What to Remember When Fighting Temptation

http://dogmadoxa.blogspot.com/2011/10/what-to-remember-when-fighting.html

What to Remember When Fighting Temptation

On September 12, 1933, 35-year-old Clive Staples Lewis wrote a letter to his dear friend Arthur Greeves. The letter is located in the Wade Center at Wheaton College--just down the street from where I am typing right now.

Greeves had written to Lewis asking about the degree to which we can speak, if at all, of God understanding evil in any kind of experiential way--as Greeves had put it, 'sharing' in our evil actions.

Lewis begins with an analogy (all emphases original)--

Supposing you are taking a dog on a lead past a post. You know what happens. . . . He tries to go the wrong side and gets his head looped round the post. You see that he can't do it, and therefore pull him back. You pull him back because you want to enable him to go forward. He wants exactly the same thing--namely to go forward: for that very reason he resists your pull back, or, if he is an obedient dog, yields to it reluctantly as a matter of duty which seems to him to be quite in opposition to his own will: tho' in fact it is only by yielding to you that he will ever succeed in getting where he wants.

Now if the dog were a theologian he would regard his own will as a sin to which he was tempted, and therefore an evil: and he might go on to ask whether you understand and 'contained' his evil. If he did you could only reply 'My dear dog, if by your will you mean what you really want to do, namely, to get forward along this road, I not only understand this desire but share it. Forward is exactly where I want you to go. If by your will, on the other hand, you mean your will to pull against the collar and try to force yourself in a direction which is no use--why I understand it of course: but just because I understand it (and the whole situation, which you don't understand) I cannot possibly share it. In fact the more I sympathise with your real wish--that is, the wish to get on--the less can I sympathise (in the sense of 'share' or 'agree with') your resistance to the collar: for I see that this is actually rendering the attainment of your real wish impossible.'

Lewis then goes back to the original question to bring his analogy home:

I don't know if you will agree at once that this is a parallel to the situation between God and man: but I will work it out on the assumption that you do. Let us go back to the original question--whether and, if so in what sense God contains, say, my evil will--or 'understands' it. The answer is God not only understands but shares the desire which is at the root of all my evil--the desire for complete and ecstatic happiness. He made me for no other purpose than to enjoy it. But He knows, and I do not, how it can be really and permanently attained. He knows that most of my personal attempts to reach it are actually putting it further and further out of my reach. With these therefore He cannot sympathise or 'agree.'

Lewis then relates his point to how we think about past sins, and then how we think about future sins (temptation).

I may always feel looking back on any past sin that in the very heart of my evil passion there was something that God approves and wants me to feel not less but more. Take a sin of Lust. The overwhelming thirst for rapture was good and even divine: it has not got to be unsaid (so to speak) and recanted. But it will never be quenched as I tried to quench it. If I refrain--if I submit to the collar and come round the right side of the lamp-post--God will be guiding me as quickly as He can to where I shall get what I really wanted all the time. It will not be very like what I now think I want: but it will be more like it than some suppose. In any case it will be the real thing, not a consolation prize or substitute. If I had it I should not need to fight against sensuality as something impure: rather I should spontaneously turn away from it as something cold, abstract, and artificial. This, I think, is how the doctrine applies to past sins.

On the other hand, when we are thinking of a sin in the future, i.e. when we are tempted, we must remember that just because God wants for us what we really want and knows the only way to get it, therefore He must, in a sense, be quite ruthless towards sin. He is not like a human authority who can be begged off or caught in an indulgent mood. The more He loves you the more determined He must be to pull you back from your way which leads nowhere into His way which leads where you want to go. Hence MacDonald's words 'The all-punishing, all-pardoning Father.' You may go the wrong way again, and again He may forgive you: as the dog's master may extricate the dog after he has tied the whole leash around the lamp-post. But there is no hope in the end of getting where you want to go except by going God's way. . . .

