What's to Abhor?

Published on by D. G. Hart

One of the arresting vows that church members take in Presbyterian circles is this:

Do you confess that because of your sinfulness you abhor and humble yourself before God, that you repent of your sin, and that you trust for salvation not in yourself but in Jesus Christ alone?

Important to consider is that this is something someone who has already converted or been baptized and reared in the church is supposed to answer in the affirmative. That means that someone who is already regenerate and progressing in sanctification is supposed to affirm. After all, we don’t go straight from the conversion experience to a gathering of the congregation to receive members.

Why is it then that someone who is holy and sanctified, since these are parts of the gospel as some tell us, would abhor himself (notice too that we require the fairer sex also to abhor herself)? And why is it that we need to understand, as the gospel networkers are encouraging us to learn, that growth in holiness does not lead to spiritual pride?

We deny that assurance gained through growth in godliness amounts to a performance-based religion or necessitates an unwholesome spiritual pride. . . .

We deny that rejoicing in victories over sin amounts to spiritual pride or performance religion, although Christians may and sometimes do sin in this way.

This makes me wonder if our membership vows need to be revised. Should we add a membership vow that asks, “do you rejoice now and will you continue to do so in your victories over sin?” Or is the posture of abhorrence much more fitting for those who join the body of Christ?

Now if you believe Jesus is in some sense (hear that republicationists) like us, then you may not care for the language of abhorrence. Then again, if you affirm what Machen explained about the uniqueness of Christ, disgust with yourself may not be so bad:

Certainly Jesus had a religion of His own; His prayer was real prayer, His faith was real religious faith. His relation to His heavenly Father was not merely that of a child to a father; it was that of a man to his God. Certainly Jesus had a religion; without it His humanity would indeed have been but incomplete. Without doubt Jesus had a religion; the fact is of the utmost importance. But it is equally important to observe that that religion which Jesus had was not Christianity. Christianity is a way of getting rid of sin, and Jesus was without sin. His religion was a religion of Paradise, not a religion of sinful humanity. It was a religion to which we may perhaps in some sort attain in heaven, when the process of our purification is complete (though even then the memory of redemption will never leave us); but certainly it is not a religion with which we can begin. The religion of Jesus was a religion of untroubled sonship; Christianity is a religion of the attainment of sonship by the redeeming work of Christ. (Christianity and Liberalism, 92)

63 thoughts on “What's to Abhor?”

  1. Should we add a membership vow that asks, “do you rejoice now and will you continue to do so in your victories over sin?”

    Mark Jones already answered this for you–
    Our faith in Christ for redemption (e.g., justification) is, according to John Owen, “only half of our duty of faith…..To deny the imitation of Christ is “evil and pernicious,” so long as we insist on the fact that Christ our redeemer is the principal focus of our faith – See more at: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/are-you-illegitimus.php#sthash.01wlDwv6.dpuf

    Like

  2. Machen– We can preach the gospel, they tell us, by our lives, and do not need to preach it by our words. But they are wrong. Men are not saved by the exhibition of our glorious Christian virtues; they are not saved by the contagion of our experiences. We cannot be the instruments of God in saving them if we preach to them thus only ourselves. Nay, we must preach to them the Lord Jesus Christ; for it is only through the gospel which sets Him forth that they can be saved

    http://reformedaudio.org/audio/machen/Machen%20-%20The%20Importance%20of%20Christian%20Scholarship.pdf.

    Like

  3. But Machen did not seem to appreciate the “diversity of the Reformed tradition”. As long as we water infants, we can be Reformed even if we give “mystical union” (impartation and imitation) priority so that the Spirit giving faith is the atonement (hypothetical universalism, according to Jones, has always been one option in the Reformed tradition)

    Machen– God Transcendent, p 136—”How broad and comforting, they say, is the doctrine of a universal atonement, the doctrine that Christ died equally for all men there upon the cross! How narrow and harsh, they say, is this Calvinistic doctrine—one of the “five points” of Calvinism—this doctrine of the “limited atonement,” this doctrine that Christ died for the elect of God in a sense in which he did not die for the unsaved!

    Machen—But do you know, my friends, it is in reality a very gloomy doctrine indeed. Ah, if it were only a doctrine of a universal salvation, instead of a doctrine of a universal atonement, then it would no doubt be a very comforting doctrine; then no doubt it would conform wonderfully well to what we in our puny wisdom might have thought the course of the world should have been. But a universal atonement without a universal salvation is a cold, gloomy doctrine indeed. To say that Christ died for all men alike and that then not all men are saved, to say that Christ died for humanity simply in the mass….that is a doctrine that takes from the gospel much of its sweetness and much of its joy.

