John Owen · 58 of 73

Chapter XV. Argument against the doctrime from the sins of believers. · Part 3

2. In the beginning of this section, the nilling of sin was antecedent to the sin; here it is something that may be allowed in ordinary cases, but not at all in extraordinary. So that these two expositions put together amount to thus much: “Ordinarily the apostle, antecedent to any sinning, before the lusting of the Spirit ceased, did not-will the thing that he did, which was evil; but in case of temptation it was not so;” — that is, antecedently to his acting of that which was evil, he had no opposition in the inward man unto it, nor lusting of the Spirit against it; which how it can be made good against him whose heart is upright and who hates every evil way, I know not.

3. It is confessed that “ordinarily believers sin at no worse a rate than that expressed by the apostle.” But what doth that contain? If “would not” be referred to their doing of sins, then you grant that which all this while you have endeavoured to oppose, and are reconciled to your own “contradiction of the first evidence,” — sin cannot, ordinarily or extraordinarily, be committed but by an act of the will, and yet ordinarily there is a dissent of the will also thereunto. If you adhere to your other former interpretation, that the willing against sin committed is antecedent to the commitment of it, and laid asleep before the perpetration of any sin, then this also is imposed on you, that there are sins whereunto they may be surprised by temptations that, antecedently to the commitment of them, they do not not-will, — that as to them “the Spirit lusteth not against the flesh;” which is notoriously false, for the flesh lusteth against the Spirit and all the ways of it and all the fruits thereof, and the Spirit lusteth against the flesh with all its ways and fruits.

4. It appears, then, this being the description of a regenerate man which the apostle gives, as to indwelling sin and all the fruits thereof, that it is most ridiculous to exempt his frame, in respect of such sins as he may fall into by surprisals of temptations, from this description of him, and so to frame this distinction to the apostle’s general rule, that it holds in eases ordinary, but not in extraordinary, when nothing in the whole context gives the least allowance or countenance to such a limitation.

It appears, then, notwithstanding any thing offered here to the contrary, upon due consideration of it, that believers sin not with their whole wills and full consents at any time, nor under the power of what temptation soever they may fall for a season; and that because of the residence of this principle of a contrary tendency unto sin in their wills, which is always acting, either directly in inclining unto good, or in taking off or making remiss the consent of the will to sin, notwithstanding the prevalency of the principle opposite thereunto by its committing of sin.

And hence have we sufficient light for the weakening of the argument proposed in the beginning of this chapter; for though it is weak in its foundation (as shall be showed), concluding to what the saints may do from what is forbidden them to do, that prohibition being the ordinance of God certainly to preserve them from it, yet taking it for granted that they may fall into the sin intimated, yet seeing they do it not customarily, not maliciously, not with the full and whole consent of their wills, that there is a principle in them still opposing sin, though at any time weakened by sin, the conclusion of that argument concerns them not. I say, then, first, to the major proposition, They who are in a capacity and possibility (that is, a universal possibility, not only in respect of an internal principle, but of all outward prohibiting causes, as the purpose and promise of God) of perpetrating the works of the flesh (not of bringing forth any fruits of the lusting of the flesh, which are in the best) willingly and ordinarily with the full and whole consent of their wills (in which sense alone such works of the flesh are absolutely exclusive from the kingdom of heaven), they may possibly fall out of the favour of God and into destruction. This proposition being thus limited, and the terms of it cleared, for to cause it to pass, I absolutely deny the minor, That true believers do or can so sin (that is, so bring forth the works of the flesh) as to leave no room for the continuance of mercy to them, according to the tenor of the covenant of grace.

But now frame the proposition so as the assumption may comprise believers, and we shall quickly know what to judge of it: “Those who are in a capacity or possibility of falling into such sins as deserve rejection from God, or of perpetrating works of the flesh, though they do so overborne by the power of temptation, nilling the things they do, not abiding in their sins, may fall totally and finally from God; but believers may so do.” As the matter is thus stated, the assumption may be allowed to pass upon believers, but we absolutely deny the major proposition in the sense wherein it is urged. I shall only add, that when we deny that believers can possibly fall away, it is not an absolute impossibility we intend, nor an impossibility with respect to any principle in them only that in and from itself is not perishable, nor an impossibility in respect of the manner of their acting, but such an one as, principally respecting the outward removing cause of such an actual defection, will infallibly prevent the event of it. And thus is the cloud raked by this fifth argument dispelled and scattered by the light of the very first consideration of the difference in sinning, — that is, between regenerate and unregenerate men; so that it will be an easy thing to remove and take away what afterward is insisted on for the re-enforcement and confirmation of the several propositions of it.