And in a final, powerful, delightful reminder--

I think one may be quite rid of the old haunting suspicion--it raises its head in every temptation--that there is something else than God--some other country into which He forbids us to trespass--some kind of delight which He 'doesn't appreciate' or just chooses to forbid, but which would be real delight if only we were allowed to get it. The thing just isn't there. Whatever we desire is either what God is trying to give us as quickly as He can, or else a false picture of what He is trying to give us--a false picture which would not attract us for a moment if we saw the real thing.

--Walter Hooper, ed., The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Volume 2: Books, Broadcasts, and the War, 1931-1949 (Cambridge University Press, 2004), 122-24

Letter to a friend on war, protest and political liberalism and his response

Thanks a lot for your time and help, Jim.

I liked what you said about lack of opposition being compromise, especially that modern American "hatred" takes subtler forms, given our obsession with tolerance.

Thank you for asking me to reconsider Al Mohler. It really struck me that he has a handle on part of God's truth that I have slipped from. At the end of the day, I have to say he has done more for me personally and as I have observed others to entrench Christians in positions of arrogance and distance from outsiders than to promote kindhearted love toward them. With him every minor issue is "the heart of the Gospel" and is defended sometimes too passionately without appreciating nuance and brotherly disagreement. I think it stems from a basic view of Christianity as upholding the Law and keeping thick boundary lines clearly drawn and enforced, which I totally disagree with. YET, there are lines to be drawn and there are issues worth alienating yourself over (such as abortion). I think Mohler has something to teach me and I will certainly try not to be so negative about him.

Alas, your critique of the song was good. It is a bit whiny, isn't it? And picking on Bush was awfully popular and easy at the time.
Still, there is something that resonates with me about how brashly and often we, as a nation, wield the sword. And I keep coming back to Jesus as the paradigm, where he doesn't say a word but suffers death unjustly rather than defend himself. I think the song should have advocated waiting for God's judgment, as you said.
I hear you on lighter commands, this is what makes me think I'd harm anyone who came into my house to harm me and Leigh, but what makes protecting your country a greater command than loving your enemy??

Thanks again for your thoughts. Not brusque at all. You have definitely changed my mind considerably in this one e-mail.

---xxxxx

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 8:44 PM, James Slice <jchristopherslice@gmail.com> wrote:

Xxxxx,

I am finally getting 'round to finishing our two discussions from this week.

Here is the first about lacking opposition being a sign of compromise:

Both apply. Consider that just because no one opposes you openly, it doesn't mean they don't hate you secretly. The John passage is the interpretive lens I see much of the world's general criticisms through. That's why I'm a little leery of when preachers tell the church the ways she's failing to meet the world's expectations. There's a little to be learned there, but, on the whole, the world will not judge the actions of the church fairly. To listen to them, you would think that only significant historical events in the church were the Crusades.

Not to say that the John passage doesn't have personal application as well. If you worry because your proclamation of the Gospel and the whole counsel of Scripture never results in cool reservedness at the very least (a likelier expression of hatred in many American social settings) if not outright fury, especially when presented to the worldly, then I could understand why you might want to take a step back and think about things.

Jacob, I would ask you to reconsider the ministry of someone like Al Mohler. You have expressed hesitance over his focus on the culture wars, and, undoubtedly, he has sinned in this at times over the course of his life. However, Mohler does not shrink from declaring the Gospel. His commentary on the culture wars is more than just a hope that our legislators and courts will cease murdering children (a not bad hope in itself), but it is a declaration that we naturally exist in a kingdom (or culture) that is fundamentally at odds with God's kingdom and righteous rule. He is one that knows the reality of the John passage. This, coupled with the faithfulness of his testimony, are what commend his ministry to me.

Here is the second with regards to the music video:

Again, I see a distinction between the call to believers to not resist evil men, particularly through violent or forceful means, and the authority granted to the state by God to utilize force and violence in the execution of justice. Even with the command for believers, I see it as the lighter command when compared to the heavier injunctions to provide for the needs of your family, namely the need for protection.

