debts have been forgiven and we should in turn forgive others. The debt in v. 24 is likened to something over a billion dollars in our currency; selling the family into slavery to pay of the debt would have perhaps cover one talent (nothing in comparison to the ten thousand talents he owed [ὀφειλέτης]). Similarly, our guilt and sin has placed us in debt to the justice of God. We must see our offense and debt to be as they really are. Is it not true that we minimize our sins against God and maximize people’s offense against us?[8]

Three, we are acknowledging that we are incapable of paying for that debt. Our incapacity does not minimize our obligation — and that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt. The Psalmist said, “If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?” (Ps. 130:3) If God holds us accountable (and He does), we cannot stand before Him. His holy righteousness opposes us and we cannot satisfy Him of this debt. Always remember this! We are infinitely indebted to Him on account of our sins; we are incapable of satisfying that debt. We cannot repay what we owe!

Why is this necessary? Are we once again pressing for a “worm theology” that is neither healthy nor helpful? Not at all! Rather, this posture must always regulate and drive our prayers because it truly reflects our condition. The fifth petition helps us to come to terms with our need for pardon and that we (in ourselves) cannot take care of (or atone for) the sins we have committed! We must remember we cannot satisfy divine justice so we must flee to Him who alone can pardon and justify us. We must rid ourselves of that “legal” spirit that always rears its ugly head in our prayers: “I’m so sorry; I’ll never do it again. I will from now on do this and that and promise to always [insert your promised works of righteousness]!” No, we acknowledge that neither we, nor any other creature, can make the least satisfaction for that debt. We cannot make the least satisfaction much less a full satisfaction — that is what we must always remember in our prayers. We possess infinite demerit and come to God incapable of satisfying divine justice — in knowing and believing this, we possess the right posture to seek pardon from our gracious heavenly Father. It is most safe to be most honest before our heavenly Father. (Though we must not think that even this “posture” merits his approval and thus earn our forgiveness and satisfy divine justice. Remember John Newton’s words, “My best is defective and defiled, and needs pardon before it can hope for acceptance; but through mercy my hope is built, not upon frames and feelings, but upon the atonement and mediation of Jesus.”)

We and All Others…Ourselves and Others

Confessing our own sins is a very personal and private matter. Yet the prayer requests pardon for “our debts.” None of us stand above another before God. We are all guilty and we all need pardon. Witsius says that “all are oppressed by the load [of sin], no one is able to discharge his own debt, much less that of others.”[9] So “we pray for ourselves and others…” Prayer must include the infirmities of others.

Before expounding the petition, we must remember that we are seeking the same for others. We cannot wish pardon for ourselves while secretly wishing the one we dislike or the one who hurt us be condemned and judged strictly for his debts. Our sins ought to grieve us and we should feel the same grief for the sins of others while seeking the Lord’s pardon for them. How our God answers those requests, we cannot be certain but surely we are encouraged to pray for mercy on behalf of others.

None of us can read the hearts of the other person but our heavenly Father can. To secretly yearn for judgment or calamity for someone else while beseeching only pardon for ourselves reveals something narrow and cruel in our hearts. We are to forgive our brother from our hearts (Mt. 18:35, ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν — “from your hearts”). How can we beg for mercy, pardon, and patience from God while looking with indifference on a brother’s plight (a brother or sister with whom we might have differed)?

To be Free from Guilt and Punishment

We must assume and acknowledge the previous clause. The heart of the petition lies in in what follows. In begging our heavenly Father to forgive us our debts — “we pray for ourselves and others, that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith, acquit us both from the guilt and punishment of sin…” Forgiveness is “of his free grace” and is not something we are naturally “due.” However, His grace does not run rough shod against His justice. It is granted to us “though the obedience and satisfaction of Christ…” This theological verity has fallen on hard times. The New Perspective and Federal Vision have vigorously rejected the notion that God would grant us forgiveness “through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ.”[10] They call this “merit theology” and eschew any suggestion that Christ’s obedience merited anything.[11] Clearly Christ’s obedience merited our salvation (see our study on the Larger Catechism question #38).[12]

The petition, in keeping with what is taught elsewhere in the Bible, teaches that God forgives us on the basis of Christ’s atonement. Christ perfectly obeyed the law (“obedience”) and fully paid for the infractions against the law (“satisfaction of Christ”). So Paul says that “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19).[13] Christ’s obedience and satisfaction are the righteous means of relieving us entirely from the guilt and punishment of our sins.

Rom. 3:24-26 makes clear that Christ’s redemptive death procures our justification — “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦv)” (3:24).[14] Though v. 25 may be difficult to interpret, we can still recognize that what God did through Jesus’ sacrificial death (“God put forward as a propitiation by his blood”) we are to receive by faith (“to be received by faith”). The fifth petition has in mind what Christ did (“through the…satisfaction of Christ”) and in our prayers we are to receive what He did by faith — “apprehended and applied by faith.” The end result of looking in faith is that we would acquitted from our guilt and punishment. To put this simply, we are asking God to declare us right and innocent and forgo punishing us for our sins — why? We are asking that He would do so through Christ’s finished work (“through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ”). Ridgley makes this helpful observation: “As in this method of praying for forgiveness, we take occasion to adore the wisdom of God, which has found out this expedient to hallow or sanctify his own name, as well as to secure to us an interest in his love; and, at the same time, we express the high esteem we have for the person of Christ, who has procured it for us, and also our sense of the infinite value of the price he paid in order to procure it.”[15]

This is no idle theology. We are not defending something because it is “old” or because it is “traditional.” Not only is it biblical (on that basis, the matter should be concluded), it is eminently practical and serves as a great means of comforting our souls. When the believer sins, when he feels its weight and guilt, what does he do? He wishes he could pull it from his breast; rip it from his heart; cleanse it with his efforts. He knows his sins deserve judgment and he knows not what to do and is ashamed with guilt. When he prays, “Lord, forgive me, pardon me of my debts, my wicked trespasses, my rebellious sins.” he wishes he could do more than simply cry out. This is when the simple truth of Christ’s obedience and satisfaction assuages his conscience. He himself can do nothing but he can apprehend and apply by faith that Jesus has obeyed even unto death and has satisfied divine justice. There, he sees what his own sins justly deserve and recognize that God has acted with righteousness to condemn sin in Christ. With that, he simultaneously recognizes that he is acquitted on account of Christ. I can only believe and receive; I cannot pay for my own sins!

Acceptance and Favor

In our petition for acquittal, we are also asking for the other gospel benefits: “accept us in his Beloved; continue his favour and grace to us, pardon our daily failings, and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness…” These requests work together — they represent the full desire of what should be asking. It is not merely, “Get rid of this sin; please cover it by forgiving me.” Rather, “we pray… that God of his free grace would, through the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, apprehended and applied by faith…” would confer the following.

Accept us in his Beloved — Ephesians 1:6, 7 teaches that we are indeed blessed in Christ (“blessed us in the Beloved”). The KJV translated it as “he hath made us accepted in the beloved”. The word ἐχαρίτωσεν (from χαριτόω) simply means to be gracious, be favored, bestow on freely.[16] Some of the older commentators translated this broadly as “graciously accepted” or “made us subjects of His grace” (as in JFB).[17] In the context, Paul praises God’s glorious grace with which he graced or blessed us in the beloved Lord Jesus Christ (literally, “his grace with which he has graced us” since the verbal cognate of the noun “grace” is used). We are praising the grace with which He graced us in Christ — as John Eadie says, “So it is not grace as a latent attribute, but grace in profuse donation…”

We are asking God to acquit us and to continue to graciously deal with us in Christ — to continue to bless us in Him (which would include continued acceptance in the Beloved). If God does not forgive us, we will be bankrupt. Our petition for pardon also is a petition for God to continually bless us in Christ. Remember, we deserve nothing and our sinful ways only reinforces that point so any and all gracious dealings with God abundantly come to us on account of Christ or “in the beloved” (ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳˆ).

A similar idea is found in the next clause — continue in his favour and grace to us. As Peter prays, “Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord.” (2 Peter 1:2) We are daily dependent upon God’s continue favor and grace. The idea of grace or favor in 2 Peter suggests a “ruler’s favor” one writer says. “These readers have already received favor from God in that they have received a faith equal to that of the apostles. Now they are wished further favor from their divine patron, indeed multiplied favor.”[18] This comes to us through God’s grace.

We must ponder a most simple but practical point. When we come with that humble attitude before God and are ever aware of our guilt and offense, we cannot presume that any good should or would come to us. We are debtors to Him. But we come in faith, convinced of what God has done for us in Christ and how He has acquitted us in Him and therefore we can humbly ask that He would continue his favor and his grace to us for the sake of Christ. This is not a petition for material blessings but a petition for all the riches that flow to us in the beloved.

This part of the petition is something we all readily see, pardon our daily failings. The verses used to support this are helpful. Hosea 14:2 says, “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.’” We are called to return to the Lord with words of confession asking him to “take away all iniquity.” Surely God requires this of us on a daily basis. Jeremiah 24:7 gives these words, ““Though our iniquities testify against us, act, O LORD, for your name’s sake; for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against you.” Daily pardon is required because daily sins are committed; they “testify against us” (at least they should) and our “backslidings are many.”

