Tag Archives: rule of faith

07/14/20

The Deceit of Indwelling Sin

© keasnoyarsk | 123rf.com

In chapter ten of Indwelling Sin in Believers, John Owen said he had not yet finished with showing how the deceit of sin draws the mind away from the discharge of its duties. Because of its importance, if the mind is weakened or turned aside from attending to the Word, the whole soul, will and emotions are certain to be entangled and drawn into sin. We need to be particularly alert for this, as the author of Hebrews said: “Therefore, we must pay attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it” (Hebrews 2:1). There is no other way to prevent this drifting except by giving our most earnest attention to the things we have heard in the Word, which expresses the whole duty of God to our minds.

First Owen said he would consider what is required in the mind of a believer with regard to particular duties we should attend to. Second, he would show the way the deceit of sin works so that attending to the Word may be removed from where it had attached.

It is not enough that we perform just any duty, rather that it must be universally squared and fitted to the task. This is the main responsibility of the mind, namely to assess the administration of spiritual duties and to see that all their matters are in order. Progress in obedience is like building a house. It does no good for a man to gather wood and stones, heaped up together without order. “They must be hewed and squared, and fitted by line and rule, if we intend to build.”

There is no advantage to our edification in faith and obedience if we multiply duties, but don’t order them according to the rule of the Word. God expressly rejects a multitude of duties if they are not suited to that rule: “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord. . . They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them” (Isaiah 1:11, 14). As letters in the alphabet signify nothing unless they are disposed in their proper order, so it is with our duties. As Paul said in Ephesians 5:15, “Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but wise.” Owen concluded his thought on what was required with regard to particular duties by saying, “We walk in duties, but we walk circumspectly in the attention of the mind.”

There are certain things the rule of the Word directs us to, so that our mind would pay attention to every duty. First the duty should be full and complete. Under the law, no beast was permitted to be sacrificed if it had any defect, as when they were lame or blind. Saul, because he spared Agag and the fattest cattle (1 Samuel 15:3, 9), rendered the destruction of all the rest useless. “Thus, when men give alms, or perform other services, but not to the proportion that the rule requires, and which the mind by diligent attention to it, might discover, the whole duty is vitiated [corrupted].”

Your duty is to be done in faith, so that it is an actual derivation of the strength of Christ, without whom we can do nothing (John 15:5). It is not enough that the person is a believer, although that is necessary for every good work. Faith must be active in every duty, for our entire obedience is “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5). That is what the doctrine of faith requires, “and which the grace of faith bears or brings forth.”

As in natural life, no vital act can be performed except by the actual principle of life itself, so it is in spiritual life. “No spiritually vital act, that is, no duty acceptable to God, can be performed, but by the actual working of Christ, who is our life.” There is no other way open to us but faith. Christ now lives in me; and as Paul said in Galatians 2:20, “The life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God.” Therefore, a believer ought to ensure that everything he does for God, is done in the strength if Christ.

There are three things which a believer ought to attend to with regard to the manner of the performance of any duty. First, it should be done in the way and by the means that God has prescribed. This is particularly important in duties of worship. If this is not attended to, the entire duty is vitiated. Owen spoke this not to individuals who worship God according to their own imagination, but to those who did not “diligently attend to the rule, to make the authority of God to be the sole cause and reason, both of what they do, and of the manner of the performance of it.” This was why God so often called on his people to consider diligently and wisely that they do everything according to his commands.

Second, the affections of heart and mind belong to the performance of duties. A sacrifice without heart, without salt or fire, what good is it? God requires special affections to accompany certain duties. For example, “God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Corinthians 9:7). No longer are duties to be done without spiritual affections. If they are not attended to like this, the whole is lost.

Third, the mind is to attend to the end point of our duties, principally, the glory of God in Christ. There are several other endings that sin and self try to impose upon our duties, especially these two. The first is the satisfaction of convictions and the second is the praise of men. Self-righteousness and ostentation are the main ends of men who have departed from God in all moral duties whatsoever. “In their sins they endeavor to satisfy their lusts; in their duties, their convictions and their pride.” The mind of a believer should diligently guard against these.

Here there lies in no small part, the deceit of sin: it attempts to draw the mind away from keeping the watch and charge of the Lord. If it can do so, that is strip our duties of all the excellancies the mind is to attend to, it will not trouble itself—or us—about the duties themselves. And here is how it will try to do this.

