Christian Liberty
Penelope Marris
We are now to treat of Christian Liberty, the explanation of which
certainly ought not to be omitted by any one proposing to give a
compendious summary of Gospel doctrine. For it is a matter of primary
necessity, one without the knowledge of which the conscience can
scarcely attempt any thing without hesitation, in many must demur and
fluctuate, and in all proceed with fickleness and trepidation. In
particular, it forms a proper appendix to Justification, and is of no
little service in understanding its force. No, those who seriously fear
God will here perceive the incomparable advantages of a doctrine which
wicked scoffers are constantly assailing with their jibes; the
intoxication of mind under which they labor leaving their petulance
without restraint. This, therefore, seems the proper place for
considering the subject. Moreover, though it has already been
occasionally adverted to, there was an advantage in deferring the fuller
consideration of it till now, for the moment any mention is made of
Christian liberty lust begins to boil, or insane commotions arise, if a
speedy restraint is not laid on those licentious spirits by whom the
best things are perverted into the worst. For they either, under pretext
of this liberty, shake off all obedience to God, and break out into
unbridled licentiousness, or they feel indignant, thinking that all
choice, order, and restraint, are abolished. What can we do when thus
encompassed with straits? Are we to bid adieu to Christian liberty, in
order that we may cut off all opportunity for such perilous
consequences? But, as we have said, if the subject be not understood,
neither Christ, nor the truth of the Gospel, nor the inward peace of the
soul, is properly known. Our endeavor must rather be, while not
suppressing this very necessary part of doctrine, to obviate the absurd
objections to which it usually gives rise.
Penelope Marris
Christian liberty seems to me to consist of three parts. First, the
consciences of believers, while seeking the assurance of their
justification before God, must rise above the law, and think no more of
obtaining justification by it. For while the law leaves not one man
righteous, we are either excluded from all hope of justification, or we
must be loosed from the law, and so loosed as that no account at all
shall be taken of works. For he who imagines that in order to obtain
justification he must bring any degree of works whatever, cannot fix any
mode or limit, but makes himself debtor to the whole law. Therefore,
laying aside all mention of the law, and all idea of works, we must in
the matter of justification have recourse to the mercy of God only;
turning away our regard from ourselves, we must look only to Christ. For
the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy
and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would
obtain any assurance of this, they must give no place to the law. Still
it cannot be rightly inferred from this that believers have no need of
the law. It ceases not to teach, exhort, and urge them to good, although
it is not recognized by their consciences before the judgment-seat of
God. The two things are very different, and should be well and carefully
distinguished. The whole lives of Christians ought to be a kind of
aspiration after piety, seeing they are called unto holiness, (Eph. 1:4;
1 Thess. 4:5.) The office of the law is to excite them to the study of
purity and holiness, by reminding them of their duty. For when the
conscience feels anxious as to how it may have the favor of God, as to
the answer it could give, and the confidence it would feel, if brought
to his judgment-seat, in such a case the requirements of the law are not
to be brought forward, but Christ, who surpasses all the perfection of
the law, is alone to be held forth for righteousness.
Penelope Marris
On this almost the whole subject of the Epistle to the Galatians hinges;
for it can be proved from express passages that those are absurd
interpreters who teach that Paul there contends only for freedom from
ceremonies. Of such passages are the following: "Christ has redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." "Stand fast,
therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be not
entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you,
that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I
testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to
do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of
you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace," (Gal. 3:13;
5:1-4.) These words certainly refer to something of a higher order than
freedom from ceremonies. I confess, indeed, that Paul there treats of
ceremonies, because he was contending with false apostles, who were
plotting, to bring back into the Christian Church those ancient shadows
of the law which were abolished by the advent of Christ. But, in
discussing this question, it was necessary to introduce higher matters,
on which the whole controversy turns. First, because the brightness of
the Gospel was obscured by those Jewish shadows, he shows that in Christ
we have a full manifestation of all those things which were typified by
Mosaic ceremonies. Secondly, as those impostors instilled into the
people the most pernicious opinion, that this obedience was sufficient
to merit the grace of God, he insists very strongly that believers shall
not imagine that they can obtain justification before God by any works,
far less by those paltry observances. At the same time, he shows that by
the cross of Christ they are free from the condemnation of the law, to
which otherwise all men are exposed, so that in Christ alone they can
rest in full security. This argument is pertinent to the present
subject, (Gal. 4:5, 21, etc.) Lastly, he asserts the right of believers
to liberty of conscience, a liberty which may not be restrained without
necessity.