We might miss this simple point but the Lord’s Prayer assumes we sin on a daily basis and therefore need daily forgiveness. As we pray for daily bread, we also pray for daily pardon for our daily failings. Why is that important? We are too often foolishly surprised by our own sins and failures. We are a wonder to ourselves — how could we sin so easily and so frequently? God has provided for us by giving His Son. Through his merits and sacrificial death, our miserable failures and high-handed sins are pardoned!

In the fifth petition, as we acknowledge our sinfulness and ask God for pardon, we can easily feel ashamed and disheartened. Did our Lord teach us this prayer so that we would grovel in guilt and shame? Is the purpose only to force us to come to terms with our wicked selves? It cannot be. Our divines recognized that this petition required and exercise of faith (“apprehended and applied by faith”). We must believe as we pray. In Ps. 51, the confession of sin rings clear and an unmistakable brokenness and humility permeate the Psalm. It includes petitions like, “Restore to me the joy of your salvation” (v. 12) and “O Lord, open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise.” (v. 15)[19] With contrition comes the petition for joy in the Lord. So the Larger Catechism interprets the petition to include: “and fill us with peace and joy, in giving us daily more and more assurance of forgiveness…” Asking for forgiveness did not mean that we would be placed in a substandard position. We deserve nothing and we will not be blessed because we deserve it. We were not adopted because we were righteous and we will not be blessed because we have been good. Christ’s death has purchased and secured our redemption, past and present pardon, and all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places. This petition is a request for pardon and restoration.

Rom. 15:13 is Paul’s prayer-wish for the Roman church. He asks, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.” That is, his prayer is that the believers would be filled with “all joy and peace in believing” — the end product (εἰς τὸ περισσεύειν ὑμᾶς) is so that they would abound in hope through the power of the Spirit. He fills us with joy and peace as we believe (ἐν τῷ πιστεύειν). Mounce says, “While it is God who provides the joy and peace, it is our continuing confidence and trust in God that enables him to bless us as he does. The joy and peace given by God results in an overflow of hope in the life of the believer. Our role is to maintain a relationship of continuing trust in God.” Or as Calvin would say, “for in order that our peace may be approved by God, we must be bound together by real and genuine faith.” That is, we must look to God, believe He will fill us with joy and peace. We are asking God to fill us with these things because we have lost the joy of our salvation. The Psalmist wishes to “hear joy and gladness” and experience “the joy of your [God’s] salvation.”

Furthermore, we are asking to be more assured of our forgiveness. This is not a call for easy believism or a formulaic plea. Rather, being convinced that God alone can pardon and that He alone can grant the assurance of our pardon, we look to him for both. Remember, the end of our confession is not defeat or some morbid depression — the end of this petition is apprehending by faith our pardon and peace, our acquittal and assurance, our justification and joy — those are what we must pray for.

In conclusion, we must remember that our time of confession of our sins to God should in relief, joy, and peace. This will not always happen with the same intensity but we must apprehend by faith all that has been promised to us in Christ. If we leave dejected and unbelieving, if we rise from our being on our knees unconvinced and unconsoled, then we have not prayed in faith.

[1] Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, Volume 2 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 633.

[2] I had originally stated that the KJV used “trespasses” in v. 12. One of our members pointed out that I was mistaken and it appears I had looked at v. 14 in the KJV and drew an incorrect conclusion. I have since then corrected this section.

[3] Luke 11:4 has “sins” (τὰς ἁμαρτίας).

[4] G. E. Duffield, ed., The Work of William Tyndale, The Courtenay Library of Reformation Classics (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965), 261.

[5] Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1994), 682.

[6] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1–13 (WBC 33A; Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 150: “The concept of sin as a “debt” owed to God has an Aramaic background (in the rabbinic literature, aDbOwj, ho®baœ}, is sin construed as a debt).”

[7] D. A. Carson, Matthew (EBC 8; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), n.p

[8] N. T. Wright gives an interesting interpretation to the word “debt” here. He argues that this alludes to the Jubilee command. It is more than individual guilt but a yearning for something more cosmic. He says, “The Lord’s Prayer makes sense, not just in terms of individual human beings quieting their own troubled consciences, vital though that is, but also in terms of the new day when justice and peace will embrace, economically and socially as well as personally and existentially” (N. T. Wright, The Lord and His Prayer [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1996], 55). There may be something to that but Wright tends to minimize the salient aspect of this petition, viz., our own troubled consciences!

[9] Herman Witsius and William Pringle, Sacred Dissertations on the Lord’s Prayer (Edinburgh: Thomas Clark, 1839), 316.

[10] See the following refutations of these novel views: Cornelis P. Venema, The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and New Perspective on Paul (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2006); Guy Prentiss Waters, The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis (Phillipsburg: P & R, 2006).

[11] Cf. James B. Jordan, “Merit Versus Maturity: What Did Jesus Do for Us?,” in The Federal Vision, ed. Steve Wilkins and Duane Garner (Monroe, Louisiana: Athanasius Press, 2004), 151-195. It is my desire to refute this sometime in the future.

[12] Vos gives a good and hearty defense of the active obedience of Christ in his exposition of the LC, see The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary, 569.

[13] Rom. 5:19, “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.” Herman Witsius speaks of “on account of the satisfaction and merits of his Son” (Sacred Dissertations on the Lord’s Prayer, 317). For the historical arguments for the active obedience of Christ, see Jeffrey Jue, “The Active Obedience of Christ and the Theology of the Westminster Standards: A Historical Investigation,” in Justified in Christ: God’s Plan for Us in Justification, ed. Scott K. Oliphint (Great Britain: Mentor, 2007), 99-130; Alan D. Strange, “The Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ at the Westminster Assembly,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates Within Seventeenth-Century British Puritanism, ed. Michael A G Haykin and Mark Jones, Reformed Historical Theology (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 31-51.

[14] Again, I refer the reader to LC #38 where we interact with this text.

[15] Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, 2:637-38.

[16] Verse 6 reads in the original, εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ.

[17] Eadie noted that many (including Calvin) took the meaning to be like the KJV translation, “The verb is supposed by them to refer to the personal or subjective result of grace, which is to give men acceptance with God—gratos et acceptos reddidit [rendered or caused to be gracious and acceptable]” — John Eadie, Eadie Commentary on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians (Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), n.p. Even the Latin translation got it right, in qua gratificavit nos.

[18] Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 164.

[19] In all honesty, as I worked on this phrase and pondered its meaning, Ps. 51 came immediately to mind. After looking up the proof text, I was pleased to find that our divines had developed this point in part from Ps. 51.

Christians and Political Fanaticism

Leave a reply

Christians and Political Fanaticism[1]

This study will not address everything about politics. My main purpose in this study is to challenge us to consider our hearts over these matters. How do we look at politics in terms of the Bible and in terms of our hope? Are we too easily caught up in politics? William G. T. Shedd (19^th century) and John Newton (18^th century) both spoke on these matters.

Shedd on Political Fanaticism[2]

Shedd argued that Patriotism is an instinctive feeling and is not to be rejected but cultivated. “But one chief mode of cultivating and sanctifying the sentiment is to moderate it.” It can degenerate to fanaticism. “The claims of a man’s country are inferior to the claims of God upon him.” It cannot have first place in our lives. “Hence if a man devote his time, his strength, and his thoughts so excessively to the political party to which he belongs as to neglect the concerns of his own soul and the religious welfare of his family and society, then his so-called patriotism is a sin.” (260)

Shedd argued that political fanaticism was rampant in America. Each election year excited the people “unduly and extravagantly.” We tend to think one certain policy over another is often the decisive factor in our nation’s destiny. We place unnecessary weight and importance on to political issues. “Government is an uncertain and experimental science. It is often difficult to say which is the better of two propositions, or two measures. Nothing but the trial will decide.” Our Christian faith, on the other hand, is not subject to these things; it is not “an uncertain and experimental science. It is drawn out in black and white in a written volume.” We must therefore recognize that in politics, men may properly differ. Then he concludes with this short paragraph:

The great defect in American politics is fanaticism. Let your moderation in politics be known to all men, is the true maxim for the people. It will be a happy day when the masses of our citizens shall be as greatly excited upon the subject of morals and religion as they now are upon politics, and as moderate in their political excitements as they now are in their religious. (262)

Shedd’s words should challenge us. Are we more zealous about politics as we are about our own relationship with Christ? Do we know the details of our political party more than we do of our own Christian doctrine? Shedd saw this fanaticism in the nineteenth century. Do we not see more in our generation?

Newton’s Thoughts on Politics

John Newton’s moderate views help us in our day of heavy interest in politics. In 1775, when the Americans were reacting against England’s control, Newton called for a prayer meeting (5AM on Tuesdays). It was well attended and he added the following statement:

We do not pray that either army may knock the other on the head, but that the Lord in his wisdom (for I believe it is beyond the wisdom of the wisest men) would point out expedients for peace, and that the sword may be put quietly into its scabbard. It seems to me one of the darkest signs of the times, that so many of the Lord’s professing people act as if they thought he was withdrawn from the earth, and amuse themselves and each other, with declamations against instruments and second causes and indulge unsanctified passions instead of taking that part which is assigned them Ezek. 9:4. [“And the LORD said to him, “Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it.”]

He further added that he believed the Lord still reigns and He alone was our sure sanctuary. “Thus you have the substance of my political creed.”[3]

When England was involved in some sort of war in 1794, he was grieved and believed that the nation’s “sins plunged us into it.” He was convinced that the best he could do for his country was to pray for her. Then he tells John Ryland, “Sin, my friend, is the great evil. Let us preach against sin, let us cry to the Lord for mercy, let us point to Jesus as the only refuge from the storm, and let us leave the rest to them who know better.” (Wise Counsel, 305) Rather than getting all excited about this and that political issue, he looked at the matter theologically.