The video was not a call to believers to bear suffering with patience and allow the Lord to avenge. It was a call for young adults to complain about the previous administration (I'm pretty sure that's when it was written) because of its use of the sword. Even if I were inclined to agree with the sentiment expressed, I still would not have been particularly inspired by it. Protest rock is easy to write and is certain to gain the writer a certain amount of acclaim. He was not being especially counter-cultural but is clearly a product of the waters he swims in. I have not heard of them, nor do I think they 'stood up' to their objects of criticism in any meaningful way. Additionally, the video was a mish-mash of images that cannot all rightly be laid at the feet of the ones whom the musician is encouraging us to stand up against.

I hope you'll forgive me if any of statements were brusque in their delivery. I am writing this a little quickly and not doing all the necessary editing to round off the harshest edges. Please remember though that in discussions of this nature, I remain your loyal opposition, always glad of your friendship in the Lord Jesus Christ, and glad to discuss these things with you. I hope you and Yyyyy are enjoying the grace of our Father, that He is blessing every good purpose of yours.

In Christ,

Jim

Keller on Repentance

http://sermons2.redeemer.com/sermons/he-came-himself

A letter to a friend on Christ in Ecclesiastes

Xxxx,

Good to hear from you, brother. It sounds like classes are getting off to an interesting start. I'm kind of jealous.

I think I hear where you are coming from. There are a lot of places in the OT where I am hard pressed to see the picture of Christ. Never the less, I am convinced they are there, pointing forward to ultimate fulfillment.

I will try to speak to you thoughts as best I can. It seems like your concerns center on covenant issues. That, or maybe the lack of direct Messianic prophecy or types. And you're right: there is no apparent discussion of covenant or any transparent Messianic types (though I do believe there might be one, or even two, translucent ones which I'll get to). I would respond by saying that covenant and prophetic fulfillment are not the only type/anti-type relationships in the Bible. Another major one is the promise of moral uprightness.

So, when Christ says,

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,"

(Matthew 5:17 ESV)

he is not saying (as my Presbyterian friends tend to argue) that he is extending the Law or adding to it, but that he is literally fulfilling the predicative element of it (or so says Carson unpacking the Greek). It comes in the midst of saying that it must continue to be kept and taught by those who would follow him, but I do not think it is for justification's sake. Rather, it is because that Law pointed to One for who it would be a natural expression of his character. In this sense, Jesus doesn't keep the law; he just is Jesus. It is the same way in which we don't keep the law of breathing in and out while we're respirating at all times. To do otherwise is impossible.

Now, what of Ecclesiastes? It seems especially hard because of the meandering style. However, there are a few things I see here that, even if you don't call them, "Christ in the Old Testament," certainly help to build expectation, or maybe hope, or, at the very least, longing for a Person very much like Jesus.

When Ecclesiastes describes the vain pursuit of pleasure, it sets us up for the expectation of one at whose right hand are pleasures forevermore. When the teacher talks about wisdom that does not profit or prolong life over that of the fool, wisdom born of man's efforts, it raises the question of whether there is a greater wisdom, a heavenly wisdom, that does lead to life. When he bemoans the uselessness of acquiring wealth for it will all pass to another generation that may not use it to good ends, we know that there are investments to be made and treasures to be laid up that will outlast our deaths and provide returns for all eternity.

Maybe the most important expectation Ecclesiastes raises through its use of countertypes (I just made that word up) is the longing for a righteous king, one who does not pervert justice. What's more, there are a couple of passages that, while not explicitly messianic prophecy, are at least minor types of Christ. Consider:

Better was a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king who no longer knew how to take advice. For he went from prison to the throne, though in his own kingdom he had been born poor. I saw all the living who move about under the sun, along with that youth who was to stand in the king's place. There was no end of all the people, all of whom he led. Yet those who come later will not rejoice in him. Surely this also is vanity and a striving after wind.

(Ecclesiastes 4:13-16 ESV)

This may seem a little thin, but when you consider how the NT often quotes the OT, it's not as far fetched as it appears at first (look at Psalm 45 then how Hebrews 1 quotes it).

Ultimately, Ecclesiastes is about the human condition. Like the other wisdom literature, it is best in the OT at embracing themes that the Gentile world can identify with. Though it is not part of the progression of covenant thought, it does contribute to the expectation of a coming Messiah and His righteous reign. It does this by revealing the pointlessness of the pursuit of these good gifts outside the rule of God and by laying out precepts of wisdom that demonstrate the character of that coming King.