Penelope Marris
Another point which depends on the former is, that consciences obey the
law, not as if compelled by legal necessity; but being free from the
yoke of the law itself, voluntarily obey the will of God. Being
constantly in terror so long as they are under the dominion of the law,
they are never disposed promptly to obey God, unless they have
previously obtained this liberty. Our meaning shall be explained more
briefly and clearly by an example. The command of the law is, "Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy might," (Deut. 6:5.) To accomplish this, the soul must
previously be divested of every other thought and feeling, the heart
purified from all its desires, all its powers collected and united on
this one object. Those who, in comparison of others, have made much
progress in the way of the Lord, are still very far from this goal. For
although they love God in their mind, and with a sincere affection of
heart, yet both are still in a great measure occupied with the lusts of
the flesh, by which they are retarded and prevented from proceeding with
quickened pace towards God. They indeed make many efforts, but the flesh
partly enfeebles their strength, and partly binds them to itself. What
can they do while they thus feel that there is nothing of which they are
less capable than to fulfill the law? They wish, aspire, endeavor; but
do nothing with the requisite perfection. If they look to the law, they
see that every work which they attempt or design is accursed. Nor can
any one deceive himself by inferring that the work is not altogether
bad, merely because it is imperfect, and, therefore, that any good which
is in it is still accepted of God. For the law demanding perfect love
condemns all imperfection, unless its rigor is mitigated. Let any man
therefore consider his work which he wishes to be thought partly good,
and he will find that it is a transgression of the law by the very
circumstance of its being imperfect.
Penelope Marris
See how our works lie under the curse of the law if they are tested by
the standard of the law. But how can unhappy souls set themselves with
alacrity to a work from which they cannot hope to gain any thing in
return but cursing? On the other hand, if freed from this severe
exaction, or rather from the whole rigor of the law, they hear
themselves invited by God with paternal levity, they will cheerfully and
alertly obey the call, and follow his guidance. In one word, those who
are bound by the yoke of the law are like servants who have certain
tasks daily assigned them by their masters. Such servants think that
nothing has been done; and they dare not come into the presence of their
masters until the exact amount of labor has been performed. But sons who
are treated in a more candid and liberal manner by their parents,
hesitate not to offer them works that are only begun or half finished,
or even with something faulty in them, trusting that their obedience and
readiness of mind will be accepted, although the performance be less
exact than was wished. Such should be our feelings, as we certainly
trust that our most indulgent Parent will approve our services, however
small they may be, and however rude and imperfect. Thus He declares to
us by the prophet, "I will spare them as a man spars his own son that
serves him," (Gal. 3:17;) where the word spare evidently means
indulgence, or connivance at faults, while at the same time service is
remembered. This confidence is necessary in no slight degree, since
without it every thing should be attempted in vain; for God does not
regard any sock of ours as done to himself, unless truly done from a
desire to serve him. But how can this be amidst these terrors, while we
doubt whether God is offended or served by our work?
Penelope Marris
This is the reason why the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ascribes
to faith all the good works which the holy patriarchs are said to have
performed, and estimates them merely by faith, (Heb. 11:2.) In regard to
this liberty there is a remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Romans,
where Paul argues, "Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not
under the law, but under grace," (Rom. 6:14.) For after he had exhorted
believers, "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye
should obey it in the lusts thereof: Neither yield ye your members as
instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God,
as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments
of righteousness unto God;" they might have objected that they still
bore about with them a body full of lust, that sin still dwelt in them.
He therefore comforts them by adding, that they are freed from the law;
as if he had said, Although you feel that sin is not yet extinguished,
and that righteousness does not plainly live in you, you have no cause
for fear and dejection, as if God were always offended because of the
remains of sin, since by grace you are freed from the law, and your
works are not tried by its standard. Let those, however who infer that
they may sin because they are not under the law, understand that they
have no right to this liberty, the end of which is to encourage us in
well-doing.