He recognized these national events were from the Lord (309) and that God was still accomplishing His purpose. He believed meddling in politics (as ministers) was wrong (331).

I believe as you say that intermingling of politics with religion has done much harm. But I thank God this is not my easy besetting sin. My whole concern with politics is to tell the people that the Lord reigns, that all hearts are in his hands, that creatures are all instruments of his will, and can do neither more nor less than he, for wise reasons, appoints or permits; that sin is the procuring cause of all misery; that they who sigh and mourn for our abominations and stand in the breach pleading for mercy, are better patriots than they who talk loudly about men and measures, of either side.[4]

This is spiritual wisdom. We can so easily get exercised over political events and speeches. Our affections are too dependent on the fortunes of political events. What matters most is the nation’s spiritual and moral condition. Think about it, none of the political parties in our nation encourages true righteousness. Newton refused to “meddle” in these things. When the subject of “national debt” came up, Newton focused on a different national debt.

I meddle not with disputes of party, nor concern myself with any political maxims, but such as are laid down in Scripture. There I read, that righteousness exalteth a nation, and that sin is the reproach, and if persisted in, the ruin of any people. Some people are startled at the enormous sum of our national debt: they who understand spiritual arithmetic, may be well startled if they sit down and compute the debt of national sin.[5]

We may have thoughts about our own national debt and national problems. But we should be more concerned about the spiritual issues of our nation. I fear more energy, time, and passions are expended on political matters than spiritual issues.

Some Biblical Thoughts

We are taught from Hebrews that in this earth (and nation) we do not have a lasting city — “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” (Heb. 13:14). Paul says that our “citizenship is in heaven” (Phil. 3:20) and that “from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” In both passages, we are reminded of a coming city and a coming Lord.

Remember the words of our Lord in Mt. 22:21, ““Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” But we are also to set our minds and affections on the things above where Christ is (Col. 3:1ff.). Obedience to our civil authorities must be followed (Rom. 13:1ff.; 1Peter 2:13-17) but we do all this “for the Lord’s sake” (1Pet. 2:13).

Some General Conclusions

1. Political zeal must not cloud our judgments.

2. Political issues must not preoccupy our time.

3. Political matters do not change hearts, lives, and especially eternal matters.

4. Our hopes, countenance, and expectations must be on the Lord and His Word and not on the fortunes of our political parties.

5. Remember, God possesses the true seat of power — it does not exist in our political parties, the White House, the Congress, etc.

[1] The audio recording of this lesson can be found on sermonaudio.com.

[2] W. G. T. Shedd, “Political Fanaticism,” in Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 259-262. You can download this short essay: Shedd, Political Fanaticism

[3] John Newton, Wise Counsel – John Newton’s Letters to John Ryland Jr., ed. Grant Gordon (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2009), 84.

[4] Wise Counsel, 324.

[5] Josiah Bull, ed., Letters by the Rev. John Newton (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1869), 235.

Larger Catechism, #74, pt. 2

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 74

74. Q. What is adoption?

A. Adoption is an act of the free grace of God,[307] in and for his only Son Jesus Christ,[308] whereby all those that are justified are received into the number of his children,[309] have his name put upon them,[310] the Spirit of his Son given to them,[311] are under his fatherly care and dispensations,[312] admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.[313]

PART 2

His Name and Spirit

To be received into the number means that the children of God “have his name put upon them, the Spirit of his Son given to them…” We are legally His children; we have His name. “And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” (2Cor. 6:18) As He calls us His sons and daughters, we are also promised that He “will write upon [us] the name of my God” (Rev. 3:12). But we His people are already called by His name as God refers to His people as “my people who are called by my name” (2Chron. 7:14). What does this mean? God is legally our Father and we are members of His glorious household. “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God…” (Eph. 2:19) In this verse, Paul mentions two privileges, we are citizens in God’s kingdom and family members in His household. “In Christ Gentiles are not only fellow-citizens with Jewish believers under God’s rule; they are also children together in God’s own family.”[1] A believer may not feel himself to be a child of God yet the translation from being a child of Satan to being a child of God is binding and permanent. The name is on him. Fisher offers a helpful illustration: “as the wife’s name is sunk unto her husband’s, so the former name of the adopted is sunk unto Christ’s new name, Rev. iii. 12, ‘I will write upon him my new name.’”[2] God is our Father and we His children; His name is upon us forever!

The latter phrase “the Spirit of his Son given to them” adds a very necessary dimension to the nature of our adoption. The new name, the new family status, is legal, external, and permanent. But God did not stop there. The Spirit of God’s Son is given to us who enables us to cry Abba, Father. Because we are indeed God’s children by adoption, God gives us the Spirit (“And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’” Gal. 4:6). The logic here is unmistakable. Because we are indeed God’s sons, Paul says, God therefore sends the Spirit into our hearts. The German liberal commentator actually explains this verse very well. “God bestows on us not only the status of sons [through the sending of his Son] but also the character and knowledge of sons [through the sending of the Spirit]. And he bestows on us the character and knowledge of sons because we are already in the status of sons.”[3] That is, the Holy Spirit who comes to us through the mediation of Christ enables us to respond as genuine sons. Notice how the verse states that the Spirit is sent into our hearts (εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν).

It is not uncommon to meet adopted children who don’t feel like they are part of the family or that their adoptive parents are really their own. The new parents may bend over backwards to reach out to their adopted son but they cannot put a filial spirit into him. That he feels himself to be a part of their family or that at his gut level he is indeed their beloved son are dispositions the parents cannot impart. Yet this sad dilemma will not occur for genuine believers. The Holy Spirit actually enables us to instinctively (and therefore ‘naturally’) cry out to God as our heavenly father. That instinct, that filial disposition, that family feeling, etc. come out of us because of the Holy Spirit. We have received “the Spirit of adoption as sons” (Rom. 8:15). Therefore the legal status of adoption with God’s name upon us includes the Holy Spirit who enables us to look to our heavenly father. A child of God is not “trained” by man to call upon God; he is enabled by the Holy Spirit to cry out to His heavenly father.

Under the Father’s Care

The privileges of being adopted include God’s fatherly care: “are under his fatherly care and dispensations.” The verses used to support this phrase are interesting. Our heavenly Father’s pity or compassion from Ps. 103:13 is mentioned (“As a father shows compassion to his children, so the LORD shows compassion to those who fear him.”) along with the privilege of being able to take refuge in Him in Prov. 14:26 (“In the fear of the LORD one has strong confidence, and his children will have a refuge.”). The great promise of Mt. 6:32 that our heavenly Father is well aware of our needs is also mentioned (“For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.”).

All these privileges are wonderful as well as comforting. God cares for us; He is concerned and is compassionate towards us. Good fathers feel the pain of their sons and daughters; their compassion or pity go out towards their children. If they can wisely relieve their children in their distress, they would. Yet, their compassion is not matched by their power. They may weep on account of their son’s struggle but is powerless to do anything about it. Our heavenly fatherly is not so limited. If he does not relieve, it is not because he does not care or that he is unable to take care of the problem. Our father has wisely chosen not to intervene though his bowels of compassion are moved. Furthermore, we are reminded that because He cares for us, we can take refuge in Him (Prov. 14:26). We can be safe in Him because of He is a strong tower. Like an earthly father, he cares for us. Yet, he cares for us far better than we deserve.

Most of the writers who explain the Catechisms and Confession mention God’s fatherly discipline (Ridgeley, Beattie, Fisher, Green, etc.). The LC states that we are under God’s dispensations. This means we are under our heavenly father’s government, his order, control, oversight, etc. It would include chastening as our Confession states. The WCF states that we are “pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him, as by a father…” (12.1). Though the verses cited for the LC do not list Heb. 12:6 like the WCF, yet the truth of the point can easily be seen. We are under our father’s care and government; we are under his special dealings with us as our father which would at times include discipline. Whatever we need, we will receive from our Father, even discipline because He loves us: “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:6). We are illegitimate children and not sons if we are not disciplined by Him (Heb. 12:8). What the divines seem to be teaching is that we are under the father’s care and that includes whatever we might need (both positive and negative [though they are ultimately all positive]) as his children. Ridgeley summarized it this way:

As God’s children are prone to backslide from him, and so have need of restoring grace, he will recover and humble them, and thereby prevent their total apostasy. This he sometimes does by afflictions, which the apostle calls fatherly chastisements, and which he reckons not only consistent with his love, but evidences of it. ‘Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth;’ and ‘if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.’ The apostle speaks here, of afflictions, not as considered absolutely in themselves, but as proceeding from the love of God, as designed to do them good, and as adapted to the present state, in which they are training up for the glorious inheritance reserved for them in heaven, and need some trying dispensations which may put them in mind of that state of perfect blessedness which is laid up for them. These afflictions are rendered subservient to their present and future advantage. In the present life, they ‘bring forth the peaceful fruits of righteousness’ to them; and when they are in the end perfectly freed from them, they will tend to enhance their joy and praise.[4]

The difficulties in life come to us “under his fatherly…dispensations.” They are not to crush us but to correct us; they are not given to destroy us but to demonstrate his love to us as His children. “Thus, many of the ills of this life may turn out to be blessings in disguise, while the chastisement itself is a proof of the love of God, and of their adoption into his family.”[5] Because we are His children, our heavenly Father brings difficulties into our lives: “It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons.” (Heb. 12:7)

Liberties and Privileges

The last thing listed in the answer is that we are “admitted to all the liberties and privileges of the sons of God, made heirs of all the promises, and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.” Rather than listing everything that could pertain to our adoption, the divines simply summarize the point as being admitted to all the liberties and privileges. Part of that liberty of course is that as children, we are free from the law (as a means of salvation and from its condemning power). Paul says, “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Gal. 5:1) The privileges include access to the throne of grace (Heb. 4:16), we have “access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph. 2:18). Paul’s statement reveals so much. It is not just that we have access to God per se (that we have in Christ) but we have access to the Father — that is the language of sonship, adoption, and God’s fatherhood.