Is this faithful to authorial intent? I'd say yes...and no. It is evident that the OT writers did not have the whole picture. Peter says, "they searched intently for the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ was pointing when He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow." However, the teacher's longing for an end to meaninglessness is evident on every page. He may not know what the end to it is, but he knows he longs for it.

Those are my thoughts. I appreciate your caution in approaching the text. Be patient, pray for the Holy Spirit to cast light on the Word and give it the necessary time to think through each passage for what it meant and what it means in the light of the NT. Remember that last part especially. It's not always transparently predicative. Sometimes it is a picture that needs the future light of Christ to reveal all its contours.

I hope that helps or contributes to the conversation in some way.

Grace and Peace,

Jim

-----Original Message-----

To: jchristopherslice@gmail.com

Jim, today we did an exercise in class where we "looked for Christ" in

Ecclesiastics. It was just a 15 minute surface level, get your mind

going sort of exercise. I inadequately voiced my confusion, so I sent

this email to my pastors for clarity. I wanted to know your thoughts,

too. Thanks pal.

For the sake of my sanity, I wanted to attempt to clarify my hang-ups I

mentioned in class today that I oh-so-woefully attempted to communicate.

I think my biggest struggle is the extent to which we seek to find

authorial intent (when i say this, i mean human author's intent) and to

what extent we look for Jesus hiding behind the text, so to speak. A

fear of mine, which would be just as bad as moralizing the text, I

think, is inserting Jesus where he sort of belongs and / or

over-spiritualizing a text. (Not to suggest I think we did this

today.)

There are obviously stark differences between the nature of the Old

Covenant (under which most of the Old Testament was written) and how

God's people related to God and the nature of the New Covenant and how

we relate to God... so what sort of helpful "restraints" could we put

on a texts prior to exegesis? Certainly the unique characteristics of

genre, geography, cultural barriers..... but what about biblical

theology as it relates to salvation history? Specifically the

similarities and differences between the Old and the New Covenant.

We're obviously not Covenant theologians, but we do believe God had a

single, unified purpose in history. We do recognize, however, there is

a distinction between the Covenants under the umbrella of God's

redemptive plan, and that a few massively significant

theological-historical events occurred in the meantime which divided

the two... Jesus as the new lawgiver and progenitor of a new cov, his

death, burial, resurrection, Pentecost, AD 70, etc, etc....

With Ecclesiastes today I really struggled to find Christ in the text.

I found principles that could ultimately be answered in Christ in a

roundabout sort of way, but I didn't really see an arrow pointing the

Gospel or the Messiah or anything like that... not even implicitly.

My first thoughts were to try and understand Jesus as maybe the one who

fulfilled the author of Ecc, maybe the suffering King or the man of

sorrows or something like that, but that seemed too forced.... so I

don't know, maybe the hangups are in my understanding of the phrase,

"Christ in the OT." I'm also notoriously notorious for making things

more difficult than necessary.

Grace and Peace,

Xxxx

A Happy Baptist, Happy to Welcome Others: Strengthening Church Membership Without Watering Down Immersion

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/06/a-happy-baptist-happy-to-welcome-others/

A Happy Baptist, Happy to Welcome Others: Strengthening Church Membership Without Watering Down Immersion

Editors' Note: How do baptism and church membership relate? What are the biblical bounds? Baptists debate, "Must one be baptized as a believer in order to join a local church?" Meanwhile, Presbyterians and other paedobaptists consider, "Should one who'd refuse to let his children be baptized be permitted to join?"

Our hope is that this three-day forum will, by God's grace, drive us all to consider Scripture's teaching anew and disagree charitably when necessary.

-------------------------

Stir the waters. Apparently someone at TGC has the itch to get ye olde open-membership discussion going again.

