Unworthy rebels, redeemed by the King of Kings and made servants fit for His use.
With the backdrop of the US Senate’s vote on the “Respect for Marriage” act, Chris and Rich discuss that marriage is God’s institution, not the world’s. Only He can determine what is a marriage and Christians ought not to be trapped into accepting a worldly definition.
Show Links:
STTK Article – It’s Not About Pluralism, It’s About Worldviews
It would be kind to refer to David French (senior editor at The Dispatch and writer at The Atlantic) as an enigma to fellow Christians and political conservatives. In truth, it may be more accurate to describe him as a pretender to the throne. Mr. French writes as someone who espouses both Christian and politically conservative views but his routine attacks against both leave one wondering where he sits. Especially in light of two articles, he posted just this week.
In an article for The Atlantic, French espoused a positive view of the Senate vote for the “Respect for Marriage Act” in which he argued that it was a good thing that the Government is seeking to codify gay marriage into federal law. Two days later, French authored an article at The Dispatch entitled “Why I Changed My Mind About Law and Marriage, Again.” Like The Atlantic article, French makes a positive argument for the codification of gay marriage while trying to balance the concerns for religious liberty. I believe it is safe to say that French genuinely believes he is well-meaning in these articles but fails terribly to recognize the foundational issue at play, the issue of worldviews.
David French’s articles both rely on the need for a neutral worldview to act as an intermediary between two parties, the party of religious liberty and the party of gay marriage. French’s argumentation reveals that he believes such intermediation is possible and that both parties can receive their intended goals without infringing upon the other. The problem is that there is no such neutral worldview. There is no middle ground upon which the Constitution and the laws of America exist where both parties function equally. The myth of neutrality is exactly that, a myth.
French argues that LGBT persons should have the exact same rights as all other persons. They should be able to enjoy those rights without having them trampled upon by Christians and political conservatives. Likewise, LGBT persons should be limited from attacking religious liberty and forcing Christians to affirm or celebrate a civil union they see as sinful under the teachings of Scripture. And French believes that current legal protections are robust enough to allow for such coexistence to happen.
In his Dispatch article, David French points out that the current “Respect for Marriage” bill has language that protects religious organizations from having their credentials or tax-exempt status pulled for opposing gay marriage. He argues that this is a step in the right direction as it seeks to eliminate the language of the “Equality Act” which had virtually no religious protections in place. He likewise admits the marriage bill does nothing to protect private citizens and Christian-owned businesses from legal attacks for standing upon their religious beliefs. However, he argues that this is not a terrible thing as numerous Court cases have been won by private citizens and business owners who have undergone such attacks. One wonders if those business owners who have endured numerous lawsuits, government fines, threats against their business licenses, protests, slander, threats against their lives, and years of litigation feel those protections are as robust as French claims.
At the center of these arguments are the worldviews which drive them. French admits that those who promulgate LGBT rights and gay marriage want to eradicate the religious freedoms that ought to protect Christians and churches. By his own statement, the so-called Equality Act aims at those religious protections to ensure churches would not be free from reprisal for standing in opposition to gay marriage. Why is this? Because the worldview that drives the LGBT agenda stands in direct opposition to a free and open society.
Much like Marxism of the past, this ideology identifies an “oppressed” group, the LGBT, and the oppressor group, Christians and the church. In the LGBT worldview, the only possible way to have true equity and equality is to remove the Christian church from its “privileged” place in society and to elevate the LGBT to a higher status. In other words, Christians must be oppressed and the LGBT must be liberated. This is not a worldview of freedom but one of enslavement.
Those who argue for the elevation of the LGBT worldview will never be satisfied to have a “well-balanced” neutral system where the government grants them the rights they demand while simultaneously protecting the very people they see as their oppressors. We have seen this in the language of Critical Theory. Their worldview argues any system that does not turn oppressors into the oppressed is systemically broken in the favor of the oppressors. Therefore, nothing but the complete replacement of the existing system will bring about equality.
French completely punts on this matter. He demonstrates no willingness to interact with or acknowledge the clear and present danger such a worldview presents to a free society. He simply wants his readers to believe that we can find some kind of zen balance between the two where everyone can be happy.