The privilege underscored in the LC is our inheritance. We are exhorted to persevere “through faith and patience” to “inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:12). The great privilege of sonship is that we will inherit all that God has promised to us in Christ. We cited this before but it is a helpful reminder: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Rom. 8:17) The divines used this verse to come up with “and fellow-heirs with Christ in glory.”

Conclusion

1. Calvin said, “For until men recognize that they owe everything to God, that they are nourished by his fatherly care, that he is the Author of their every good, that they should seek nothing beyond him— they will never yield him willing service.” (Institutes, 1.1.1, p. 41) This is the essence of piety. Are you convinced of God’s fatherly care? Do you believe you are actually nourished by his fatherly care? If not, you will never yield him willing service.

2. One of the implications of adoption is as our Confession teaches that when we are chastised, we are “never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.” God will never disown his children. May we find encouragement in this!

3. Earthly fathers can and will fail us but our heavenly Father will not. To know the love of the Father is to look at the cross, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8, NASB)

[1] Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (PNTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 211-212.

[2] James Fisher, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained, By Way of Question and Answer. In Two Parts. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, nd), 168.

[3] H. Schlier, Galater, 197 cited in F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: a Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 198.

[4] Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity, Volume 2 (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1855), 136.

[5] Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards, 215-6.

Larger Catechism, #73

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 73

73. Q. How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God?

A. Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it,[304] nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification;[305] but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.[306]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[304] Galatians 3:11. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Romans 3:28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. [305] Romans 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 10:10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. [306] John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Galatians 1:16. To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood.

Introduction

If the believer is not careful in stating his understanding of justification by faith, he can easily imply that his faith itself justifies. That is, the strength (or virtue) of our faith justifies us. It is similar to saying, “My act of believing is the cause and ground of my justification.” William Pope, a very competent Arminian, argued that for a believer “his faith is counted for righteousness.”[1] John Miley says that “faith itself, and not its object, that is thus imputed” as the righteousness.[2] Justification by faith was somehow related to righteousness. In explaining this, these Arminians did not want it to be Christ’s imputed righteousness.[3] Many of them simply ended up arguing that faith itself was the righteousness. At some points, it is difficult to understand how they explained this but what becomes crystal clear is the denial of Christ’s imputation of righteousness. Faith was not the means of justification but the ground for these Arminians.

For this reason, we must be give this particular question careful consideration. The Westminster divines clearly saw (or foresaw) how all this could be misunderstood — this question carefully answers what later would become a problem. [I have not done enough research to see if certain individuals advanced what the Arminians later taught (though Arminian thinking was already soundly refuted in 1618-19). The Confession was finalized in 1646. Question 73 seems to have in mind a specific error but I have not verified as of yet.]

Accompanying Graces do not Justify

The answer states, “Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, not because of those other graces which do always accompany it, or of good works that are the fruits of it…” This part of the answer carefully lists the two ways faith does not justify. The other graces which accompany faith, like hope, charity, etc. do not justify. The various “other graces” would be the “fruits of the Spirit” in Gal. 5:22, 23. Peter speaks of adding to faith in 1Peter 1:5-7. Nowhere does it ever say that love itself justifies, or that our joy, peace, patience, etc. justifies. Our repentance, which flows from faith, also does not justify.

Gal. 5:6 says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” This has been the locus classicus for Roman Catholics to refute sola fide. It seems clear that we are not justified by faith alone but instead are justified by “faith working through love” (πίστις διʼ ἀγάπης ἐνεργουμένη). Therefore, the Westminster divines err by saying “not because of those other graces which do always accompany” faith. Are they correct?

In interpreting passages, we must always consider the context. This verse is in the context of refuting those who boast in circumcision. Paul is saying being or not being circumcised is nothing. What matters is “faith working through love.” Is he speaking of justification? The context seems to suggest that. One commentator says, “The faith which operates through love is clearly the same as the faith which justifies.”[4] At the same time, this author says, Paul “is saying simply that the faith which justifies is of such a nature that it will express itself through love.” That is, though faith alone justifies, it also expresses itself in love. By faith alone are we justified but this faith does more. as one author tersely summarized the verse with this maxim, “faith as root and love as fruit.”[5] So the New Living Translation pretty much got it right by translating it as “faith expressing itself in love.” Love is always the fruit, the fruit of the Spirit (v. 22) for those justified by faith.[6]

An illustration may help here. Electricity alone powers my router; nothing else can. Yet, electricity does far more than power my router — it warms my electric blanket, heats my electric heater, spins my blender, etc. Similarly, faith alone is the means of justification, yet faith does many other things. Thomas Schreiner says, “The participle ‘working’ (ἐνεργουμένη) should be construed as a middle here, so that faith is the root and love is the fruit.” That is, love is the fruit of faith which is precisely what Paul teaches in Ga. 5:22, “where love is the fruit of the Spirit, and therefore those who trust in Christ and embrace him as Lord show that faith in love.”[7]

We must not overlook the immense practical matters related to this theological observation. This is much more helpful than we can imagine. If we are justified by God’s grace through faith alone and these accompanying graces do not in the least justify, then we may be justified without joy, peace, etc. Though these graces are essentially connected to faith, we may not sense them. Some believers have thought their sense of being accepted, their experience of God’s peace, their felt sense of joy, etc. are the grounds of their justification. How can I be right with God if I don’t “feel” peace, joy, patience, etc.? These graces accompany faith but they do not justify. I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; God justifies me as I humbly believe in His Son for my salvation, etc. To be declared forgiven, righteous on account of Christ’s imputed righteousness, are forensic acts and not necessarily felt experiences (though these do most often accompany it).

Good Works that are the Fruits of Faith do not Justify

Furthermore, “good works that are the fruits” of faith do not justify. Good works are always “fruits” and not the grounds of our justification. If we are truly justified, we will bear fruit and good works are themselves evidences, the fruits of our justification. As Paul said, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Rom. 3:28) Paul’s statement is pitted against specific obedience to the law of God revealed in the OT (in particular, the Torah). That is what “deeds of the law” means. When it comes to justification, works of the law do not play any role. The “good works” that accompany those who are justified do not contribute to justification.

Major detractors to this interpretation have gained a hearing. N. T. Wright says that Paul is concerned with ecclesiology and not soteriology. So “Paul’s point in the present passage is quite simply that what now marks out the covenant people of God, in the light of the revelation of God’s righteousness in Jesus, is not the works of Torah that demarcate ethnic Israel, but ‘the law of faith,’ that faith that, however paradoxically, is in fact the true fulfilling of Torah.” He states that Paul is stressing “the badge of membership in God’s people, the badge that enables all alike to stand on the same, flat ground at the foot of the cross, is faith.”[8] This seems convoluted because it imports what is not present in the context. Remember, Jews have sought to establish their own righteousness (Rom. 10:3). Christ is “the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:4). Many scholars have risen up to refute N. T. Wright. His innovative (and heretical) interpretation does not only destroy the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone but it will also kill the life and soul of the church because his focus on ecclesiology is nothing more than externalism. Much more could be said but that cannot engage our present attention. It will not do you any good to read N.T. Wright.[9]

The Act of Faith is not Justification

The divines also state, “nor as if the grace of faith, or any act thereof, were imputed to him for his justification.” As mentioned in the beginning, the divines shut the door in attributing the act of faith as the ground of our justification. Vos summarizes the mistake in this way, “Abraham did not have a perfect righteousness, such as God originally required of men, but he did have faith, and so God graciously accepted faith as a substitute for righteousness.” (Vos, 163) Additionally, the phrase “any act thereof” would probably include repentance, sorrow, etc. (those things mentioned above). Faith itself or any kinds of acts we might perform (whatever that might be), etc. are not substituted for our righteousness. God does not say, “You don’t have good deeds but do something, like believe, and I’ll accept you as righteous.”