The major proposition he confirms from Gal. v. 21, Eph. v. 5, 6, 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, all affirming that neither whoremongers, nor adulterers, nor idolaters, nor the like, have any inheritance in the kingdom of God, or can be saved. That the intendment of the apostle is concerning them who live in a course of such sins, who sin with their whole wills and from an evil root, with whose sap they are wholly leavened and tainted throughout, not them who, through the strength of temptation and the surprisals of it, not without the renitency in their wills unto all sin, any sin, the sin wherewith they are overtaken, may possibly fall into any such sin (as did David and Peter), was before declared; and in that sense we grant the proposition.

For the proof of the minor proposition, — which should be, That believers may perpetrate the works of the flesh in the sense intended in the places of Scripture before mentioned, — he insists on two things: first, The direction of those scriptures unto believers; secondly, The experience of the ways of such persons, — that is, of believers. The apostle tells believers that they who commit such and such things, with such and such circumstances in their commitment, cannot be saved; therefore believers may commit those sins in the manner intended! What hath been said before of the use of threatenings and denunciations of judgments on impenitent sinners in respect of believers, will give a sufficient account (if there be need of any) for our denial of this consequence. And for the second, that the experience of such men’s ways and walking evinceth it, it is a plain begging of the thing under debate, and an assuming of that which was proposed to be proved, — a thing unjustly charged by him on his adversaries, as though they should confess that believers might sin to the extent of the lines drawn out in the places of Scripture mentioned and yet not lose their faith, when, because they cannot lose their faith, they deny that they can sin to that compass of excess and riot intimated.

I cannot see, then, to what end and purpose the whole ensuing discourse, from the beginning of this argument to the end of the 21st section, is. It is acknowledged that all those places do concern believers, the intendment of the Holy Ghost in them being to discover to them the nature of the sins specified, and the end of the committing of them in the way intended, and that God purposes to proceed according to the importance of what is threatened to those sins so committed with all that do them; that so they may walk watchfully and carefully, avoiding not only those things themselves, but all the ways and means leading to them (though if any one of them sin any of those sins without the deadly attendants of them mentioned in Scripture, they have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous). But that from thence it may be inferred that believers may, and some do sin, and that God intends, as it is expressed, to destroy them if they so do, when he hath promised they shall never do so, is a very weak and ridiculous argumentation. They are a medium of acquainting them with the desert of sin, the terror of the law to them that are under it, and the riches of grace in their deliverance.

It is true, “unbelievers are,” as you say, “in our judgment” (and I wonder what yours is in the case), “in a state of exclusion from the kingdom of God, whether they perpetrate the works of the flesh mentioned or no.” Unbelief is, in our judgment, sufficient of itself to exclude any one from the kingdom of God. But yet withal, in our judgment (and we desire to know yours), it is impossible that unbelievers (we mean those who are adults) should not perpetrate the same evils mentioned, or others of the same import, “all the thoughts and imaginations of their hearts being evil, and that continually,” and thereupon be farther exposed to the wrath of God, which is revealed against all that do evil. If, therefore, the discovery of a man’s desperate condition, that he may be stirred up to labour and strive for a deliverance from it, doth concern him, then these and the like passages do properly and primarily concern unbelievers, whose state, with the issue of it, is particularly described therein. And to say, as our author doth, “that it is a vain thing for the Spirit of God to threaten wrath to men upon the committing of sin, if by unbelief they are exposed antecedently to that wrath,” is to question the wisdom of Him with whom (whatever become of us poor worms) we cannot contend. He hath told us that all men by nature are children of wrath and unclean, so far as not to be able to enter into the kingdom of heaven unless they be washed and born again; and yet (we hope without the least deficiency in wisdom), hath farther revealed his wrath from heaven against the ensuing ungodliness that is committed by these children of wrath, to be executed in tribulation and anguish against every soul that so doth evil. Not to detain the reader; what hath been said and shall farther be argued concerning the difference that is between believers and unbelievers in their sinning, with that also which hath been spoken of the concernment of believers in these and the like passages of Scripture, sufficiently argues that no such inference as is made for the confirmation of the assumption of the argument under consideration, according to Mr Goodwin’s thoughts and apprehensions of it, can possibly be drawn out from them.