One must also address the institution of marriage itself. French would argue that, while marriage is a religious institution, the government has a duty toward civil marriages. In other words, the government has the authority to decide outside the religious realm what is a marriage and upon whom it can confer this institution. Yet, this too plays into the hands of the LGBT worldview. If indeed marriage is by nature a religious institution, then the government is prohibited by the Constitution from interfering with the Church’s role in it. Yet, French hides behind the “Establishment Clause,” the so-called separation of Church and State, to say that the government cannot enforce a religious view of marriage upon the institution. Yet, this is a capitulation to the new worldview because French ought to recognize that should then remove the government from marriage altogether.
In turn, the worldview upon which our system of government was originally based, the Judeo-Christian worldview, recognizes that rights are not something granted by the government but come from a moral source outside of ourselves. Note that I referred to the Judeo-Christian worldview and did not call it the Christian worldview. It is well understood that not all of our founding fathers were Christians. Many were deists and some were perhaps agnostic or atheistic. Yet, they came together in agreement to state that rights did not sit with the king to be doled out or retracted at his will. Rather, they were self-existent, outside of us, coming from a source of moral authority outside of humanity. They were in fact given to us by our Creator. Therefore, the role of government was to protect those rights and allow for the self-governing of the citizens of the nation.
The fact that our rights were endowed to us by our Creator means we are beholden to that Creator. Therefore, it makes sense that the founders sought to protect the rights of free speech and religion against government infringement. Those that opposed the king in England by not adhering to the dictatorial rule of the Church of England found themselves often persecuted for being held captive to their conscience by the Word of God. In other words, appealing to the Creator over the king, who was head of the church, could result in dire consequences. The Constitution recognized, via the Judeo-Christian worldview, that citizens had an obligation to honor God above all else according to the dictates of their conscience. Therefore, the government had no right to intervene and prevent the exercise of that right.
This worldview emphasized the freedom of the God-informed conscience over and above the whims of government and, thus, bound government to the people, not the other way around. Freedom was found in protecting rights given by God not by ushering in a foreign worldview that seeks to supplant and destroy the existing system.
What French will refuse to admit is that he wants have his cake and eat it too. He wants to have the respect and admiration of Christians who desire religious freedom. At the same time, he wants those who adhere to the LGBT worldview to believe he is on their side. In the end, what French does is punch down the religious crowd by claiming their concerns are overblown while affirming the worldview of the LGBT community which seeks to oppress and silence their detractors. Until French and others recognize that the battle is here and that there is no neutral ground, they’ll never recognize how much of a threat they are to the religious community.
Christians need to decide where they are going to stand on the issue of our day. It is now clear that the worldview upon which our nation was once founded barely exists. Those that hold to it continue to lose ground. And those warring against it find willing collaborators, such as David French, to help them institute a new order. So, we must ask ourselves what we will do.
For the Christian, my suggestion has been and will continue to be the following: we must first and foremost bow the knee to Christ, forsaking all worldly attempts to draw us into compromise. That which God has called sin is and always will be sin. While French would claim that those committing such sinful unions are engaged in marriages and have built actual families, God gives us no ground to concede his claims. We must stand firmly and without apology on the truth. And we must preach this truth, calling out sin and calling the world to repentance in Jesus Christ alone. For, even if we were to win back the culture to a Judeo-Christian worldview, sin would still abound and souls would still be bound for Hell. We stand firm, preach the gospel, and pray for lost souls.
Secondly, we vote and argue based on our God-informed consciences and we do not compromise. Not even a little bit. French and company want to be the voice of the collective Christian conscience. They want to argue a little compromise is fine if it allows us an inroad with the culture. Better to look good in the eyes of the world than to vote for the wrong people or policies and lose our influence. If we are to honor God, then we do so in all areas of our lives. This includes our politics. It will not be long before you or I will find ourselves the lone man or woman standing on the battlefield holding to Christian principles. But, even then, we will not, we cannot, forsake the truth. Honor God, never compromise, and promote that which is godly and true, always.