Imputing faith for one’s justification is plausible given Rom. 4:3: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” This verse sounds like God is accepting the act of believing as a substitute for what Abraham couldn’t do and thus counting it as done. But as Douglas Moo says,

But if we compare other verses in which the same grammatical construction as is used in Gen. 15:6 occurs, we arrive at a different conclusion. These parallels suggest that the “reckoning” of Abraham’s faith as righteousness means “to account to him a righteousness that does not inherently belong to him.” Abraham’s response to God’s promise leads God to “reckon” to him a “status” of righteousness.[10]

Paul makes it clear in v. 4 that this gift of righteousness is not what is earned or what is due on account of works (“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.”). So the interpretation of v. 3 (i.e., making the act of believing the merit, basis, and the ground of one’s righteousness) would contradict the teaching of v. 4. NT scholars have noted that many of the Jews believed Abraham faith was Abraham’s obedience to God and regarded as a work for which God owed him a reward.[11] Paul would have been very aware of that and vv. 3, 4 contradict the received Jewish opinion. To locate merit in the believer (his act of believing) would destroy Paul’s argument. Bavinck puts it well:

If faith justified on account of itself, the object of that faith (that is, Christ) would totally lose its value. But the faith that justifies is precisely the faith that has Christ as its object and content. Therefore, if righteousness came through the law, and if faith were a work that had merit and value as such and made a person acceptable to God, then Christ died for nothing (Gal. 2:21). In Justification faith is so far from being regarded as a ground that Paul can say that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).[12]

The Westminster divines obviously wanted to close the door on any and all kinds of imagined human activities that could be used to claim merit. Any act, whatever that might be, cannot imputed for one’s justification. The faith that justifies has not merit in itself. This is a wonderful blessing. Faith must always look outside itself and never to itself. Too often people look in to see if they have “enough” faith, piety, repentance, sorrow, passion, zeal, etc. No act, even faith (if we trust in it), can justify.

Faith is an Instrument

This last clause explains the function of faith. Faith is not itself a meritorious work but it is only an instrument by which we receive Christ: “but only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.” How does faith justify a sinner? Faith is only an instrument — it looks beyond itself to Christ to receive Him. We have already noted that justifying faith is a saving grace (LC #72) — it is produced by the work of the Spirit. When He works that faith in us, we look to Christ by faith and receive Him and all of His benefits. Thomas Watson summarizes it well: “The dignity is not in faith as a grace, but relatively, as it lays hold on Christ’s merits.”[13]

[1] William Pope, A Compendium of Christian Theology (New York: Hunt & Eaton, nd), 2:408.

[2] John Miley, Systematic Theology, 2:319.

[3] Cf. Adam Clarke, Christian Theology (London: Printed for Thomas Tegg & Sons, 1835), 154ff.; Henry C. Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine (Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham, 1903), 445ff.

[4] Ronald Y. K. Fung, The Epistle to the Galatians (NICNT; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 229.

[5] Loosely following F. F. Bruce in Gerald L. Borchert, in Galatians, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, vol. 14 (Carol Stream: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2007), 316, loosely follows or cites F. F. Bruce. Bruce says, “faith is viewed as the root, love as the fruit.”

[6] Cf. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on Galatians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publications Company, 1982), 233.

[7] Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 317. “Middle” voice indicates that the subject is the one acting and in this instance, it is “working itself” (almost like a reflexive verb).

[8] N. T. Wright, Romans, The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 482.

[9] Some mature believers are gifted enough to work through Wright’s writings without being infected by his thinking. He is not a safe guide though at times he can be insightful and helpful. He has fundamentally reshaped Pauline theology and in turn historic theology. I grow more and more impatient with his writings as he pushes his agenda throughout his publications.

[10] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 262.

[11] See Moo cited above.

[12] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 4:211.

[13] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity (Grand Rapids: Sovereign Grace Publishers, nd),158.

Larger Catechism, #72

Leave a reply

The Larger Catechism

Question 72

72. Q. What is justifying faith?

A. Justifying faith is a saving grace,[297] wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit[298] and Word of God,[299] whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition,[300] not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel,[301] but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin,[302] and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.[303]

Scriptural Defense and Commentary

[297] Hebrews 10:39. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. [298] 2 Corinthians 4:13. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak. Ephesians 1:17-19. That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power. [299] Romans 10:14-17. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. [300] Acts 2:37. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Acts 16:30. And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? John 16:8-9. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me. Romans 6:6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Ephesians 2:1. And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins. Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. [301] Ephesians 1:13. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise. [302] John 1:12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Acts 16:31. And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. Acts 10:43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. [303] Philippians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Acts 15:11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Introduction

The question assumes something we all recognize. There is a kind of faith that justifies and a kind that does not. Not all faith justifies though genuine faith alone justifies. Many people who go to church believe many orthodox truths but mere mental assent does not justify. I may believe that eating pork is bad for me or drinking wine is good for me but such belief does nothing for my health if I don’t act on that belief.

So the first thing to consider is that there is a faith that does not justify. James 2 speaks cogently of that matter. Believing orthodox truths may put us on an equal footing with demons — “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe — and shudder.” (James 2:19) James says you do well to believe such things but also points out that that demons believe the same things. “The point James is now driving home is that a Christian creed without corresponding Christian conduct will save neither devil nor man.”[1] Some have called this “dead orthodoxy” but it is in fact licentious orthodoxy. It is not only inert; it is carnal. Faith without works is dead! Jesus says that this kind of faith in the end “proves unfruitful” (Mt. 13:22, ἄκαρπος γίνεται, or “becomes unfruitful”).

Another example of a faith that does not justify is what we call a temporary faith. Temporary faith represents the ones who “believe for a while” (Lk. 8:13, πρὸς καιρὸν πιστεύουσιν, or “they believe for a time or a season”). Whatever the reason (worldliness, temptation, seduction, persecution, etc.), they end up believing for a season, for a time. The length of belief may be many years or for a short time but eventually time reveals the nature of their belief.

It is not wrong to examine ourselves regarding the nature of our faith. Protestants have rightly taught that we are justified by faith alone. Unfortunately, any and all faiths have been accepted. The mere profession of faith somehow protects the person from any scrutiny — forming any discerning judgment about the genuineness the person’s profession is considered uncharitable. Because a person says he has faith, it is tantamount to asserting that the person has justifying faith.

Furthermore, a growing trend in the Reformed circle has rightly stressed justification by faith. Yet, a strange (and disconcerting) aberration has developed from this. Any emphasis on obedience, sanctification, adherence to God’s law, etc. has been roundly criticized for being legalistic. Justification by faith alone has displaced sanctification and obedience in many. Men like Tullian Tchividjian have been criticized for this.[2] For this reason, we need to be clear about justifying faith.

Saving Grace

The first thing the LC states is that “justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God…” Justifying faith is first and foremost a saving grace. This means that those who have this faith have received a work of grace in their hearts that is saving. It will truly justify and in turn truly save. The classic text is Eph. 2:8-10. The saving faith “is not your own doing; it is the gift of God.” The text used to support the LC statement is Heb. 10:39: “But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.” The phrase reads “but of faith unto the preserving of the soul” (ἀλλὰ πίστεως εἰς περιποίησιν ψυχῆς). The writer of Hebrews is arguing that his readers are those who have a faith that truly saves unto the end. The ones who “shrink back” are not saved but “are destroyed.” They believed for a while but such a faith did not justify.

This justifying faith is a gift wrought in us: “wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit.” 2Cor. 4:13 supports that point: “Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak…” The phrase “same spirit of faith” is very important.[3] It teaches that Paul and the NT believers have the same faith the same Holy Spirit created in the Psalmist. He is the one who enables us to believe.

Furthermore, this faith is wrought “by the Spirit and Word of God.” Vos has this to say, “The Word, or gospel, message alone, without the Holy Spirit, may result in a kind of faith, but not justifying faith. Where the Word is not known, as among the heathen who have never heard the name of Christ, the Holy Spirit does not do any saving work (except perhaps in the case of infants dying in infancy, etc.).” (159-160) The Spirit doesn’t create faith without a context. The person believes the truth preached. He has faith in something and justifying faith believes in the gospel and all that it teaches. When God created faith in Lydia, we see that it is coupled with the message preached to her: “and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts 16:14, NASB). She responded or paid attention to the message preached; God did not merely create faith in her without a corresponding gospel for her to believe. As Paul has taught, “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17).

Justifying Faith and Conviction

There is an element added here that could easily be misunderstood. Justifying faith includes the following, “whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition…” The person with real justifying faith is also convinced of his sin and misery. We read in Acts 2:37 that the people who heard Peter’s preaching were “pricked in their heart.” That is, they were convicted by what they heard, convicted of their guilt and sin. The Spirit will “reprove the world of sin” (Jn. 16:8) and everyone who has genuine justifying faith will be convinced he is a sinner. What is not spelled out (and it cannot be spelled out) is how much conviction of sin and a sense of misery they must experience. Some measure, however little, accompanies genuine justifying faith — whatever it takes to get them to Christ.

In Acts 16:30, the Philippian jailer was compelled to ask what he must do to be saved, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” Here, the jailer recognized his need for salvation and realized there was no one who could help him. He had a sense of the “disability in himself” — he does not seek the remedy from somewhere else except in Christ Jesus. The truth of Acts 4:12 (“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”) also means that the convinced sinner realizes that Christ is the answer to his misery and lost condition.

Some, like Zane Hodges (a dispensationalist), have argued that faith is simply “believe.” It is no different than asking someone if he believed that the President will do what he promised. Faith is just like that, he argues.[4] There is no “mental assent” for him; there is only belief and unbelief. Faith is the “inward conviction that what God says to us in the gospel is true.”[5] He (along with Ryrie) is convinced that the Bible doesn’t teach intellectual faith, historic faith, etc. It is belief or unbelief. Ryrie says, “When a person gives credence to the historical facts that Christ died and rose from the dead and the doctrinal fact that this was for his sins, he is trust his eternal destiny to the reliability of those truths.”[6] They fail to recognize a simple point. It is true that faith means all those things but what they failed to consider is that Scripture teaches much more than that. Those who say they believe do not necessarily savingly believe on account of their lifestyle, affections, etc. So faith includes much more than mere credence to some historical facts. Are there not many who have left the church who would never say they don’t believe those verities in the Bible? Justifying faith is more than mere mental assent.