    Like

  6. I abhor myself. Going the extra mile, I give others a reason to abhor me. Thus is unity achieved. Kumbaya.

    Sorry for bragging.

    Like

  7. CW, only topped by Billy Crystal imitating Yul and then going into Edward G. Robinson “where’s yer Messiah now?”

    Like

  11. GRN on our understanding of our sanctification: “We deny that rejoicing in victories over sin amounts to spiritual pride or performance religion, although Christians may and sometimes do sin in this way.”

    Jesus on our understanding of our sanctification: “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

    Like

  12. What part of “unworthy” (mind you, even after one has performed obedience empowered by God’s grace) don’t they get?

    Like

  13. Dr. Hart,

    Thanks for opining on the GRN – they really should be taken to task for all the ‘muddying up of the waters’ that they have done. Because of their actions, it will probably take about 10-20 years for young, sensitive, and highly impressionable believers to recover the Gospel in their lives, unless they have already been grounded by their ‘Justification Priority’ (the standard Reformation position) pastor father or parents. The PCA General Assembly should write ‘Ichabod’ on the Affirmations and Denials and move on. ‘Nuff said’.

    Like

  14. The vexing thing about the GRNers is that they are pretty strong on worship — Phillips’ downtown church’s 2nd commandment violations and Reeder’s Southern Baptist-style megachurch Briarworld notwithstanding. They are, as a whole, more committed to the RPW than at least 90 percent of the PCA.

    Like

  15. ““We deny that rejoicing in victories over sin amounts to spiritual pride or performance religion, although Christians may and sometimes do sin in this way.”

    How does one appropriately celebrate a victory over sin? Crack open a sparkling water and drink it with a bran muffin?

    Like

  18. The more sanctified you get the more you grasp even littler and littler sins that never gave you burden.

    Or so I’ve heard.

    Like

  20. It is my view that the Romans 7 man was one of the most mature Christians. John MacArthur once said the closer we get to God in our sanctification and holiness, the more we see our sinfulness. Paul was acutely aware of the struggle with sin. When we look at ourselves it should drive us to the gospel. Isaiah, said to be one righteous man, when he saw God’s glory he said oh i am a man of unclean lips. The process of our sanctification should be the realization of our utter bankruptcy in ourselves and how we need Christ for righteousness thru faith alone. My Catholic friends call each other devout and I think really. Jesus threw the law at those who thought they were righteous, and had mercy on sinners.

    Like

  21. I think this thread shows a lot of concern to distinguish yourselves from people you actually agree with. There are people who deny the third use of the Law and the sanctifying work of Christ in freeing people from bondage to the rule of sin. Not most people, especially in the PCA, but some people. And I’ve only been Presby for five years, but have swam in the water enough to have heard people who look down on those who have holiness of life as if they are legalistic. When in fact the critics are wallowing in sinful behavior. There are things worth mocking, but everything I see in GRN’s statement is biblical and sincerely expressed.

    Like

  22. Shane, there are differences of style and expression between the GRN and some of its critics too — sort of like SEC vs. Big 10. The GRN is overwhelmingly southern and expresses its concerns in ways that grate on the ears of some. I’m not sure the substantive disagreements are that great. Maybe I’m wrong.

    Like

  23. Shane, that may be, but what some might perceive as “looking down on personal holiness as legalistic when the critics are wallowing in sinful behavior” others of us who have been in P&R waters even longer see claims to personal holiness as covers for self-righteousness while accusing those exercising their Christian freedom of wallowing in sinful behavior (hi, Alexander).

    So you may be right, that it’s a way of distinguishing between people who agree, but if new lifers can do it then why can’t old lifers?

    Like

  24. Well, the more you all attack what is plainly biblical and confessional, the less interested I am in your opinion. It appears to me that there is a willingness to read uncharitably (and inaccurately!) the views of others… There’s nothing old school about that approach.

    Like

  25. Well, the more you all attack what is plainly biblical and confessional, the less interested I am in your opinion. It appears to me that there is a consistent willingness here to read uncharitably (and inaccurately!) the views of others…

    Like

  26. CW,

    Does kind of images does Phillips church have? I see some stained glass in the online photos of their church.

    As a former member of a church pastored by a GRN member, I wouldn’t say that all the GRN guys are committed to the RPW. Worship there was full-blown, contemporary, bapto-charismatic. Which ended up being a major reason I eventually moved on to a more confessionally focused PCA congregation.

    As an aside, Dr. Hart’s book With Reverance & Awe (along with Dr. Clark’s RCC) was a great help in thinking through that move from one congregation to another.