It’s Rewind Time. Join Andrew Rappaport of Striving for Eternity and Chris when they discussed how Christians need to consider what is the source of their authority when they engage in conservative politics. Are the end goals of political activism more important than God’s Word and what compromises do we make when we ally ourselves with secular conservatives?
Show Notes:
What was the primary false gospel which Paul fought against and so many sought his death over? Rich and Chris discuss one verse from the Word of God which declares a truth contrary to what the world loves and embraces.
Show Links:
Got Questions: Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint?
Got Questions: How can salvation be not of works when faith is required?
MLJ Sermon: By Grace Through Faith
J.C. Ryle: Only One Way of Salvation
This week, Chris and Rich discuss the question, “If God is real then why do bad things happen?” Many people ask this question loaded with presuppositions, chief among them the idea that we deserve something good from God. Christians should be prepared to respond to those presuppositions biblically.
Show Links:
STTK Article: If God is Real, Why is Your Life So Hard?
Voddie Baucham Video: If God is So Powerful and So Good, Why Do Bad Things Happen?
John MacArthur: Why Does God Allow So Much Suffering?
As Reformation Day nears, take time to listen to this episode from earlier this year when Chris and Rich discussed how professing evangelicals who engage in deconstructionism see themselves as practicing the principles of The Reformation. Is this comparison warranted or should Christians be on guard against destructive false teachings?
Show Links:
STTK Article – Deconstruction is Not Reformation
Just Thinking Episode #117 – Evangelical Deconstructionism
Got Questions – What is Deconstruction?
Recently, someone I know was asked “if God is real, why is your life so terrible?” Sadly, this is an all too common question that is loaded with presuppositions. It assumes that for God to be real, life cannot be difficult. It assumes that I should never have to deal with difficulty. It assumes that I am such a good person that I deserve for life to go well. It assumes God owes me a good life. And it assumes God can only be real if He does everything possible to make my life easier.
As Voddie Baucham once said, this is the wrong question. I don’t get to ask a question like this loaded with all the wrong presuppositions and then conclude God cannot be real because He did not meet my standard. Rather, I must look at the question from God’s perspective.
Who decides whether my life should be one of ease or difficulty? Who decides what constitutes my being a good person? Who decides on the basis of the “good person criteria” what I deserve? Who decides what I am owed? And who decides but God if intervening in a time of tribulation will really be best for me?
The truth is, the answer to these questions is that God is the one who decides these things, not me. God is the sole standard of what is right and good. He is morally perfect and righteous. It is against Him that one can determine if they are a good person. And for the record, not a single one of us is good. We are all morally bankrupt and evil when compared against the righteous and holy God.
Knowing that we fail to come even a micrometer close to God’s goodness, knowing that He is a perfect and righteous Judge, how can we possibly think we deserve even the slightest good thing from Him? Determining God’s existence on whether or not my life is difficult is like a criminal deciding Courts cannot be real and have no authority over him because he had a hard life.
We are God’s creation and have rebelled against Him. The fact that we continue to breathe air despite the multitude of sins we commit against Him daily rather than being struck immediately to Hell testifies of His patience and longsuffering. What God owes us is His judgment. Not reward and ease, but His wrath, immediate and without relenting. Yet, God patiently allows us life in this world until the day we must all stand before Him. He does so because God desires that all men everywhere repent and come to faith in Christ.
In other words, God gives us time. Time to see Him for who He is and to recognize ourselves as the sinners we are. Time to turn from our sin and turn to Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. God graciously gives us time.
Will all men turn to Christ? No. Yet, even in this God is gracious because He sends forth His gospel message through His people. Then, God kindly brings to faith and repentance all those whom He will save, because apart from this work, none would turn to Him.
What about those who do not? They will never be able to say they do not deserve His wrath. Creation and conscience testify to the truth of God’s existence and the reality of their sin. They know He is real and will hold them accountable. And they have His Word readily available to find the truth. They will be judged, condemned eternally to Hell and there is no defense. And, in this, God too is glorified.