Faith and Assent

Here is where the divines saw right through this issue: “not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin…” First of all, assenting to the truth of the promise of the gospel is necessary. Salvation is not just an experience. Something happens to the sinner (regeneration) but that work in him comes with the reception of the truth by the sinner. To be more precise, the work of regeneration enables the person to assent to the truth. The sinner trusts in Christ as he first believes in the truth: “when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him…” (Eph. 1:13). Hearing the word of truth and believing in Him go together; that is, the sinner assents to the “word of truth” when he hears it and with it he believes in him. Before unpacking that point, we need to consider a very important aspect of assenting to the truth. Vos asks, “When a person denies the truthfulness of God’s Word, in whole or in part, what does this show concerning the state of that person’s heart?”

Such unbelief ordinarily indicates that the person does not have saving faith, and is not a child of God. The only exception to this statement would be the case of a person in whose heart justifying faith has been wrought by the Holy Spirit, who yet because of weakness of intellect denies the truthfulness or authority of some portion of the Bible without realizing that this is inconsistent with justifying faith and that it dishonors God. (Vos, 160)

Assenting to the truth of the gospel means that the person believes what the Bible says. We have no gospel except the one presented in the Bible. Assenting to the truth of the promise of the gospel go hand in hand with the truth of the Bible. The Spirit who gave the Word is Himself the one who enables a sinner to believe in His Word. He would not regenerate someone to not accept His own Word.

As we’ve already stated, it is more than assent because the truth brings with it the Person to whom the truth points. Jn. 1:12 speaks of receiving Christ (“But as man as received him…”) while Acts 16:31 writes of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 10:43). These verses clearly teach that in assenting to the truth, we are also receiving and resting on Christ. Propositions do not save us; Christ does. In justifying faith, the sinner receives Christ— the whole soul rests on Christ: “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Mt. 11:28). The Puritans spoke of the sinner “recumbing and relying on the Lord Jesus Christ as offered in the promise of free grace for his righteousness.”[7] Recumbing means to repose, recline, etc. These various verbs all connote the simple idea of “resting” or leaning on Christ.

In this believing we set our seal that God is true; and God will, in due time, if He has not done so already, set His seal to work assurance in you, to second your reliance. ‘But if you believe not, thus you make God a liar’ (1 John 5:10).

Though you assent to the truth of the promises of Christ, yet if you draw back your affiance and relying, as if the promises were not to you, you give God the lie. Oh, then, in the sense of your own nakedness, come out of yourselves and cast yourself on Christ for righteousness—and this is the faith that saves you.

How many men deceive themselves in this saving act of faith! If they know the promise of Christ as our righteousness and assent to it, they think that is enough. But, alas, it is not; for there must be a stripping of a man’s self naked of his own righteousness and a resting on this righteousness of Christ’s alone. David stripped himself of his armor, and so went out against Goliath in the name of the Lord. Adam was naked and saw it before God made the promise of Christ.[8]

To lean or rely on something means that if the said object upon which we rely or lean is removed, we would fall. The sinner does not merely assent to the truth, he also leans on Christ. If the “prop” is not there or if the prop fails, then the one leaning on it falls. The sinner leans on Christ and His righteousness so much that if Christ fails him, he is undone.

The divines rightly recognize that justifying faith means that the sinner looks to Christ and His righteousness — he sees that righteousness and the forgiveness of sins are offered in Christ and he rests in Christ for them. In the Bible we read that God enables us to be “in Christ Jesus, who became to us … righteousness” (1 Cor. 1:30). Paul says he wants to be found in Christ not having a righteousness of his own “but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9). Justifying faith looks to Christ for that righteousness and the forgiveness of sins — “that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (Acts 10:43).

So, justifying faith assumes a body of biblical knowledge, a belief in those truths, a relying and resting on Christ and a looking to Him for righteousness and the forgiveness of sins. That is to say, justifying faith means something more than a vague religious experience! It possesses rich biblical content that focuses on forgiveness of sins and Christ’s righteousness! If those things are not preached then there can be no justifying faith — however sincere the profession may be!

Faith and Being Account Righteous

Lastly, justifying faith of course assumes the effect of faith: “and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.” Phil. 3:9 (quoted above) clearly teaches the point made in the LC. The sinner who truly believes recognizes that his believing in Christ means that he will be accounted righteous in the sight of God. God does not merely tolerate us by forgiving us — He actually accounts us as righteous in his sight. It is not as if we never sinned but rather as if we had perfectly obeyed the law — not we in ourselves but Christ and His righteousness!

[1] James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 127.

[2] See http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/08/sanctification-and-the-nature.php.

[3] “Gk. τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τῆς πίστεως, a probable reference to the Holy Spirit, through whom faith comes (see, e.g., 1 Cor 12:3). Despite his emphasis on the eschatological coming of the Spirit in the new covenant, Paul nonetheless acknowledges the work of the Spirit in the life of the psalmist” (Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 240).

[4] Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: A Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Dallas: Rendención Viva, 1989), 27-28.

[5] Hodges, Absolutely Free, 31.

[6] Charles Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What it Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1989), 30.

[7] Obadiah Grew, The Lord our Righteousness: The Old Perspective (reprint, Orlando: Soli Deo Gloria, 2005), 69.

[8] Obadiah Grew, The Lord our Righteousness, 70.

Lessons for Christians from Joe Paterno

Leave a reply

[This is the document I passed out in our Sunday School. I have added to it to make it clearer for the reader. It is to be used in conjunction with the lesson I have in the Sunday School hour. The audio of the lesson can be found http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1114111144442]

1Cor. 10:12 Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.

We have all heard about what happened to Joe Paterno, the coach of Penn State for 46 years. I am neither a Penn State fan nor a devotee of football. In fact I know very little of college football and rarely watch it these days.

I also do not presume to know all the facts or details of this heinous situation. It is neither edifying to rehearse the details of this wicked crime nor prudent. Enough is known to compel us to be circumspect.

Three things compelled me to pursue this study. 1) A caller on the radio noted how Joe Paterno be remembered — no longer as a great honorable coach but one who mishandled this situation very badly. 2) A dear brother in Christ said to me that these events were sobering. 3) I happened to be reading a selection from John Newton again that dovetailed with these events. I thought it necessary as a pastor to strike while the iron is hot.

For all I know, Joe Paterno may emerge as a hero — I don’t know and it doesn’t matter but there are definitely three things (at least) we can draw from this grievous situation. I have not heard if Paterno is a Christian or not but allow me to use his life as a metaphor for our spiritual pilgrimage, the pilgrim’s progress. I want to meditate on four lessons we could learn from this.

1. We need the Lord’s grace to see things with moral clarity.

If Joe Paterno were able to do it again, he would have acted differently knowing what he knows now. To see things clearly from a spiritual moral perspective is an act of God’s grace; we must beseech Him for wisdom so that we will not fall into sin. We make myriads of decisions in our lives and many of them chosen unwisely may be our undoing later on. Let us earnestly beseech the Lord to keep us, to fill us with wisdom, to enlighten our hearts and imprint upon our souls the gravity of the moment.

2. We need the Lord’s grace to run well unto the end. It’s not over til it’s over! Remember Peter, David, & Solomon.

All of us have the race before us. Some of us will reach the celestial city much earlier than the rest. Either way, we must run to the end. None of us can presume that we will make it to the end with ease. Joe Paterno almost ended his distinguished career with distinction but now his entire life and all his achievements have been sullied. O to make it unto the end without dishonoring our dear master! May He give us the grace to run well and to the end.

3. We must recognize how quickly man’s glory fades.

This football legend, had he ended well, would still have been forgotten. Eventually, all our exploits and glory done for self and this world will come to naught. Only what is done for Christ will last.

4. We must remember that our glory can turn to dishonor in a flash. The Lord must hold us up or we will perish.

One mistake, one act of indiscretion, etc. can overturn our reputation, our wealth, our health, etc. We are in the Lord’s hands at all times but let us not presume that we can flirt with sin and lesser things and assume all will be well. May the Lord keep us and may we by His grace and mercy humbly and safely cling to Him! O to cling evermore to Him who loved us and gave Himself up for us!

How quickly our lives change. In looking up a few bits of information regarding Joe Paterno, I ran across this clip on a site. I’ve never heard of him before but the news blurb aptly illustrates how quickly our lives and fortunes can change.

Once-richest Irishman declared bankrupt

Sean Quinn, three years ago listed as Ireland’s richest man, has been declared bankrupt in a Northern Ireland court over alleged debts of €2.8bn to the Irish state-owned lender Anglo Irish Bank.