    Like

  27. GRN: “We affirm that Christians can and should experience victories over sin, however limited and partial, and that these victories bring glory to God and bear testimony to the power of His grace.”

    Doesn’t sound self-focused and boastful to me.

    Like

  30. Shane – And I’ve only been Presby for five years, but have swam in the water enough to have heard people who look down on those who have holiness of life as if they are legalistic.

    Erik – Legalistic? Not necessarily. Lacking self-awareness and a sense of humor? Probably.

    Like

  33. David G., an image of X, or so I’m informed. Probably a holdover from old PCUS days when the ministry was weak and the donors were powerful. I would assume that Phillips is not happy with it.

    Like

  34. Shane: There are people who deny the third use of the Law and the sanctifying work of Christ in freeing people from bondage to the rule of sin. Not most people, especially in the PCA, but some people.

    I’m sure this is true. Are they teaching this, or are they simply members of churches?

    At the same time, there are some in the PCA who are actively teaching that accountability is a means of grace, which is certainly not a confessional concept.

    So here’s the question: How do we articulate sanctification to make it clear to the first group that grace is not an excuse for sin, while also making it clear to the second group that sanctification is not an excuse for placing people under the law?

    Like

  35. I abhor myself. And I’m proud of it too. Which causes me to abhor myself even more. Which causes me to feel oh-so-pious about how humble and sanctified I am in being willing to admit my self-abhorrance. Which causes me to abhor myself even more. Which makes me feel even more proud of my humble piety….

    Like

  36. The Victory Boys get worked up into a kind of self-induced trance that no longer sees whatever is not victory. Naturally, they want to share their victories with others so must maintain the Victory Boy appearance. It’s a brew that goes down easy for awhile but it’s pretty rough the morning after.

    Like

  37. Shane, “attack what is plainly biblical and confessional”? But have you read the GRN’s linked catalog of affirmations and denials? Unlike actual confessional statements (as if we need more than what we already have–religious celebrity alert), no biblical references. These are mere human opinions. You may be less interested one one set of opinions pushing back against others, but at least one set doesn’t suffer from delusions of religious grandeur.

    Like

  38. a good soundbite from jeff—grace is not an excuse for sin, sanctification is not an excuse for placing people under the law

    humble Uriah Heep—-thanks for making me to differ from that pharisee…

    Like

  42. Something like:

    Do you acknowledge Jesus Christ as your sovereign Lord, and do you promise that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life?

    Like

  43. When did promising this:
    that, in reliance on the grace of God, you will serve him with all that is in you, forsake the world, resist the devil, put to death your sinful deeds and desires, and lead a godly life
    Come to equal: http://youtu.be/qRlGFXl_e1E

    Like

  44. @ Terry: Sure, but it’s a lot about the context in which that vow is taken.

    That vow expresses the obligations of the moral law — the obligation to love God with all heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love neighbor as self.

    No-one denies those obligations.

    But the context in which we understand those obligations is this:

    * We sin daily in thought, word, and deed.
    * “Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.”

    The accent in the Standards is on the work of the Spirit, with the offbeats being “yet not growing negligent.”

    The current push for sanctification, by contrast, puts the accents on our actions and efforts, with the offbeats being “but of course, it’s all of God.”

    Trying clapping on 2 and 4 to a John Philip Sousa march sometime.

    Like

  45. Yep. Just wanting to be fair and balanced or to preach the full counsel of God (a phrase that the OPC was fond of back in the day). There is also a question five that seems to promote some kind of accountability. Of course, if I had to choose, I’d focus only on Christ’s substitutionary atonement and his active obedience. And, I think GRN is mistaken to make sanctification part of the gospel. The gospel is Christ’s doing and dying for us–doesn’t include anything that happens in us even if it is from God.

    Like

  46. Chris,

    Well played.

    My mom has been in an OPC for a few years now but isn’t joining over the phrase “forsake the world” in the vow. And this is a woman who looks up how many bad words are in a movie before watching it. She forsakes the world far more than I do and I’m a (not so great) Reformed church officer.

    Like

  47. St Paul advises sober self-criticism, but, abhorrence? Such would be too high a view of self, and too little thinking of Christ.

    Romans 12:3 ~ For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

    Titus 2:12 ~ teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

    Setting out minds heavenward would also leave little room for much self-loathing: Phil. 4:8 & Col. 3:1f.

    Like

  51. The new covenant #3 membership vow foreshadowed. Ezek. 36:
    24 For I will take you from among the nations, and gather you out of all the countries, and will bring you into your own land.