Therefore, when we see life is difficult, when trials are painful, we are reminded that sin is at work in the world and that judgment is one day coming. God does not owe us a life of ease, rather, these trials testify that we deserve far much worse.
Yet, He has given us time. Time to admit we have sinned against Him, to turn from that sin, and to turn to Christ for eternal life. Trials then show us that this life is but a vapor, a time we must endure, be faithful, and serve. Then we will spend eternity with the One whom we had once rebelled against yet, in His kind mercy, He adopted us as His children.
God owes us nothing but His wrath, we do not deserve His kindness. But, God is merciful and will use even the most difficult of lives to demonstrate His goodness.
“By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be mistreated with the people of God than to enjoy the fleeting pleasures of sin. He considered the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he was looking to the reward.”
Hebrews 11:24-26 ESV
Salvation from the Pleasure of Sin
By Arthur W. Pink (1886-1952)
It is here that God begins His actual application of salvation unto His elect. God saves us from the pleasure or love of sin before He delivers us from the penalty or punishment of sin. Necessarily so, for it would be neither an act of holiness nor of righteousness were He to grant full pardon to one who was still a rebel against Him, loving that which He hates. God is a God of order throughout, and nothing ever more evidences the perfections of His works than the orderliness of them. And how does God save His people from the pleasure of sin? The answer is, “By imparting to them a nature which hates evil and loves holiness.” This takes place when they are born again, so that actual salvation begins with regeneration. Of course it does: where else could it commence? Fallen man can never perceive his desperate need of salvation nor come to Christ for it, till he has been renewed by the Holy Spirit.
“He hath made everything beautiful in his time” (Ecc 3:11), and much of the beauty of God’s spiritual handiwork is lost upon us unless we duly observe their “time.” Has not the Spirit Himself emphasized this in the express enumeration He has given us in “For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Rom 8:29-30). Verse 29 announces the Divine foreordination; verse 30 states the manner of its actualization. It seems passing strange that with this Divinely defined method before them, so many preachers begin with our justification, instead of with that effectual call (from death unto life, our regeneration) which precedes it. Surely it is most obvious that regeneration must first take place in order to lay a foundation for our justification. Justification is by faith (Act 13:39; Rom 5:1; Gal 3:8), and the sinner must be Divinely quickened before he is capable of believing savingly.
Does not the last statement made throw light upon and explain what we have said is so “passing strange”? Preachers today are so thoroughly imbued with free-willism that they have departed almost wholly from that sound evangelism which marked our forefathers. The radical difference between Arminianism and Calvinism is that the system of the former revolves about the creature, whereas the system of the latter has the Creator for its centre of orbit. The Arminian allots to man the first place; the Calvinist gives God that position of honor. Thus the Arminian begins his discussion of salvation with justification, for the sinner must believe before he can be forgiven; further back he will not go, for he is unwilling that man should be made nothing of. But the instructed Calvinist begins with election, descends to regeneration, and then shows that by being born again (by the sovereign act of God, in which the creature has no part) the sinner is made capable of savingly believing the Gospel.
The Unbeliever’s First Step: A New Nature
What multitudes of people would strongly resent being told that they delighted in evil! They would indignantly ask if we supposed them to be moral perverts. No indeed: a person may be thoroughly chaste and yet delight in evil. It may be that some of our own readers repudiate the charge that they have ever taken pleasure in sin, and would claim on the contrary, that from earliest recollection they have detested wickedness in all its forms. Nor would we dare to call into question their sincerity; instead we point out that it only affords another exemplification of the solemn fact that “the heart is deceitful above all things” (Jer 17:9). But this is a matter that is not open to argument: the plain teaching of God’s Word decides the point once and for all, and beyond its verdict there is no appeal. What, then, say the Scriptures?