Sect. 22 is a pretty pageant, and by the reader’s favour I shall show it him once more: “If it be objected, ‘ That true believers have a promise from God that they shall never lose their faith,’ I answer, — First, That this hath oft been said, but never so much as once proved. Secondly, Upon examination of those scriptures wherein such promises of God are pretended to reside or to be found, we find no such thing in them. We find, indeed, many promises of their perseverance, but all of them conditional, and such whose performance, in respect of actual and complete perseverance, is suspended upon the diligent and careful use of means by men to persevere. And, lastly, to affirm that true believers can by no commission of sin or sins whatsoever, how frequently soever reiterated, how long continued in soever, ever make shipwreck of their faith, or fall away from the grace and favour of God so as to perish, what is it but to provoke the flesh to an outrageousness in sinning, and to encourage that which remains of the old man in them to bestir itself in all ways of unrighteousness? And, doubtless, the teaching of that doctrine hath been the casting of a snare upon the world, and hath caused many whose feet God had guided into ways of peace to adventure so far into desperateness of sinning, that, through the just judgment of God, their hearts never served them to return.”

Ans. 1. The foundation of this whole discourse is a supposal of promises of preserving believers in their faith, upon the ridiculous supposition after mentioned, to be asserted by the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance and the defenders of it; which Mr Goodwin knows full well to be far otherwise.

2. It hath sufficiently been proved that believers have a promise, yea, many promises, to be kept by the power of God from all and any such sin, or any such circumstance of sin, or continuance in sin, as is wholly inconsistent with believing; and that therefore they shall be preserved in believing.

3. Upon our calling the examination of the proofs of this assertion to an account, we have found it to be made up of trivial exceptions and sophistical suppositions, confident beggings and cravings of the things under contest and debate (all the endeavours to prove the promises of perseverance to be conditional having also involved in them an absolute contradiction to the truth and to themselves), no way sufficient to evince that the promises and work of God’s grace are suspended upon any conditions in men whatsoever. And, —

4. We say that the intrusion of this vain hypothesis, that believers should continue so under the consideration here intimated by you of sin, when the main of the doctrine contended for consists in a full and plain denial that they can or shall fall under it (according to the import of 1 John iii. 9, immediately to be insisted on), being preserved by the Spirit and grace of him who so writes his law in their hearts that they shall never depart from him, is the great engine you have used in all your attempts against it, being indeed a mere begging of the thing in question.

5. That there is nothing in this doctrine in the least suited to turn aside the saints of God from the holy commandment, but that, on the contrary, it is of an excellent usefulness and effectual influence for the promotion of all manner of godliness in those that are truly saints, howsoever any man may abuse it (as any other discovery of the grace of God), turning it into lasciviousness, hath been declared. What use hath been made of the contrary doctrine in the world we have hitherto had experience only in the Pelagians, Papists, Socinians, and Arminians; and with what fruits of it they have abounded the church of God doth partly know. What it is like to bring forth, being now translated into another soil, or rather having won over to it men some time of another profession, is yet somewhat, though not altogether, in abeyance.

Let us, then, with the apostle, having proceeded thus far with Mr Goodwin, that a foundation may be the better laid for the removal of what he farther adds, proceed to consider the progress of sin, and to remark from thence the difference that is between regenerate and unregenerate men in their sinning.

The second thing proposed in the apostle’s discourse of the rise and progress of sin, is the general way that lust proceedeth in for the bringing of it forth, and that is temptation: “Every man is tempted of his own lust.” This is the general way that lust proceeds in for the production of actual sin; it tempts, and he in whom it is is tempted, There is a temptation unto sin only, and a temptation unto sin by sin. The first is no sin in him that is so tempted. Our Saviour was so tempted: “He was tempted of the devil,” Matt. iv. 1; “He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin,” Heb. iv. 15. That his temptations were unto sin is apparent from the story of them. But “the prince of this world coming had nothing in him,” John xiv. 30, — found nothing in him to answer and close with his temptations; and therefore, though he was tempted, yet was he without sin. Now, though this sort of temptations from Satan is not originally our sins but his, yet there being tinder in our souls that kindles more or less in and upon every injection of his fiery darts, there being something in us to meet many, if not all, of his temptations, they prove, in some measure, in the issue to be ours. Indeed, Satan sometimes ventures upon us in things wherein he hath, doubtless, small hope of any concurrence, and so seems rather to aim at our disquiet than our sins; as in those whom he perplexes with hard and blasphemous thoughts of God, — a thing so contradictory to the very principles, not of grace only, but of that whereby we are men, that it is utterly impossible there should be any assent of the soul thereunto. To think of God as God is to think of him every thing that is good, pure, great, excellent, incomprehensible, in all perfection. Now, at the same time, to have any apprehensions of a direct contradictory importance, the mind of man is not capable. Were it not for the unbelief, causeless fears, and discontentments that in many do ensue upon temptations of this nature, — which are consequents and not effects of it, — Satan might keep this dart in his own forge for any mischief he is like to do with it. The apostle speaks here of temptations by sin as well as unto sin; and these former are men’s sins as well as their temptations. They are temptations, as tending to farther evil; they are sins, as being irregular and devious from the rule. Now, this tempting of lust compriseth two things:—

