By Arthur Zepp
MISCELLANEOUS
This is the place to set up safeguards against
the danger of a fanatical conscience, which
is sometimes associated with extreme and erroneous views respecting the
guidance of the Spirit. We lay down the following principles: First‑The Holy Spirit dwelling in the
heart does not supersede the activity of our own reason, judgment and moral
sense in the decision of practical questions. Second‑While the Holy Spirit's testimony
to the fact of adoption, including pardon, is direct and infallible, when
corroborated by the fruit of the Spirit, His guidance in the conduct of life is
not designed to be sole and infallible, but in connection with the inspired
Word, our own common sense, divine Providences, and the godly judgment of
Christian people. Third‑No guidance is of the Holy Spirit
which collides with the Bible inspired by the Spirit. In such collision the Holy Scriptures must be followed in preference to
the supposed leading of the Spirit. Fourth‑The Holy Spirit, so named because
it is His office to create and conserve holiness, never leads into sin, nor to
doctrines which belittle sin by denying its exceeding sinfulness and its desert
of eternal punishment, or by weakening the motives of repentance. Fifth‑It being the office of the Spirit to
glorify Christ, no teaching that disparages His Divinity as the only Saviour can come from the Spirit. Sixth‑It being the work of the Spirit to
regenerate and to sanctify, the declaration of any substitute for the new birth
and holiness cannot be approved by the Spirit of truth,
much less can it be inspired by Him. Seventh‑In practical matters, the province
of mutable morality, where infallible intellectual processes are involved and
erroneous conclusions are possible, it is a species of
fanaticism to ascribe such conclusions to the Holy Spirit. Eighth‑There are two classes of people
with whom pastors of churches have difficulty. The first consists of those who
consider consciences as infallible beyond the spheres of motives, dispositions
and principles, and insist on infallibility in all practical questions, the
realm of mutable ethics. They demand that the decisions of the intellect, in
respect to all moral subjects, should be regarded as always right and clothed
with the authority of intuitive judgments. just here is found a fruitful source
of most dangerous self‑deception and of fanaticism in its various forms
and degrees. The second class includes those who make an
analogous mistake in respect to the Holy Spirit. They insist that His
infallibility, evinced in His direct witness to adoption, be carried into all
questions of every‑day life, questions involving intellectual research
and the practical reason. These erroneous claims respecting conscience and
the Holy Spirit put these two classes beyond the reach of argument, persuasion,
and advice. If members of the, church, they inevitably become dictatorial,
censorious and schismatic. It is interesting and instructive to note the
relation of' the Holy Spirit to conscience in the work of regeneration and
sanctification. If man was created to be a Some Questions Question: How shall I reconcile some definitions
herein given (as for example, conscience agrees with the Bible and if its light
be followed by the heathen, salvation will result) with the doctrine of Total
Depravity.? Answer: This is simply the teaching of Paul. The
conscience of the heathen "accuses"
or "excuses," according
to whether they do good or evil. "That
which may be known of God is manifest to them for God hath showed it to
them." Question: If conscience is the reason exercised
in arriving at what is right and what is wrong, how can its decisions be
reliable if the reason, along with the rest of man, is totally depraved so that
man of himself can not think one good thought or perform one good act? Answer: The goodness in natural conscience is
not of conscience alone, but rather of the prevenient
grace of God and through the benefit of Christ's atonement which 'draws all men
to him though all do not yield to His Spirit's gracious drawings. If by the modern demand that everything moral
and religious should be settled by the individual's conscience, especially
because it is of the Twentieth Century enlightenment stamp, be meant this new
superior enlightenment is of the Spirit of God and harmonizes with the
immutable words of God, we gladly acquiesce, but if it be meant the
intelligence of this special twentieth century stamp is sufficient, independent
of the once for all revelation of God, we object to this poison in the church
pot. It is old antinomianism in new clothes. Here is a man who walks into the lawyer's office
and says I do not believe such and such a law. The lawyer replies. "I can
not help that, sir; we must go by what is written in the law." The
management of a corporation for which we worked, changed hands. I frequently forgot
and found myself saying to my new chief clerk when ordered to do something
different from the way we had formerly done, "under the former management
we did thus and so." He replied, "it matters not what you did before,
you are under a new management now; the old one don't go now." So it is of
the Christian. He is under new management. He must live not by the former
permissions of his conscience, but by what is written. Here is another man who says I will do what I
think is right and then I am all right. But how does be interpret what is
right? Through diligent search of God's law. Nay,
verily, he has an easier and less costly way. He decides by his convenient,
accommodating conscience, which allows him to violate all the Ten Commandments,
the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule without any compunctions of guilt
whatever. |
|
|