So far from God’s Word denying that there is any delight to be found therein, it expressly speaks of “the pleasures of sin”; it immediately warns that those pleasures are but “for a season” (Heb 11:25), for the aftermath is painful and not pleasant; yea, unless God intervenes in His sovereign grace, they entail eternal torment. So too, the Word refers to those who are “lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God” (2Ti 3:4). It is indeed striking to observe how often this discordant note is struck in Scripture. It mentions those who “love vanity” (Psa 4:2); “him that loveth violence” (Psa 11:5); “thou lovest evil more than good” (Psa 52:3); “he loved lies” (Psa 62:4); “scorners delight in their scorning” (Pro 1:22); “they which delight in their abominations” (Isa 66:3); “their abominations were according as they loved” (Hosea 9:10); “who hated the good and loved the evil” (Mic 3:2); “if any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1Jo 2:15). To love sin is far worse than to commit it, for a man may be suddenly tripped up or commit it through frailty.
The fact is, my reader, that we are not only born into this world with an evil nature, but with hearts that are thoroughly in love with sin. Sin is our native element. We are wedded to our lusts, and of ourselves are no more able to alter the bent of our corrupt nature than we could change our skin color or the leopard his spots. But what is impossible with man, is possible to God (Luk 18:27), and when He takes us in hand this is where He begins—by saving us from the pleasure or love of sin. This is the great miracle of grace, for the Almighty stoops down and picks up a loathsome leper from the dunghill and makes him a new creature in Christ, so that the things he once loved he now hates, and the things he once hated he now loves. God commences by saving us from ourselves. He does not save us from the penalty until He has delivered us from the love of sin.
And how is this miracle of grace accomplished, or rather, exactly what does it consist of? Negatively, not by eradicating the evil nature, nor even by refining it. Positively, by communicating a new nature, a holy nature, which loathes that which is evil, and delights in all that is truly good. To be more specific: First, God saves His people from the pleasure or love of sin by putting His holy awe in their hearts, for “the fear of the Lord is to hate evil” (Pro 8:13), and again, “the fear of the Lord is to depart from evil” (Pro 6:6). Second, God saves His people from the pleasure of sin by communicating to them a new and vital principle: “the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5), and where the love of God rules the heart, the love of sin is dethroned. Third, God saves His people from the love of sin by the Holy Spirit’s drawing their affections unto things above, thereby taking them off the things which formerly enthralled them.
The Believer’s Struggle
If on the one hand the unbeliever hotly denies that he is in love with sin, many a believer is often hard put to persuade himself that he has been saved from the love thereof. With an understanding that has in part been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, he is the better able to discern things in their true colors. With a heart that has been made honest by grace, he refuses to call sweet bitter. With a conscience that has been sensitized by the new birth, he the more quickly feels the workings of sin and the hankering of his affections for that which is forbidden. Moreover, the flesh remains in him, unchanged, and as the raven constantly craves carrion, so this corrupt principle in which our mothers conceived us, lusts after and delights in that which is the opposite of holiness. It is these things which occasion and give rise to the disturbing questions that clamour for answer within the genuine believer.
The sincere Christian is often made to seriously doubt if he has been delivered from the love of sin. Such questions as these plainly agitate his mind: “Why do I so readily yield to temptation? Why do some of the vanities and pleasures of the world still possess so much attraction for me? Why do I chafe so much against any restraints being placed upon my lusts? Why do I find the work of mortification (Rom 8:13) so difficult and distasteful? Could such things as these be if I were a new creature in Christ? Could such horrible experiences as these happen if God had saved me from taking pleasure in sin?” Well do we know that we are here giving expression to the very doubts which exercise the minds of many of our readers, and those who are strangers thereto are to be pitied. But what shall we say in reply? How is this distressing problem to be resolved?
The Believer’s Assurance
How may one be assured that he has been saved from the love of sin? Let us point out first that the presence of that within us which still lusts after and takes delight in some evil things, is not incompatible with our having been saved from the love of sin, paradoxical as that may sound. It is part of the mystery of the Gospel that those who be saved are yet sinners in themselves. The point we are here dealing with is similar to and parallel with faith. The Divine principle of faith in the heart does not cast out unbelief. Faith and doubts exist side by side with a quickened soul, which is evident from those words, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mar 9:24). In like manner the Christian may exclaim and pray, “Lord, I long after holiness, help Thou my lustings after sin.” And why is this? Because of the existence of two separate natures, the one at complete variance with the other within the Christian.
