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. 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

  3. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  8. 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

  9. 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

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

  12. 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

  13. 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.