It was almost seven years ago, in the summer of 2005, when the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church in the Twin Cities of Minnesota---John Piper among them and leading the way---uncorked a finely aged baptist cask for an unexpectedly captive Web audience. Believing that a convinced paedobaptist who declines to be baptized as a believer should not necessarily be prohibited from being a member of the church, the council proposed eight constitutional amendments aimed at "opening" the membership, on exception, to some non-baptists.

A tempest in an internet teapot followed that fall, confusing enough of our members, and even a handful of our elders, that prior to the December congregational vote, the council decided to withdraw the proposal. We have yet to revisit it, with more pressing things demanding the council's attention. But the majority of us, I think it safe to say, are more than open to the open-membership position, which I've been asked to represent here.

Ye Olde Open Baptists, Like Bunyan

I say "ye olde" and "finely aged" above because this is not a new discussion in baptist life, as some dear friends of mine seem inclined to overlook. The question of open and closed membership goes back, at least, to the 1660s and is almost as old as English baptists. While closed-membership congregations admit only immersed believers to membership, open-membership baptists are willing to welcome (some) credibly professing Christians who have not been immersed as believers, but have received some other form of (non-regenerative) baptism---illegitimate, misguided, and defective though we believe it to be.

The majority of the baptist tradition has been composed of closed-membership congregations, but the open-membership strand has long been an identifiable, substantive entity within baptist life and tradition both historically and globally. Perhaps most notable among the open-membership advocates is renowned baptist preacher John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress.

The Open Baptist Who Bested Spurgeon

In his biography of baptist Charles Spurgeon, W. Y. Fullerton makes mention of what he calls "Open Baptists" who not only "welcomed all believers to the communion service," but also "grant church membership apart from baptism." Fullerton recounts a humorous anecdote from Spurgeon concerning the issue.

He once told me with appreciation how he was worsted in argument by an American divine. During a drive, the visitor made a number of inquiries, and discovered the practice of the church . . . how it admitted people to the Lord's Table who were not baptized, and refused them membership unless baptized. "Which means that they are good enough for the Lord, and yet not good enough for you!" said his guest. And Spurgeon had to admit that the logic was not on his side.

It is inconsistent to open the table and close the membership. Unfortunately, some have tried to remedy this by closing communion. But the implications are serious. It is no small thing to turn away from the Lord's Table someone who is manifestly a brother in Christ. Is this not, in effect, to question in some real sense whether he is truly converted? It at least greatly misunderstands the nature of communion. It is strange that brothers claiming to be together for the gospel can't join each other at the table.

The Heart of the Issue: The Importance of Church Membership

But for those of us at Bethlehem, more important than historic precedent or logical consistency is our particular context. A number of solidly Reformed (and paedobaptist) brothers and sisters have been drawn into our regular fellowship, but at present are not able to be church members. So the heart of the issue for us is not the doctrine of baptism but the importance of local church membership.

Those of us on the council who are open to the open-membership concept find it to be significantly more grave to exclude a clear Christian brother or sister from church membership than to live with their errant view of baptism. This is based on a deep conviction that it is very serious to turn someone away from membership in the local church. And so we hope one day to be commissioned by the congregation to do our level best to have the size of the door to membership in the local church mirror as closely as possible the size of the door to entrance into the universal body of Christ. We long for any clearly converted follower of Jesus to be a realistic candidate for membership in the local church.

Again, this is not mainly about baptism, even though it definitely involves the ordinance. And this is due in no part to us wavering in the least about the beauty and biblical warrant of believer baptism in the new-covenant community. We are as deeply persuaded as ever that infant baptism is illegitimate, misguided, and defective. Let that be clear.

What Is Fitting in Our Particular Context

But then what? It becomes a wisdom issue (which is why I'm not quoting verses at you---the Bible doesn't decide this one for us). If you hold not only a high view of baptism but also a high view of church membership, the practical question becomes how any given local baptist congregation orients toward those who are plainly born-again believers, having a "credible profession of faith," but hold (we believe) an errant view of baptism. Many credo churches don't have any paedos who want to join their church. We do. And so it comes down to practical corporate wisdom and what is fitting for our local congregation given our context---and isn't that a quintessentially baptist way of handling it?