The 64-year old businessman’s insurance, cement and property empire collapsed last year following a multibillion euro stock market gamble on the share price of Anglo, which was nationalised during Ireland’s banking crisis.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7c86e246-0c76-11e1-8ac6-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1dYaZU1aR

John Newton and the Lord our Keeper

In a letter to young John Ryland, Newton refers to his sense of inner corruption and weakness. Earlier, he confess, “It is a mercy that I have not been surprised and overwhelmed long ago: without help from on high it would soon be over with me.” (p. 88)

One trial however abides with me; a body of sin and death, an inward principle of evil, which renders all I do defective and defiled. But even here I find cause for thankfulness, for with such a heat as I have, my sad story would soon be much worse, if the Lord were not my keeper. By this I may know that he favours me, since weak and variable as I am in myself, and powerful and numerous as my enemies are, they have not yet prevailed against me. And I am admitted to a throne of grace, I have an advocate with the Father. And such is the power, care and compassion of my great Shepherd that, prone as I am to wander, he keeps me from wandering quite away. When I am wounded he heals me; when I faint, he revives me again.[1]

Newton recognized how easily he could have fallen. He attributes his continued state of grace to God’s mercy. True believers feel the plague of their hearts and are surprised that they have not been undone by their sins. Newton’s humbly admits that the Lord had kept him; if the Lord were not our keeper, we would all fall. What happened to Paterno and those related to this incident could easily affect us — “It is a mercy that I have not been surprised and overwhelmed…”

Edward Reynolds and His Meditations on Peter’s Fall

Another extract that helps us on this matter of Joe Paterno is from Edward Reynolds (a Westminster Divine). He penned thirty short meditations on Peter’s fall and rise. This is taken from his third Meditation. Written in old English, it may be difficult for readers to follow so let me summarize the main point and then you can meditate on this paragraph. He says that we can never assume that we will never fall. If we are true believers, we will indeed make it to heaven but there is no promise that we will never fall into temptation. Reynolds’s words are sobering because he reminds us that all our resolutions (like Peter’s protest and promise) are worthless unless our Lord gives us grace to keep them for His glory.

Vows and promises unconditionally addressed, cannot but prove dangerous to the strongest faith. God must first give us perseverance, before we can promise it; it is not in our power, though it be our duty to perform it. Though Peter may, in the virtue of Christ’s promise, be sure not to fall into hell, he cannot, in the virtue of his own promise, be sure not to fall into temptation: though he can be secure that faith shall have the last victory; yet he cannot, that it shall have every victory: though it cannot die and be finally dried up, yet it may ebb and languish; and though even now it can look undauntedly on the nails of a cross, yet presently it may be affrighted at the voice of a maid. He only that hath given faith unto us, can give life and action unto our faith… Lord! let me never barely promise, but let me withal pray unto thee; and let ever my purpose to die for thee, be seconded with a supplication that I may not deny thee; whenever I have an arm of confidence to lift up in defence of thy truth, let me have a knee of humility to bow down before thy throne: Lord, give me what I may promise; and I will promise what thou requirest. (Works, 3:11)

[1] John Newton, Wise Counsel – John Newton’s Letters to John Ryland Jr., ed. Grant Gordon (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2009), 170. Newton has made similar confessions earlier on, see pp. 88, 145.

God’s Reputation and Our Lifestyle

Leave a reply

We know that the man’s chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. Many texts could be produced to prove this well received point.[1] The text 1Cor. 10:31 states, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” The most mundane acts are to be done for God’s glory. Even as we receive each other, we do it unto God’s glory, “Therefore welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.” (Rom. 15:7)

No believer should have any problems with this truth. How we act on that truth is an entirely different matter. The Bible teaches that our behavior either glorifies God or gives the opportunity for the enemies of Christ to blaspheme Him. Paul says this of the Jews (Rom. 2:23, 24): “You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed [βλασφημεῖται] among the Gentiles because of you.”” They claimed to be God’s people of the law and recognized that the Gentiles did not have God’s law to direct them.[2] Yet, by their own disobedience and wicked lifestyle, the Jews gave the Gentiles the occasion to blaspheme God.

This concern for God’s reputation is found in Moses’ prayer. He was worried about God’s reputation after God threatened to obliterate the people in the desert. Notice this prayer in Ex. 32:11-14,

11 But Moses implored the LORD his God and said, “O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. 13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’” 14 And the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people.

What the Egyptians might say of God compelled Moses to pray. He did not want them to say, “With evil intent did he (God) bring them out, to kill them…” This, along with God’s faithfulness to His covenant, moved Moses to plead with God for Israel. Moses’ expressed his regard for God’s reputation.

Hezekiah alludes to this very concern when he prayed to the Lord to deliver Israel. The Assyrians mocked the living God (Is. 37:17; cf. vv. 10-13) and Hezekiah asked God to save them “that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you alone are the LORD.” (v. 20) God responds by saying that His zeal will deliver them (Is. 37:32) for His own sake and for the sake of His servant David (37:35). God’s reputation was on the line and God will defend His great name.

Daniel, in one of the most moving and eloquent prayers in the Bible, argued as Moses. He makes it known that their punishment was just on God’s part (Dan. 9:14). But he also points out that God saved them to make “a name for yourself” (v. 15). He asks God to act “for your own sake, O Lord” (v. 17). They bear God’s name and the city is “called by your name” (v. 18). Then he cries out, “Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.” (v. 19) God’s name is connected with the fate and felicity of His people. Daniel wants God to act for His name’s sake because of His covenant obligations. In effect, what will the nations say about God if His people and the city called by His name were not rescued?

Observations

The truth in these passages teach us the importance of God’s glory and the necessity of making it part of our prayer and personal concern! It is not even to simply assume that our plight is so bad, that God must act. Do we not deserve much worse than we have received?

Apart from that theological observation, we also learn that the depth of one’s piety can be measured by concern the child of God has for God’s reputation. Do we have our Lord’s reputation in mind?

Some NT Passages

Before we focus on a few key passages, we must consider the well known petition. The first petition of the Lord’s prayer concerns God’s glory. We want His name to be hallowed, considered holy, held in reverence, etc. As the SC states, “That God would enable us, and others, to glorify him…” That is, our lives (among other things) must play a part in fulfilling that petition.

We can also mention how creation, salvation, ethics, etc. all center on God’s glory. Much could be said about those points but we will give our attention to some things that are easily overlooked. These eminently concrete passages jump out with bold colors. What they say is unmistakable and they assume some of the things we have already mentioned.

If believers live sensual godless lives…

2Peter 2:2 reiterates Rom. 2:23, 24 we quoted above. The sensual and godless lives of those who profess faith (led astray by false prophets with their destructive heresies) lead people to blaspheme God: “because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed (βλασφημηθήσεται).”[3] Here, it is not simply about God; it is about His message, His method of salvation. “The infection from the false teachers spreads to others, but it does not stop there. The unbelieving world sees the impact on the church and responds by maligning and ridiculing “the way of truth.”… When unbelievers see the moral effect produced by the opponents in the lives of their followers, they will conclude that the way of truth is a way of error.”[4]

The truth of the gospel is questioned on account of our sinful behavior. Not only is God’s reputation sullied, His message to lost sinner is maligned. The world scrutinizes our behavior and quickly seizes our inconsistency. Believers do not have the liberty to do as they wish; their lifestyle brings honor or dishonor to God.

If wives do not fulfill their domestic duties…

Paul instructs Titus to tell older women to teach “young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled [or blasphemed, βλασφημῆται]” (Titus 2:4, 5)

Apart from the domestic peace and stability such actions bring to the household, Paul is concerned that God’s Word would not be “reviled.” Domestic lifestyles therefore either give legitimacy to the truth of the Gospel or discredit it. It is not a private affair.

If Christian wives ignored these demands and flouted the role their culture demanded of good wives, the gospel would be maligned, criticized, and discredited by non-Christians. Christianity would be judged especially by the impact that it had on the women. It therefore was the duty of the women to protect God’s revelation from profanation by living discreet and wholesome lives. For Christians, no life style is justified that hinders “the word of God,” the message of God’s salvation in Christ.[5]

From whence does the blasphemy come? Does it come from the world or the unbelieving spouse? Chrystostom believes this comes from the unbelieving spouse. He says, ““For if you gain nothing else, and do not attract your husband to embrace right doctrines, yet you have stopped his mouth, and are not allowing him to blaspheme Christianity.”[6]

In this same passage, Paul talks about how the behavior of young men and in particular Titus should affect the opponents “having nothing evil to say about us” (v. 8). Titus’ life in holiness and ministerial faithfulness affects how the world might speak about the gospel.

If inferiors do not respect their superiors…

In 1Timothy 6:1, Paul says, “Let all who are under a yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled [or blasphemed, βλασφημῆται].” The same is said in Titus 2:10 where the slaves are not to argue or steal “that in everything they may adorn (κοσμῶσιν) the doctrine of God our Savior.”

How the slaves acted affected how the masters would view the gospel. Their lifestyles “adorn” the gospel and give the masters no occasion to revile or blaspheme the “the name of God and the teaching.” In Titus, we are taught that a godly life “adorns” the gospel. Our lifestyle makes the Gospel attractive; makes it more desirable, credible, and lovely. We don’t add to its essence but enhance what is already inherently wonderful.

Lessons

1. God is zealous for His glory and we ought to be as well.

2. God’s reputation, His honor or glory, must fill our petitions and passions.

3. Our lifestyle says something about the truth and goodness of the gospel. If God’s truth saved us, then our lifestyles should validate that truth.

4. Does your life “adorn” the doctrine of God our Savior?

[Adult Sunday School Lesson, Oct. 23, 2011]

[1] A helpful essay from a biblical theological perspective is Thomas R. Schreiner, “A Biblical Theology of the Glory of God,” in For the Fame of God’s Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper, ed. Sam Storms and Justin Taylor (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010), 215-234. Also consult Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, eds., The Glory of God, Theology in Community (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2010).