    25 And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

    26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.

    27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.

    28 And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.

    29 And I will save you from all your uncleannesses: and I will call for the grain, and will multiply it, and lay no famine upon you.

    30 And I will multiply the fruit of the tree, and the increase of the field, that ye may receive no more the reproach of famine among the nations.

    31 Then shall ye remember your evil ways, and your doings that were not good; and ye shall loathe yourselves in your own sight for your iniquities and for your abominations.

    32 Nor for your sake do I this, saith the Lord Jehovah, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

    33 Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: In the day that I cleanse you from all your iniquities, I will cause the cities to be inhabited, and the waste places shall be builded.

    34 And the land that was desolate shall be tilled, whereas it was a desolation in the sight of all that passed by.

    35 And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities are fortified and inhabited.

    Like

  53. Darryl, I’m all for abhorrence. Loathing myself for my sin seems to come pretty easily. That’s part of God’s gift of assurance. And it does keep me coming back to Christ alone.

    Obviously, you agree with all five vows. My problem is that your rhetoric often is polarizing. Perhaps it would make things less interesting if you admitted that you agreed with your opponents on some things and to some degree. Focusing on abhorrence to the exclusion of a concomitant commitment to holiness or the accountability that submission to a group of elders brings gives the appearance to the unknowing reader that you don’t acknowledge the latter. That doesn’t seem to me to be conducive to the peace and purity of the church or to the pursuit of discussion that actually professes.

    But, it’s your blog. And you have a devoted group following you who are amused by your rhetorical style.

    Like

  55. Yes, those vows are between me and God and some form of visible representation to the well being of the church

    It’s not to make me a slave to the idiosyncratic ravings of pinheads with nothing constructive to do

    Like

  56. Terry,

    Jeff Cagle is not polarizing but he is right:

    This is the pastoral vision of the Reformation. It sees obedience as a concomitant condition and blessing for obedience as something that happens in God’s providence as means along the way to the end. God purposes to bless us, and He moves in our hearts to bring about that blessing through faith leading to obedience.

    Seeking to supplant that today is a pastoral vision in which works bring about life, in which accountability is a means of grace, in which our effort is in the driver’s seat to accomplish our sanctification. God offers blessings, but it is our obedience that secures them. These do not believe that believers are a willing people, but see them as needing to be motivated by fear of God’s discipline.

    One plank of that vision is to appeal to the Old Testament as a source of example material so as to say, “God blessed the Israelites for their obedience; in the same way, He will bless us for ours. God punished the Israelites for their disobedience; in the same way, He will punish us for ours. They were under the covenant of grace; we are under the covenant of grace.”

    In other words, anti-repub in our time is subservient to the larger agenda of neo-nomianism.

    Over against this, republication in some form or another is theologically necessary in order to hold the line. The Israelites, even the believing ones, were under a rigor and terror of the law that we are not under (says Turretin).

    We must hold this line. I wouldn’t spend 800 comments on anything less.

    Like

  58. Dr. Hart,

    What you described above truly is the Good News, the Gospel. Thank you for your delineation of it’s simplicity, especially with respect to the 2 covenants. You are exactly correct about what the Gospel Reformation Networkers want. The unfortunate reality that I am coming to is that there will always be a Gospel Reformation Network around in some form or another, because of the very high tendency of the flesh to want to work for salvation. Saying no to these things along with peer pressure is hard within a church, but it’s the only way. The GRN is trying to make the culture of the PCA just as you have outlined it above – AS LAW – man-made denominational law, that is enforceable via the church sessions, presbyteries, and the dreaded SJC. There was an excellent book written a few years ago by Susan Newman called ‘The Book of No’. In this issue, we could take some cues from Newman’s book and also Nancy Reagan’s Anti-Drug Campaign, and ‘Just Say No’ – to those with Arminian, Neonomian, and Semi-Pelagian tendencies.

    Like

  59. Job 42:5f ~ I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.

    Not unlike Isaiah’s vision of the LORD in his chapter 6. In v. 5, he responds to God’s glory thusly:
    Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

    But it doesn’t end there. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: and he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

    In Christ, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.

    Like

  60. Pingback: Jeff Cagle Gets What’s At Stake in the Presbyterian & Reformed Debates Over “Republication” | Literate Comments

  62. Dr. Hart

    Great discussion.

    Would love to know when this vow was introduced and what, if anything, preceded?

    Is this history documented? Have searched the web without success.

    Like

  63. Jeff, I’m pretty sure the vow has always been there. If you search for Presbyterian Books of Church Order, I’m sure you’ll find what you want.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.