Penelope Marris
The third part of this liberty is that we are not bound before God to
any observance of external things which are in themselves indifferent,
("adiafora") but that we are now at full liberty either to use or omit
them. The knowledge of this liberty is very necessary to us; where it is
wanting our consciences will have no rest, there will be no end of
superstition. In the present day many think us absurd in raising a
question as to the free eating of flesh, the free use of dress and
holidays, and similar frivolous trifles, as they think them; but they
are of more importance than is commonly supposed. For when once the
conscience is entangled in the net, it enters a long and inextricable
labyrinth, from which it is afterwards most difficult to escape. When a
man begins to doubt whether it is lawful for him to use linen for
sheets, shirts, napkins, and handkerchiefs, he will not long be secure
as to hemp, and will at last have doubts as to tow; for he will revolve
in his mind whether he cannot sup without napkins, or dispense with
handkerchiefs. Should he deem a daintier food unlawful, he will
afterwards feel uneasy for using bread and common eatables, because he
will think that his body might possibly be supported on a still meaner
food. If he hesitates as to a more genial wine, he will scarcely drink
the worst with a good conscience; at last he will not dare to touch
water if more than usually sweet and pure. In fine, he will come to
this, that he will deem it criminal to trample on a straw lying in his
way. For it is no trivial dispute that is here commenced, the point in
debate being, whether the use of this thing or that is in accordance
with the divine will, which ought to take precedence of all our acts and
counsels. Here some must by despair be hurried into an abyss, while
others, despising God and casting off his fear, will not be able to make
a way for themselves without ruin. When men are involved in such doubts
whatever be the direction in which they turn, every thing they see must
offend their conscience.
Penelope Marris
"I know," says Paul, "that there is nothing unclean of itself," (by
unclean meaning unholy;) "but to him that esteems any thing to be
unclean, to him it is unclean," (Rom. 14:14.) By these words he makes
all external things subject to our liberty, provided the nature of that
liberty approves itself to our minds as before God. But if any
superstitious idea suggests scruples, those things which in their own
nature were pure are to us contaminated. Wherefore the apostle adds,
"Happy is he that condemns not himself in that which he allows. And he
that doubts is damned if he eat, because he eats not of faith: for
whatsoever is not of faith is sin," (Rom. 14:22, 23.) When men, amid
such difficulties, proceed with greater confidence, securely doing
whatever pleases them, do they not in so far revolt from God? Those who
are thoroughly impressed with some fear of God, if forced to do many
things repugnant to their consciences are discouraged and filled with
dread. All such persons receive none of the gifts of God with
thanksgiving, by which alone Paul declares that all things are
sanctified for our use, (1 Tim. 4: 5.) By thanksgiving I understand that
which proceeds from a mind recognizing the kindness and goodness of God
in his gifts. For many, indeed, understand that the blessings which they
enjoy are the gifts of God, and praise God in their words; but not being
persuaded shalt these have been given to them, how can they give thanks
to God as the giver? In one word, we see where this liberty tends,
namely, that we are to use the gifts of God without any scruple of
conscience, without any perturbation of mind, for the purpose for which
he gave them: in this way our souls may both have peace with him, and
recognize his liberality towards us. For here are comprehended all
ceremonies of free observance, so that while our consciences are not to
be laid under the necessity of observing them, we are also to remember
that, by the kindness of God, the use of them is made subservient to
edification.
Penelope Marris
It is, however, to be carefully observed, that Christian liberty is in
all its parts a spiritual matter, the whole force of which consists in
giving peace to trembling consciences, whether they are anxious and
disquieted as to the forgiveness of sins, or as to whether their
imperfect works, polluted by the infirmities of the flesh, are pleasing
to God, or are perplexed as to the use of things indifferent. It is,
therefore, perversely interpreted by those who use it as a cloak for
their lusts, that they may licentiously abuse the good gifts of God, or
who think there is no liberty unless it is used in the presence of men,
and, accordingly, in using it pay no regard to their weak brethren.
Under this head, the sins of the present age are more numerous. For
there is scarcely any one whose means allow him to live sumptuously, who
does not delight in feasting, and dress, and the luxurious grandeur of
his house, who wishes not to surpass his neighbor in every kind of
delicacy, and does not plume himself amazingly on his splendor. And all
these things are defended under the pretext of Christian liberty. They
say they are things indifferent: I admit it, provided they are used
indifferently. But when they are too eagerly longed for, when they are
proudly boasted of, when they are indulged in luxurious profusion,
things which otherwise were in themselves lawful are certainly defiled
by these vices. Paul makes an admirable distinction in regard to things
indifferent: "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are
defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and
conscience is defiled" (Tit. 1:15.) For why is a woe pronounced upon the
rich who have received their consolation? (Luke 6:24,) who are full, who
laugh now, who "lie upon beds of ivory and stretch themselves upon their
couches;" "join house to house," and "lay field to field;" "and the harp
and the viol, the tablet and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts," (Amos
6:6; Isa. 5:8, 10.) Certainly ivory and gold, and riches, are the good
creatures of God, permitted, nay destined, by divine providence for the
use of man; nor was it ever forbidden to laugh, or to be full, or to add
new to old and hereditary possessions, or to be delighted with music, or
to drink wine. This is true, but when the means are supplied to roll and
wallow in luxury, to intoxicate the mind and soul with present and be
always hunting after new pleasures, is very far from a legitimate use of
the gifts of God. Let them, therefore, suppress immoderate desire,
immoderate profusion, vanity, and arrogance, that they may use the gifts
of God purely with a pure conscience. When their mind is brought to this
state of soberness, they will be able to regulate the legitimate use. On
the other hand, when this moderation is wanting, even plebeian and
ordinary delicacies are excessive. For it is a true saying, that a
haughty mind often dwells in a coarse and homely garb, while true
humility lurks under fine linen and purple. Let every one then live in
his own station, poorly or moderately, or in splendor; but let all
remember that the nourishment which God gives is for life, not luxury,
and let them regard it as the law of Christian liberty, to learn with
Paul in whatever state they are, "therewith to be content," to know
"both how to be abased," and "how to abound," "to be full and to be
hungry, both to abound and to suffer need," (Phil. 4:11.)