Drawing the Line Around the Eldership

But don't we have to draw the credo line somewhere? If we don't fence the membership at the point of baptism, might the elders eventually include non-baptists? Not if there are other good fences. Yes, the line should be drawn somewhere, but we're convinced that, at least in our context, it should not be around the membership, but around the eldership.

A further protection would be to include a more descript affirmation of faith (which includes believer baptism) for "voting members." Such an affirmation might be similar to what closed-member churches typically have demanded of all members, but in addition to believer baptism, it might include other more important doctrines held by the elders (like inerrancy, the sovereignty of God, justification by faith alone, and penal substitution, to name a few). Such a configuration would ensure that those members of the congregation voting at the baptist church are, in fact, believer baptists (and other more significant things too). This then would fence the leadership's baptist fidelity even more than the closed-membership model, but without excluding non-baptist believers from the important benefits, affirmation of conversion, and accountability that church membership provides.

In Sum

I'm a very happy baptist---though you don't need to capitalize the baptist for me. But especially in our increasingly post-Christian milieu, it is becoming more and more clear that there are so many other theological issues more central and important than the mode and timing of baptism. I am happy to let the vestiges of Christendom go, and see formal church membership as significant enough to put up with some mistaken views of baptism (provided that the leadership is securely believer baptist), so as not to exclude from local church membership converted brothers and sisters in Jesus who are plainly members of the universal church.

Recommended Resources

John Bunyan, "Difference in Judgment About Water Baptism, No Bar to Communion," The Works of John Bunyan [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991], 2:617.

John Piper, "Baptism and Church Membership: The Recommendation from the Elders for Amending Bethlehem's Constitution"

John Piper, "More Clarifications on the Baptism and Membership Issue"

John Piper, "Baptism and Church Membership Questions and Answers"

John Piper, "Response to Wayne Grudem on Baptism and Church Membership"

Update on Bethlehem Baptist and Open Membership

Sam Storms, "Piper, Grudem, and Dever on Baptism, the Lord's Table, and Church Membership---Just How Together for the Gospel Are We?"

-------------------------

Also in the series on baptism and church membership:

• "Sometimes Obedience Results in Painful Separations" by James Hamilton
• "Membership Requires Affirmation of Infant Baptism: A Presbyterian and Reformed Response" by Michael Horton

In the meantime...

"In the meantime it is the day of preparation. There is much to be done and it takes long to do it. The members of the intended society must be soreted and collected out of the mass of mankind. The must also be tested and trained. The very ground on which the future work is to rest must themselves be laid. The perfect society is to be founded on men' relation to God and is to be compacted by their relations to each other. The true relations were destroyed by sin and it was necessary that they should be constituted afresh. This is done in Jesus Christ. Propitiation and atonement, reconciliation and redemption, are words which express the restoration of the broken relations with God, as accomplished by the work of the Mediator. Those who receive Christ Jesus the Lord are thereby in a state of grace. Sin no longer divides and estranges them from God. He has returned to them and they to him. They have fellowship with the Father and with the Son by the Holy Spirit. God dwells in them and they in him. Thus in each separate soul those relations with God in Christ are established beforehand which shall hereafter glorify the community of the saints in the day when the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and God himself shall be with them and be their God."

The Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament
Thomas Dehany Bernard
(Location 1721 of 1776 in Kindle Edition)

A letter to a friend on repentance and grieving over sin

Hey Xxxx,

I wanted to follow up our discussion from the other day. I made my argument a little off the cuff and didn’t do a good job of explaining. I’ll try to do better now.

I feel like I’ve been hearing for awhile now statements to the effect that when a believer sins, anything less than instant relief from all feelings of guilt is rooted in a failure to appropriate the forgiveness that’s available through the cross. Full communion (especially the feeling of feel communion) must be restored immediately. With you in particular, I have seen how this leads (ironically) to increased guilt as you conclude that you are not fully believing in the finished work of the cross.

Now I want to be careful here, because I think that many concepts have overlapping spheres, and it’s not always easy to draw lines between emotion that is sinful and emotion that is appropriate. Often times, these feelings tend to have the same or similar emotional flavors (forgive the metaphorical language). It would take more time than I have to define every term and provide every caveat. What things I leave unclear, we can continue to discuss and try to reach a better understanding of together.