How, then, is the presence of faith to be ascertained? Not by the ceasings of unbelief, but by discovering its own fruit and works. Fruit may grow amid thorns as flowers among weeds, and yet it is fruit nonetheless. Faith exists amid many doubts and fears. Notwithstanding opposing forces within as well as from without us, faith still reaches out after God. Notwithstanding innumerable discouragements and defeats, faith continues to fight. Notwithstanding many refusals from God, it yet clings to Him and says, “I will not let thee go, except thou bless me” (Gen 32:26). Faith may be fearfully weak and fitful, often eclipsed by the clouds of unbelief, nevertheless the Devil himself cannot persuade its possessor to repudiate God’s Word, despise His Son, or abandon all hope. The presence of faith, then, may be ascertained in that it causes its possessor to come before God as an empty-handed beggar beseeching Him for mercy and blessing.
The Believer’s Salvation from the Love of Sin
Now just as the presence of faith may be known amid all the workings of unbelief, so our salvation from the love of sin may be ascertained notwithstanding all the lustings of the flesh after that which is evil. But in what way? How is this initial aspect of salvation to be identified? We have already anticipated this question in an earlier paragraph, wherein we stated that God saved us from delighting in sin by imparting a nature that hates evil and loves holiness, which takes place at the new birth. Consequently, the real question to be settled is, “How may the Christian positively determine whether that new and holy nature has been imparted to him?” The answer is, “By observing its activities, particularly the opposition it makes (under the energizings of the Holy Spirit) unto indwelling sin.” Not only does the flesh (the principle of sin) lust against the spirit, but the spirit (the principle of holiness) lusts and wars against the flesh (Gal 5:17).
First, our salvation from the pleasure or love of sin may be recognized by sin’s becoming a burden to us. This is truly a spiritual experience. Many souls are loaded down with worldly anxieties, who know nothing of what it means to be bowed down with a sense of guilt. But when God takes us in hand, the iniquities and transgressions of our past life are made to lie as an intolerable load upon the conscience. When we are given a sight of ourselves as we appear before the eyes of the thrice holy God, we will exclaim with the Psalmist, “For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me” (Psa 40:12). So far from sin being pleasant, it is now felt as a cruel incubus, a crushing weight, and unendurable load. The soul is “heavy laden” (Mat 11:28) and bowed down. A sense of guilt oppresses and the conscience cannot bear the weight of it. Nor is this experience restricted to our first conviction: it continues with more or less acuteness throughout the Christian’s life.
Second, our salvation from the pleasure of sin may be recognized by sin’s becoming bitter to us. True, there are millions of unregenerate who are filled with remorse over the harvest reaped from their sowing of wild oats. Yet that is not hatred of sin, but dislike of its consequences—ruined health, squandered opportunities, financial straitness, or social disgrace. No, what we have reference to is that anguish of heart which ever marks the one the Spirit takes in hand. When the veil of delusion is removed and we see sin in the light of God’s countenance; when we are given a discovery of the depravity of our very nature, then we perceive that we are sunk in carnality and death. When sin is opened to us in all its secret workings, we are made to feel the vileness of our hypocrisy, self-righteousness, unbelief, impatience, and the utter filthiness of our hearts. And when the penitent soul views the sufferings of Christ, he can say with Job, “God maketh my heart soft” (23:16).
Ah, my reader, it is this experience which prepares the heart to go out after Christ: those that are whole need not a physician, but they that are quickened and convicted by the Spirit are anxious to be relieved by the great Physician. “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich; he bringeth low, and lifteth up” (1Sa 2:6-7). It is in this way that God slayeth our self-righteousness, maketh poor and bringeth low—by making sin to be an intolerable burden and as bitter wormwood to us. There can be no saving faith till the soul is filled with evangelical repentance, and repentance is a godly sorrow for sin, a holy detestation of sin, a sincere purpose to forsake it. The Gospel calls upon men to repent of their sins, forsake their idols, and mortify their lusts, and thus it is utterly impossible for the Gospel to be a message of good tidings to those who are in love with sin and madly determined to perish rather than part with their idols.