Penelope Marris
Very many also err in this: as if their liberty were not safe and
entire, without having men to witness it, they use it indiscriminately
and imprudently, and in this way often give offense to weak brethren.
You may see some in the present day who cannot think they possess their
liberty unless they come into possession of it by eating flesh on
Friday. Their eating I blame not, but this false notion must be driven
from their minds: for they ought to think that their liberty gains
nothing new by the sight of men, but is to be enjoyed before God, and
consists as much in abstaining as in using. If they understand that it
is of no consequence in the sight of God whether they eat flesh or eggs,
whether they are clothed in red or in black, this is amply sufficient.
The conscience to which the benefit of this liberty was due is loosed.
Therefore, though they should afterwards, during their whole life,
abstain from flesh, and constantly wear one color, they are not less
free. Nay, just because they are free, they abstain with a free
conscience. But they err most egregiously in paying no regard to the
infirmity of their brethren, with which it becomes us to bear, so as not
rashly to give them offense. But it is sometimes also of consequence
that we should assert our liberty before men. This I admit: yet must we
use great caution in the mode, lest we should cast off the care of the
weak whom God has specially committed to us.
Penelope Marris
I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to
be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded.
This will afterwards enable us to determine what scope there is for our
liberty among men. We are pleased with the common division into offense
given and offense taken, since it has the plain sanction of Scripture,
and not improperly expresses what is meant. If from unseasonable levity
or wantonness, or rashness, you do any thing out of order or not in its
own place, by which the weak or unskillful are offended, it may be said
that offense has been given by you, since the ground of offense is owing
to your fault. And in general, offense is said to be given in any matter
where the person from whom it has proceeded is in fault. Offense is said
to be taken when a thing otherwise done, not wickedly or unseasonably,
is made an occasion of offense from malevolence or some sinister
feeling. For here offense was not given, but sinister interpreters
ceaselessly take offense. By the former kind, the weak only, by the
latter, the ill-tempered and Pharisaical are offended. Wherefore, we
shall call the one the offense of the weak, the other the offense of
Pharisees, and we will so temper the use of our liberty as to make it
yield to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not to the austerity of
Pharisees. What is due to infirmity is fully shown by Paul in many
passages. "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye." Again, "Let us not
judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a
stumbling-block, or an occasion to fall, in his brother's way;" and many
others to the same effect in the same place, to which, instead of
quoting them here, we refer the reader. The sum is, "We then that are
strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please
ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to
edification." elsewhere he says, "Take heed lest by any means this
liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak." Again
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for
conscience sake." "Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other."
Finally, "Give none offense, neither to the Jews nor to the Gentiles nor
to the Church of God." Also in another passage, "Brethren, ye have been
called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh,
but by love serve one another." Thus, indeed, it is: our liberty was not
given us against our weak neighbors, whom charity enjoins us to serve in
all things, but rather that, having peace with God in our minds, we
should live peaceably among men. What value is to be set upon the
offense of the Pharisees we learn from the words of our Lord, in which
he says, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind," (Matt.
15:14.) The disciples had intimated that the Pharisees were offended at
his words. He answers that they are to be let alone that their offense
is not to be regarded.