First, it persuades the mind to be content with generalities and to stop attending to things in particular instances. It will persuade the soul to be satisfied in a general aim of doing things for the glory of God, without considering how every particular duty should have that tendency. Saul thought he had fulfilled his whole duty and done the will of God in his war against Amalek. But because he did not pay attention to every particular duty in that service, he dishonored God and ruined himself. If the soul contents itself with a general notion of advancing the glory of God instead of fixing the mind by faith upon its task, it has already been diverted and drawn off from its charge by the deceitfulness of sin.

He who satisfies himself with this general purpose, without acting it in every special duty, will not long retain that purpose. It does the same work upon the mind, in reference to the principle of our duties, as it does to the end. Their principle is, that they be done in faith, in the strength of Christ; but if men content themselves that they are believers, that they have faith, and do not labour in every particular duty to act faith, to lead their spiritual lives, in all the acts of them, “by the faith of the Son of God,” the mind is drawn off from its duty. It is in particular actions where we express and exercise our faith and obedience; and what we are in them, that we are, and no more.

Second, the minds of men have been doctrinally and practically diverted from the punishment appointed for the deceit of sin in the law. This has been an inlet to all kinds of abominations. As Romans 1:32 says, they knew the judgment of God is that those who do those things deserve to die, yet they not only continued in them, but encouraged others to practice them. “What hope is there for such persons?” There is indeed relief for humbled believing souls in the blood of Christ.

Thirdly, the deceit of sin will attempt to turn the mind aside from attending to the love and kindness of God, against whom every sin is committed. This is a prevailing consideration, if rightly and graciously managed in the soul. The receipt of the promises ought to be effectual, stirring us up to all holiness, “so to work and effect an abstinence from all sin.”

And what promises are these? Namely, that God will be “a Father unto us, and will receive us,” 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18, which comprises the whole of all the love of God towards us, here and to eternity. If there be any spiritual ingenuity in the soul, whilst the mind is attentive to this consideration, there can be no prevailing attempt made upon it by the power of sin.

Owen has more to say on the deceitfulness of indwelling sin as it attempts to turn the mind away from the discharge of its duties. But you will have to turn to his discussion of how it uses inadvertency, an unwillingness to take any notice of warnings, as well as weak and ineffectual attempts to reclaim its attention to duty. He concluded his thoughts in chapter ten by saying the whole effect of the working of the deceitfulness of sin can be reduced to three tasks.

First, the lessening of a universally watchful frame of spirit towards every duty, and against all, even the most hidden sin.

Second, the exclusion of particular attending to such duties as have a special respect to the weakening and ruin of the whole of the law of sin, and the prevention of its deceitfulness.

Third, Spiritual sloth with regard to all the particular attention of duties and sins.

02/9/18

Legend of the Apostles’ Creed

© jorisvo | 123rf.com – fresco (1450) depicting the articles of the Apostles’ Creed.

The Apostles’ Creed has been a central part of worship and declaring what individuals and congregations believe about the members of the Trinity since the early centuries of the Christian church. For centuries it was believed that after Pentecost and before the apostles dispersed in the Great Commission, they “mutually agreed upon a standard of their future preaching.” They were said to have developed this standard so that when they were separated, they would not unintentionally vary “in the statements which they should make to those whom they should invite to believe in Christ.” Yet it seems this origins tale for the Apostles’ Creed is just a legend.

The fourth century monk and historian, Rufinus Tryannius wrote a commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, probably around 307-309 AD. In his commentary Rufinus related the above origins story for the Creed which was widely believed in the Western Christian church until the 15th century. Each of the apostles, “filled with the Holy Ghost,” were said to have contributed several sentences to the one common summary, which later became known as the Apostles’ Creed. Rufinus said:

Our forefathers have handed down to us the tradition, that, after the Lord’s ascension, when, through the coming of the Holy Ghost, tongues of flame had settled upon each of the Apostles, that they might speak diverse languages, so that no race however foreign, no tongue however barbarous, might be inaccessible to them and beyond their reach, they were commanded by the Lord to go severally to the several nations to preach the word of God. Being on the eve therefore of departing from one another, they first mutually agreed upon a standard of their future preaching, lest haply, when separated, they might in any instance vary in the statements which they should make to those whom they should invite to believe in Christ. Being all therefore met together, and being filled with the Holy Ghost, they composed, as we have said, this brief formulary of their future preaching, each contributing his several sentence to one common summary: and they ordained that the rule thus framed should be given to those who believe.

The Apostles’ Creed itself was present and increasingly became an important summary of confession and belief in the life of the church from at least the time of Rufinus in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. In his 5th century treatise on Christian piety, the Enchiridion, Augustine explained how the Apostles’ Creed was useful in teaching Christian doctrine and in refuting heresies. Along with the Lord’s Prayer, he thought the Creed was a succinct summary of the Christian doctrine and faith.