Nor is this experience of sin’s becoming bitter to us limited to our first awakening—it continues in varying degrees, to the end of our earthly pilgrimage. The Christian suffers under temptations, is pained by Satan’s fiery assaults, and bleeds from the wounds inflicted by the evil he commits. It grieves him deeply that he makes such a wretched return unto God for His goodness, that he requites Christ so evilly for His dying love, that he responds so fitfully to the promptings of the Spirit. The wanderings of his mind when he desires to meditate upon the Word, the dullness of his heart when he seeks to pray, the worldly thoughts which invade his mind on the Holy Sabbath, the coldness of his affections towards the Redeemer, cause him to groan daily; all of which goes to evidence that sin has been made bitter to him. He no longer welcomes those intruding thoughts which take his mind off God: rather does he sorrow over them. But, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted” (Mat 5:4).
Third, our salvation from the pleasure of sin may be recognized by the felt bondage which sin produces. As it is not until a Divine faith is planted in the heart that we become aware of our native and inveterate unbelief, so it is not until God saves us from the love of sin that we are conscious of the fetters it has placed around us. Then it is we discover that we are “without strength” (Rom 5:6), unable to do anything pleasing to God, incapable of running the race set before us (Heb 12:1). A Divinely drawn picture of the saved soul’s felt bondage is to be found in Romans 7: “For I know that in me [that is, in my flesh] dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do…For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin” (vs. 18-19, 22-23). And what is the sequel? This, the agonizing cry, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” (vs. 24). If that be the sincere lamentation of your heart, then God has saved you from the pleasure of sin.
Let it be pointed out though, that salvation from the love of sin is felt and evidenced in varying degrees by different Christians, and in different periods in the life of the same Christian, according to the measure of grace which God bestows, and according as that grace is active and operative. Some seem to have a more intense hatred of sin in all its forms than do others, yet the principle of hating sin is found in all real Christians. Some Christians, rarely if ever, commit any deliberate and premeditated sins: more often they are tripped up, suddenly tempted (to be angry or tell a lie) and are overcome. But with others the case is quite otherwise: they—fearful to say—actually plan evil acts. If any one indignantly denies that such a thing is possible in a saint, and insists that such a character is a stranger to saving grace, we would remind him of David: was not the murder of Uriah definitely planned? This second class of Christians find it doubly hard to believe they have been saved from the love of sin.
© Copyright 1998 Chapel Library: annotations. Permission is expressly granted to reproduce this material by any means, provided 1) you do not charge beyond a nominal sum for cost of duplication; 2) this copyright notice and all the text on this page are included.
Chapel Library is a faith ministry that relies entirely upon God’s faithfulness. We therefore do not solicit donations, but we gratefully receive support from those who freely desire to give. Chapel Library does not necessarily agree with all the doctrinal positions of the authors it publishes.
Worldwide, please download material without charge from our website, or contact the international distributor as listed there for your country. In North America, for additional copies of this booklet or other Christ-centered materials from prior centuries, please contact
CHAPEL LIBRARY
2603 West Wright Street Pensacola, Florida 32505 USA
Phone: (850) 438-6666 • Fax: (850) 438-0227 chapel@mountzion.org • www.chapellibrary.org
This week, Chris and Rich discuss that when Christ came into the world, He came among the lowest of society. There is no barrier to any rank or social status to have access to God if they come in the manner He has prescribed.
Show Links:
This week, Chris and Rich discuss why and how Christians can engage in the current culture wars. All our efforts should be for the glorification of God and the proclamation of the gospel.
Show Links:
MacArthur – The Christian’s Response in a Pagan Society, Pt. 1
MacArthur – The Christian’s Response in a Pagan Society, Pt. 2
MacArthur – The Christian and Government
MacArthur – The Christian’s Responsibility to Government, Pt. 1
MacArthur Letter to Gavin Newsom
John Calvin Commentary on Romans 13: 5-7
Got Questions? – Why Did Jesus Warn Against Saying the Word Raca?
© 2025 Voice of Reason Ministries
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
Recent Comments