[2] Paul is referring to Is. 52:5. “In Isaiah, the blaspheming of God’s name occurs through the oppression of Israel, God’s chosen people, by foreign powers. Paul ascribes the cause of the blasphemy to the disobedient lives of his people. Perhaps Paul intends the reader to see the irony in having responsibility for dishonoring God’s name transferred from the Gentiles to the people of Israel.” Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 166.

[3] This word could be simply translated as “verbally abuse.” KJV has “be evil spoken of.”

[4] Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; ed. E. Ray Clendenen; Accordance electronic ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 332.

[5] D. Edmond Hiebert, Titus (EBC 11; ed. Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas; Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 437.

[6] William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles (WBC 46; Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Waco: Word Books, 2000), 412. I modernized the quote offered in Mounce.

Lessons from John Newton’s Letters

Leave a reply

Lessons from Newton’s Letters to John Ryland[1]

John Newton (1725-1807), Richard Cecil (1748-1810), and Henry Venn (1724-1797) of the late eighteenth century are some of the most judicious men I have read. Though I have read more on Newton than the other two, there is something common to all three. They all possessed good sound judgment on Christian experience and on religious duties. On this side of the Atlantic, we could add another person and that would be Archibald Alexander (1772-1851). To me, these all demonstrated similar wisdom. They were balanced, measured, mature, and lighted with good sound wisdom.

These extracts convey something of Newton’s sound advice to young John Ryland (1753-1825). These letters immensely helped Ryland and others to whom Newton wrote. Many of them ended up being published. In the product description of this book, it says that John Newton

has rightly been called ‘the letter-writer par excellence of the Evangelical Revival’. Newton himself seems to have come to the conclusion, albeit reluctantly, that letter-writing was his greatest gift. In a letter to a friend he confessed, ‘I rather reckoned upon doing more good by some of my other works than by my ‘Letters’, which I wrote without study, or any public design; but the Lord said, ‘You shall be most useful by them,’ and I learned to say, ‘Thy will be done! Use me as Thou pleasest, only make me useful.’

These were some of the things that did my soul much good this past week. Meditating on these thoughts from his letters should help us all.

A Believer’s Frame[2]

This letter answers a question raised by John Ryland about what a person is to do when he finds himself “always still, quiet, and stupid” in spiritual terms. That is, what is one to do when he lacks spiritual earnestness? These are some of Newton’s answers to Ryland’s query. Since the matter is universal, Newton published his answer for the benefit of a larger audience.

1. A warning is given. What would happen if a believer never found himself “occasionally poor, insufficient, and … stupid?” If someone was always spiritually enlarged, he would be in danger of being “puffed up with spiritual pride.” In turn, he would be less aware of his absolute dependence of or need for Christ. Ryland, as a preacher, could not experimentally address others about these spiritual struggles if he never underwent these difficulties.

2. Similarly, Newton points out that the angel who appeared to Cornelius did not preach to him. One of the reasons for this is quite interesting: “For though the glory and grace of the Saviour seems fitter subject for an angel’s powers than for the poor stammering tongues of sinful men, yet an angel could not preach experimentally, nor describe the warfare between grace and sin from his own feelings.” (34)

3. Furthermore, this concern about one spiritual frame is actually good. A conscious desire for a taste of God’s presence and grieving over our lack of spiritual ardor suggests that the foundation is good. “And the heart may be as really alive to God, and grace as truly in exercise, when we walk in comparative darkness and see little light, as when the frame of the spirits is more comfortable. Neither the reality nor the measure of grace can be properly estimated by the degree of our sensible comforts.” (35)

Isn’t this one of the sad conditions of our soul? We thirst so little; we are so easily satisfied with so many lesser things. That a believer is concerned about his apathy and coldness is a good thing.

4. Newton says that the command to rejoice always means what it says. It is as if the Lord were saying, “I call upon you to rejoice, not at some times only, but at all times. Not only when upon the mount, but when in the valley. Not only when you conquer, but while you are fighting. Not only when the Lord shines upon you, but when he seems to hid his face.” (36)

5. There is also a requirement for us to submit to His will. That is we can earnestly call upon God to relieve us of this distress with “regulated by a due submission to his will” without the petition being “inordinate for want of such submission.” That is, God may have a purpose and sometimes our cries are simply our unwillingness to submit to him. “I have often detected the two vile abominations self-will and self-righteousness insinuating themselves into this concern.” (36) He unpacks these two “abominations” quite well.

6. Self-will. Some are unsuitably impatient and unwilling to yield themselves to God’s disposal. This is sin. God is the great physician, a wise infallible doctor to my soul. Too often we prescribe to him what the medicine ought to be. “How inconsistent to acknowledge that I am blind, to entreat him to lead me, and yet to want to choose my own way, in the same breath!”

Isn’t this all too often true? We say God is wise and our impatience and petition demands that He answer immediately in a prescribed manner. It is as if God can no good with me unless he lift this spiritual difficulty from me. Our sinful heart knows best though our lips may confess a differently theology.

7. Self-righteousness. “Again, self-righteousness has had a considerable hand in dictating many of my desires for an increase of comfort and spiritual strength. I have wanted some stock of my own. I have been wearied of being so perpetually behold to him, necessitated to come to him always in the same strain, as a poor miserable sinner. I could have liked to have done something for myself in common, and to have depended upon him chiefly upon extraordinary occasions.” (37)

Yet God would have us realize we can do absolutely nothing without him. We want our way so that we are no longer beholden to God for help. We want to be able to establish our own righteousness in one way or another. Our gracious Lord wants us to depend upon him for the most basic needs as well as the most spiritual.

Delusive Impressions[3]

It is not clear what it was Sally Luddington actually intimated from the impressions she received. She seems to have concluded that the Lord was leading her to do something by these spiritual impressions (or delusions). Newton’s comments on this are very instructive.

Texts of Scripture brought powerfully to the heart are very desirable and pleasant, if their tendency is to humble us, to give us more feeling sense of the preciousness of Christ, or of the doctrines of grace; if they make sin more hateful, enliven our regard to the means, or increase our confidence in the power and faithfulness of God. But if they are understood as intimating our path of duty in particular circumstances, or confirming us in purposes we may have already formed, not otherwise clearly warranted by the general strain of the word, or by the leadings of Providence, they are for the most part ensnaring, and always to be suspected. Nor does their coming to the mind at the time of prayer give them more authority in this respect. When the mind is intent upon any subject, the imagination is often watchful to catch at anything which may seem to countenance the favourite pursuit. It is too common to ask counsel of the Lord when we have already secretly determined for ourselves. And in this disposition we may easily be deceived by the sound of a text of Scripture, which, detached from the passage in which it stands, may seem remarkably to tally with our wishes. Many have been deceived this way. And sometimes, when the even has shown them they were mistaken, it has opened a door for great distress, and Satan has found occasion to make them doubt even of their most solid experiences. (55-56)

This is sound advice. Matters regarding marriage, job decisions, ministry opportunities, major financial purchases, new career paths, etc. have forced earnest Christians to seek the Lord’s counsel. In such circumstances, some professing believers have been “led” by strange means.

1. Whatever the impression, if they contribute to the above examples (love for Christ, etc.), then little or no harm can come from it and is most likely of God.

2. Newton recognizes that the heart is deceitful and if there is something upon which our hearts are really set, then “spiritual” or “scriptural” support can easily be found. He says they are “for the most part ensnaring, and always to be suspected.” Let us always doubt ourselves in these matters. Some look to the Word, read providence, seek counsel with a special bent to garner support for their precommitted decision.

3. Lastly, notice the dangerous result. If Satan misleads us or if we are simply misled by our foolish fancy, then Satan will cause us to “doubt even [our] most solid experiences.” There are some who are so gun shy after being duped by enthusiasm (“spiritual” emotionalism), they doubt all manner of solid Christian experience and thus fall into another error.

A Great Stroke

In this letter, Newton writes of a “great stroke” on the church by taking an eminent saint home (he already wrote about other dear saints recently taken home). This is one of his comments regarding that as he spiritually reflects on it: “Thus the Lord is pleased to take of some of his most eminent servants in the height of their usefulness, to caution those who are left not to presume upon their fancied importance. He can do without the best of us.” (63)

In the church, in our lives, etc. God would have us lean on Him and not on the flesh. Nothing or no one is more important than our God. God will take all good things away so that our hearts would be wrapped up in Him.

[1] From John Newton, Wise Counsel – John Newton’s Letters to John Ryland Jr., ed. Grant Gordon (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2009).

[2] A very practical letter and one which addresses a common struggle of all believers. It can be found in his Works I:253-61.

[3] This letter is found on pp. 55-57; in Newton’s Works, 2:116-20.

[Adult Sunday School Lesson, Oct. 9, 2011]

Christ Covenant Presbyterian Church

a pca congregation

Category Archives: Sunday School Lesson

Larger Catechism 194, Forgiving Others, pt. 2

The Larger Catechism

Larger Catechism 194, Forgiveness, pt. 1

The Larger Catechism

Christians and Political Fanaticism

Christians and Political Fanaticism[1]

Larger Catechism, #74, pt. 2

The Larger Catechism

PART 2

Larger Catechism, #73

The Larger Catechism

Larger Catechism, #72

The Larger Catechism

Lessons for Christians from Joe Paterno

John Newton and the Lord our Keeper

Edward Reynolds and His Meditations on Peter’s Fall

God’s Reputation and Our Lifestyle

Lessons from John Newton’s Letters