1. The general active inclination of the heart unto sin, though not fixed as unto any particular act or way of sin, the “motus primo primi.” Of this you have that testimony of God concerning man in the state of nature, Gen. vi. 5, “Every figment of the thoughts of his heart is only evil every day.” The figment or imagination of the thoughts is the very root of them, the general moulding or active preparing of the mind for the exerting of them. So 1 Chron. xxviii. 9, “The Lord understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts;” — the figments of them, the next disposition of the soul unto them; and chap. xxix. 18, “Keep this for ever in the imagination of the thoughts of their hearts,” or keep their hearts in a continual framing posture and condition of such good thoughts. This, I say, is the first way of lust’s temptation; it makes a mint of the heart, to frame readily all manner of evil desires and thoughts, that they may, as our Saviour speaks, “proceed out of the heart,” Matt. xv. 19. Their actual fixing on any object is their proceeding, antecedent whereunto they are framed and formed in the heart. Lust actually disposeth, inclines, bends the heart to things suitable to itself, or the corrupt, habitual principle which hath its residence in us.

2. The actual tumultuating of lust, and working with all its power and policy, in stirring up, provoking to, and drawing out, thoughts and contrivances of sin, with delight and complacency, in inconceivable variety; the several degrees of its progress herein being afterward described.

In the first of these there is no small difference between regenerate and unregenerate persons, and that in these two things:—

1. In its universality. In unregenerate men “every figment of their heart is only evil, and that every day.” There is a universality of actings expressed positively, and exclusively to any actings of another kind, “Every figment of their heart is only evil;” and of time, “Every day.” Whatever good they seem to do, or do, whatever duties they perform, that in them all which is the proper figment of their heart is only evil. On this account, take any duty they do, any work they perform, and weigh it in the balance, and it will be found, in respect of principles, or circumstances, or aims, to be wholly evil, — that indeed there is nothing in it that is acceptable to God; and their hearts are casting, minting, and coining sin all the day long. With believers it is not so; there is also a good treasure in their hearts, from whence they bring out good things. There is a good root in them, that bears good fruit. Though they are, or may be, overtaken with many sins, yea with great sins, yet lust doth not tempt them, as it doth unregenerate men, with a perpetual, continual, active inclination unto evil, even, some way or other, in all the good they do. The Spirit is in them, and will and doth, in what state soever they are, dispose their hearts to faith, love, meekness, and actuates those graces, at least in the elicit acts of the will; for “a good tree will bring forth good fruit.” Never any believer is or was so deserted of God, or did so forsake God, as that “every figment of his heart should be only evil, and that continually.” That no one act of sin can possibly expel his habit of grace hath been formerly showed: neither is he ever cast into such a condition but, from the good principle that is in him, there is a panting after God, a longing for his salvation, with more or less efficacy; the spark is warm and glowing, though under ashes.

2. In respect of power. Lust tempts in unregenerate men out of an absolute, uncontrollable dominion, and that with a morally irresistible efficacy. All its dominion, as hath been showed, and very much of its strength, is lost in believers. This is the intendment of the apostle’s discourse, Rom. vi., concerning the crucifying of sin by the death of Christ. The power, strength, vigour, and efficacy of it, is so far abated, weakened, mortified, that it cannot so effectually impel unto sin as it doth when it is in perfect life and strength.

But you will say, then, “If lust be thus weakened in believers more than in others, how comes it to pass that they do at any time fall into such great and heinous sins as sometimes they do, and have done? Will not this argue them to be even worse than unregenerate persons, seeing they fall into sin upon easier terms, and with less violence of impulse from indwelling sin, than they?”