Penelope Marris
The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the
weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see
not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without
being constantly in the greatest danger. But Paul seems to me to have
marked out most clearly, as well by example as by doctrine, how far our
liberty, in the case of offense, is to be modified or maintained. When
he adopts Timothy as his companion, he circumcises him: nothing can
induce him to circumcise Titus, (Acts 16:3; Gal. 2:3.) The acts are
different, but there is no difference in the purpose or intention; in
circumcising Timothy, as he was free from all men, he made himself the
servant of all: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the
Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might
gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as
without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to
Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became
I as weak that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men,
that I might by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:20-22.) We have here the
proper modification of liberty, when in things indifferent it can be
restrained with some advantage. What he had in view in firmly resisting
the circumcision of Titus, he himself testifies when he thus writes:
"But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be
circumcised: and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who
came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you," (Gal. 2:3-5.) We here see the necessity of
vindicating our liberty when, by the unjust exactions of false apostles,
it is brought into danger with weak consciences. In all cases we must
study charity, and look to the edification of our neighbor. "All things
are lawful for me," says he, "but all things are not expedient; all
things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his
own, but every man another's wealth," (1 Cor. 10:23, 24.) There is
nothing plainer than this rule, that we are to use our liberty if it
tends to the edification of our neighbor, but if inexpedient for our
neighbor, we are to abstain from it. There are some who pretend to
imitate this prudence of Paul by abstinence from liberty, while there is
nothing for which they less employ it than for purposes of charity.
Consulting their own ease, they would have all mention of liberty
buried, though it is not less for the interest of our neighbor to use
liberty for their good and edification, than to modify it occasionally
for their advantage. It is the part of a pious man to think, that the
free power conceded to him in external things is to make him the readier
in all offices of charity.
Penelope Marris
Whatever I have said about avoiding offenses, I wish to be referred to
things indifferent. Things which are necessary to be done cannot be
omitted from any fear of offense. For as our liberty is to be made
subservient to charity, so charity must in its turn be subordinate to
purity of faith. Here, too, regard must be had to charity, but it must
go as far as the altar; that is, we must not offend God for the sake of
our neighbor. We approve not of the intemperance of those who do every
thing tumultuously, and would rather burst through every restraint at
once than proceed step by step. But neither are those to be listened to
who, while they take the lead in a thousand forms of impiety, pretend
that they act thus to avoid giving offense to their neighbor, as if in
the meantime they did not train the consciences of their neighbors to
evil, especially when they always stick in the same mire without any
hope of escape. When a neighbor is to be instructed, whether by doctrine
or by example, then smooth-tongued men say that he is to be fed with
milk, while they are instilling into him the worst and most pernicious
opinions. Paul says to the Corinthians, "I have fed you with milk, and
not with meat," (1 Cor. 3:2;) but had there then been a Popish mass
among them, would he have sacrificed as one of the modes of giving them
milk? By no means: milk is not poison. It is false then to say they
nourish those whom, under a semblance of soothing they cruelly murder.
But granting that such dissimulation may be used for a time, how long
are they to make their pupils drink that kind of milk? If they never
grow up so as to be able to bear at least some gentle food, it is
certain that they have never been reared on milk. Two reasons prevent me
from now entering farther into contest with these people, first, their
follies are scarcely worthy of refutation, seeing all men of sense must
nauseate them; and, secondly, having already amply refuted them in
special treatises, I am unwilling to do it over again. Let my readers
only bear in mind, first, that whatever be the offenses by which Satan
and the world attempt to lead us away from the law of God, we must,
nevertheless, strenuously proceed in the course which he prescribes;
and, secondly, that whatever dangers impend, we are not at liberty to
deviate one nail's breadth from the command of God, that on no pretext
is it lawful to attempt any thing but what he permits.
Penelope Marris
Since by means of this privilege of liberty which we have described,
believers have derived authority from Christ not to entangle themselves
by the observance of things in which he wished them to be free, we
conclude that their consciences are exempted from all human authority.
For it were unbecoming that the gratitude due to Christ for his liberal
gift should perish or that the consciences of believers should derive no
benefit from it. We must not regard it as a trivial matter when we see
how much it cost our Savior, being purchased not with silver or gold,
but with his own blood, (1 Pet. 1:18, 19;) so that Paul hesitates not to
say that Christ has died in vain, if we place our souls under subjection
to men, (Gal. 5:1, 4; 1 Cor. 7:23.) Several chapters of the Epistle to
the Galatians are wholly occupied with showing that Christ is obscured,
or rather extinguished to us, unless our consciences maintain their
liberty; from which they have certainly fallen, if they can be bound
with the chains of laws and constitutions at the pleasure of men. But as
the knowledge of this subject is of the greatest importance, so it
demands a longer and clearer exposition. For the moment the abolition of
human constitutions is mentioned, the greatest disturbances are excited,
partly by the seditious, and partly by calumniators, as if obedience of
every kind were at the same time abolished and overthrown.