For you have the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. What can be briefer to hear or to read? What easier to commit to memory? When, as the result of sin, the human race was groaning under a heavy load of misery, and was in urgent need of the divine compassion, one of the prophets, anticipating the time of God’s grace, declared: “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered [Joel 2:32].” Hence the Lord’s Prayer. But the apostle, when, for the purpose of commending this very grace, he had quoted this prophetic testimony, immediately added: “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed [Romans 10:14]?” Hence the Creed. In these two you have those three graces exemplified: faith believes, hope and love pray.

The above legend was an accepted part of the history of the church until the Council of Florence (1438-1445), which attempted a reunification of the Western and Eastern churches. At the beginning of the negotiations, the Western, Latin representatives invoked the Apostles’ Creed. In response, the Eastern Greek representatives said they did not possess and had never seen “this creed of the Apostles.” Moreover, as J.N.D. Kelly quoted Marcus Eugenicus in Early Christian Creeds, “If it had ever existed, the Book of Acts would have spoken of it in its description of the first apostolic synod at Jerusalem, to which you appeal.”

Once the question is squarely faced, the extreme unlikelihood of the Apostles having drafted an official summary of faith scarcely merits discussion. Since the Reformation the theory that they did has been quietly set aside as legendary by practically all scholars, the conservative-minded merely reserving the right to point out that the teaching of the formula known as the Apostles’ Creed reproduces authentically apostolic doctrine.

Kelly went on to say the legend is an example of the tendency of the early Church to “attribute the whole of its doctrinal, liturgical and hierarchical apparatus” to the Twelve Apostles, and through them to Christ himself. He said this could be acknowledged without prejudice to the question of whether 2nd century Church fathers were correct to claim their rule of faith was the same as the faith of the Apostles. If the question was “Did the apostolic Church possess an official, textually determined confession of faith” the answer is no, it did not. However, “creeds of a looser sort,” that lacked the fixed and official character of the later formularies—yet clearly foreshadowing them—were is use early on.

The early Church was a “believing, confessing, preaching Church.” If the Christians of the apostolic age had not seen themselves as possessing a body of distinctive, consciously held beliefs, why would they have separated from Judaism and begun their program of missionary expansion? “Everything goes to show that the infant communities looked upon themselves as the bearers of a unique story of redemption.” The New Testament is a collection of documents written “from faith to faith.”

The Gospels carefully elaborate certain dogmatic beliefs about Jesus, “which they seek to explain and justify.” The other documents “presuppose a background of faith shared by the author and those for whom he is writing.” For all their differences of nuance, the documents of the New Testament “comprise a body of literature which could only have sprung from a community with a strongly marked outlook of its own.”

In light of these considerations it is impossible to overlook the emphasis on the transmission of authoritative doctrine which is to be found everywhere in the New Testament. In the later strata the reference to an inherited corpus of teaching are clear enough. In Jude 3, for example, we read of “the faith once delivered to the saints”; later (verse 20) the author speaks of “your most holy faith”, again using the word in the sense of an accepted body of beliefs.

Further examples given by Kelly were from the Pastoral Epistles, including 1 Timothy 6:20; 2 Timothy 1:13; Titus 1:9. Hebrews advises its readers to “hold fast our confession;” without wavering (Hebrews 4:14, 10:23). In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Paul exhorted his readers to “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either our spoken word or our letter.” In Romans 6:17 Paul referred to the “standard of teaching to which you were committed.”

What we have before us, at any rate in rough outline, is the doctrinal deposit, at the pattern of sound words, which was expounded in the apostolic church since its inauguration and which constituted its distinctive message.

The story that the Twelve met and composed an “Apostles’ Creed” is a pious fiction. But by the 2nd century there was a “rule of faith” or a “canon of truth” believed and taught by the Church, and inherited from the Apostles. It just wasn’t an official, textually set confession of faith or a creed, as with the Apostles’ Creed and others that followed. The content of that rule, in all it essentials, was foreshadowed by the “pattern of teaching” accepted in the apostolic Church. Its essentials were prototypically contained in the New Testament. From the end of the first century to the middle of the third century, there were only creeds in this elastic, nontechnical sense of the term. “That the Church in the apostolic age possessed a creed in the broad sense of a recognized body of teaching may be accepted as demonstrated fact.”

For more on the early creeds and heresies of the Christian church, see the link: “Early Creeds.”