And test the things I say and the conclusion I arrive at. Provide what arguments to the contrary you see in the Scriptures. Ask other brothers, not only what they think about the matter in general, but how they understand the passages below.

The first is from Micah 7. Piper preached from it in a sermon he gave on dealing with the guilt resultant from sexual sin. I love how rich it is.

Rejoice not over me, O my enemy;

when I fall, I shall rise;

when I sit in darkness,

the LORD will be a light to me.

I will bear the indignation of the LORD

because I have sinned against him,

until he pleads my cause

and executes judgment for me.

He will bring me out to the light;

I shall look upon his vindication.

(Micah 7:8-9 ESV)

It speaks for itself, so I won’t say much. Only notice in particular the idea of waiting. It recognizes that the relationship between he and the Lord is affected at some level. However, it does not for a second believe that it irrevocably severed, and more importantly, it looks to the Lord for the setting of time when he will, “look upon his vindication.”

I will skip Hosea 3 for the moment. I believe the idea is at play there as well, but it’s a little more obscure, and I don’t want to try and make the argument for it tonight. Take a look if you have the time. The chapter’s short.

All I could think of last night was Paul’s words in Romans 7. It doesn’t make the case as strongly, but I still think it’s part of the theme.

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

(Romans 7:21-25 ESV)

This is Paul reflecting on the continuing presence of sin in the life of the believer. It comes at the end of explaining how this works out and why it is. If nothing else, these verses (especially, “Wretched man that I am!”) calls into question the idea that we should only speak in triumphal words and only and always meditate on our nature as the redeemed, our objective position before God as fully justified. There is no wretchedness in those glorious truths, nor am I convinced that the language applies only to anticipation of future sins. I believe that when Paul sees these laws worked out in the members of his body, he feels wretched. That is why he calls himself, “wretched man.” I do not think that Paul has forgotten about the goodness of creation, not least our bodies, but I think he holds that idea in tension with the falleness of all things, not least our bodies. That is why he calls it, “this body of death.”

Now, finally, hear James:

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

(James 4:4-10 ESV)

I think James says it most strongly. It is unlikely that an unrepentant man is going to respond with such strong emotions. Therefore, James must be talking about what is appropriate for those who are repentant. I do not think the actions listed are in any particular order, but address those things that are being played out at the same time or in varying orders. We submit to God (I read as acknowledging his just judgment and righteous commands); we recognize the schemes of the devil and set up defense against them and pray that the Lord will defend us against him; we draw near to God through prayer and scripture and through all other means that he provides; we cease sinning, not just by stopping, but by identifying what wrong beliefs led to it and how our heart is trying to leave that easy path back to sin open; we recognize that this is a time for sadness, even to the point where we actively reject mirth and levity.

There are just a few passages that I see as supporting the idea that repentance is not always an immediate escape from all emotional/psychic (understand that I use the word, “psychic” in the sense of pertaining to the psyche) consequences of our sin. This sadness over our sin, this dejectedness is not meritorious, nor does it have to be seen as such. Of course that danger exists, but that doesn’t mean for a second that all such feelings should be rejected. We recognize dangers, and we guard against them. We do not let those dangers become the controlling paradigm for why our thoughts and feelings should not conform to the pattern of scripture.

Is there a legitimate concern that is addressed by warning saints not to wallow in their sin, but rather run to the cross? I would say yes. Again, it is a matter of degrees. When conviction and godly grief over our sin are not born with the cross firmly in mind, then it can lead to condemnation, where we no longer believe that salvation is possible. That is unbelief, and it is appropriate to address this by encouraging dejected saints to look at Jesus’ finish worked and see how it applies to them.

I think that is where I will leave it for tonight. Think it over. Ask questions. Challenge my conclusions. However, at the end of the day, I hope you have freedom as a result of this discussion. Freedom to grieve over sin. Freedom to hate it, even in the past tense. I love you, brother.

Grace and Peace,

Jim