Ans. 1. The examples of believers falling into great sins are rare, and such as by no means are to be accommodated to their state in their ordinary walking with God. It is true, there are examples of such falls recorded in the Scripture, that they might lie as buoys to all generations, to caution men of their danger when the waves of temptation arise; to show what is in man, in the best of men; to keep all the saints of God humble, self-empty, and in a continual dependence on Him in whom are all their springs, from whom are all their supplies: but as they are mostly all Old Testament examples, before grace for grace was given out by Jesus Christ, so they are by no means farther to be urged, nor are, but only to show that it is possible that God can keep alive the root when the tree is cut down to the ground, and cause it to bud again by the scent of the water of his Spirit flowing towards it.

2. That believers fall not into great sins at any time by the mere strength of indwelling sin, unless it be in conjunction with some violent outward temptation exceedingly surprising them; either by weakening all ways and means whereby the principle of grace should exert itself, as in the case of Peter; or by sudden heightening of their corruption by some overpowering objects, attended with all circumstances of prevalency, not without God’s withholding his special grace in an eminent manner, for ends best known to himself, as in the case of David. Hence it is that, even in such sins, we say they sin out of infirmity; that is, not out of prepense deliberation as to sin, not out of malice, not out of love to or delight in sin, but merely through want of strength, when overborne by the power of temptation.

This Mr Goodwin frames as an objection to himself, in the pursuit of the vindication of the argument under consideration, sect. 23:—

“Others plead, ‘That there is no reason to conceive that true believers, though they perpetrate the works of the flesh, should be excluded from the kingdom of heaven upon this account; because when they sin in this kind, they sin out of infirmity, and not out of malice.’ ”

Ans. I was not to choose what objections Mr Goodwin should answer, nor had the framing of them which he chose to deal withal, and therefore must be contented with them as he is pleased to afford them to us; only, if I may be allowed to speak in this case, — and I know I have the consent of many concerned in it, — I should somewhat otherwise frame this objection or answer, being partly persuaded that Mr Goodwin did not find it, but framed it himself into the shape wherein it here appears. I say, then, that the saints of God sin out of infirmity only, not maliciously, nor deditâ operâ, in cool blood, nor with their whole hearts, but purely upon the account of the weakness of their graces, being overpowered by the strength of temptation; and therefore cannot so perpetrate the works of the flesh and in such a way as must, according to the tenor of the covenant wherein they walk with God, not only deserve rejection and damnation, but also be absolutely and indispensably exclusive of them from the kingdom of God. What Mr Goodwin hath drawn forth to take off in any measure the truth of this assertion shall be considered. He says, then, —

“To say that true believers, or any other men, do perpetrate the works of the flesh out of infirmity involves a contradiction; for to do the works of the flesh implies the dominion of the flesh in the doers of them, which in sins of infirmity hath no place. The apostle clearly intimates the nature of sins of infirmity in that to the Galatians, ‘Beloved, if any man be overtaken with a fault’ (προληφθῇ), — ‘be prevented, or taken at unawares.’ When a man’s foot is taken in the snare of a temptation, only through a defect of that spiritual watchfulness over himself and his ways which he ought to keep constantly, and so sinneth, contrary to the habitual and standing frame of his heart, this man sinneth out of infirmity; but he that thus sinneth cannot, in Scripture phrase, be said either to walk or to live according to the flesh, or to do the works of the flesh, or to do the lusts or desires of the flesh, because none of these are anywhere ascribed unto or charged upon true believers, but only upon such persons who are enemies unto God and children of wrath.”

Ans. This being the substance of all that is spoken to the business in hand, I have transcribed it at large, that with its answer it may at once lie under the reader’s view. I say, then, —

1. We give this reason that “believers cannot perpetrate the works of the flesh” in the sense contended about, because they sin out of infirmity; and do not say that they so “perpetrate the works of the flesh out of infirmity.” But if by “perpetrating the works of the flesh” you intend only the bringing forth at any time, or under any temptation whatsoever, any fruits of the flesh, such as every sin is, that this may not be done out of infirmity, or that it involves a contradiction to say so, is indeed not to know what you say, to contradict yourself, and to deny that there be any sins of infirmity at all, which that there are you granted in the words foregoing, and describe the nature of it in the words following. They, doubtless, in whom the flesh always lusteth against the Spirit are sometimes led away and enticed by their own lusts, so as to bring forth the fruits of it.