Penelope Marris
Therefore, lest this prove a stumbling-block to any, let us observe that
in man government is twofold: the one spiritual, by which the conscience
is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the
individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we
are bold to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not
inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating
that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the
latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and
clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among
his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat
within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may
call the one the spiritual, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two,
as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other.
When the one is considered, we should call off our minds, and not allow
them to think of the other. For there exists in man a kind of two
worlds, over which different kings and different laws can preside. By
attending to this distinction, we will not erroneously transfer the
doctrine of the gospel concerning spiritual liberty to civil order, as
if in regard to external government Christians were less subject to
human laws, because their consciences are unbound before God, as if they
were exempted from all carnal service, because in regard to the Spirit
they are free. Again because even in those constitutions which seem to
relate to the spiritual kingdom, there may be some delusion, it is
necessary to distinguish between those which are to be held legitimate
as being agreeable to the Word of God, and those, on the other hand,
which ought to have no place among the pious. We shall elsewhere have an
opportunity of speaking of civil government. For the present, also, I
defer speaking of ecclesiastical laws, because that subject will be more
fully discussed in the Fourth Book when we come to treat of the Power of
the Church. We would thus conclude the present discussion. The question,
as I have said, though not very obscure, or perplexing in itself,
occasions difficulty to many, because they do not distinguish with
sufficient accuracy between what is called the external forum, and the
forum of conscience. What increases the difficulty is, that Paul
commands us to obey the magistrate, "not only for wrath, but also for
conscience sake," (Rom. 13:1, 5.) Whence it follows that civil laws also
bind the conscience. Were this so, then what we said a little ago, and
are still to say of spiritual governments would fall. To solve this
difficulty, the first thing of importance is to understand what is meant
by conscience. The definition must be sought in the etymology of the
word. For as men, when they apprehend the knowledge of things by the
mind and intellects are said to know, and hence arises the term
knowledge or science, so when they have a sense of the divine justice
added as a witness which allows them not to conceal their sins, but
drags them forward as culprits to the bar of God, that sense is called
conscience. For it stands as it were between God and man, not suffering
man to suppress what he knows in himself; but following him on even to
conviction. It is this that Paul means when he says, "Their conscience
also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else
excusing one another," (Rom. 2:15.) Simple knowledge may exist in man,
as it were shut up; therefore this sense, which sits man before the bar
of God, is set over him as a kind of sentinel to observe and spy out all
his secrets, that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence the
ancient proverb, Conscience is a thousand witnesses. For the same reason
Peter also employs the expression, "the answer of a good conscience," (1
Pet. 3:21,) for tranquility of mind; when persuaded of the grace of
Christ, we boldly present ourselves before God. And the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews says, that we have "no more conscience of sins,"
(Heb. 10: 2,) that we are held as freed or acquitted, so that sin no
longer accuses us.
Penelope Marris
Wherefore, as works have respect to men, so conscience bears reference
to God, a good conscience being nothing else than inward integrity of
heart. In this sense Paul says that "the end of the commandment is
charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good consciences and of faith
unfeigned" (1 Tim. 1:5.) He afterwards, in the same chapter, shows how
much it differs from intellect when he speaks of "holding faith, and a
good conscience; which some having put away, have made shipwreck," (1
Tim. 1:19.) For by these words he intimates, that it is a lively
inclination to serve God, a sincere desire to live in piety and
holiness. Sometimes, indeed, it is even extended to men, as when Paul
testifies, "Herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience
void of offense toward God, and toward men," (Acts 24:16.) He speaks
thus, because the fruits of a good conscience go forth and reach even to
men. But, as I have said, properly speaking, it refers to God only.
Hence a law is said to bind the conscience, because it simply binds the
individual, without looking at men, or taking any account of them. For
example, God not only commands us to keep our mind chaste and pure from
lust, but prohibits all external lasciviousness or obscenity of
language. My conscience is subjected to the observance of this law,
though there were not another man in the world, and he who violates it
sins not only by setting a bad example to his brethren, but stands
convicted in his conscience before God. The same rule does not hold in
things indifferent. We ought to abstain from every thing that produces
offense, but with a free conscience. Thus Paul, speaking of meat
consecrated to idols, says, "If any man say unto you, This is offered in
sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for
conscience sake:" "Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other,"
(1 Cor. 10:28, 29.) A believer, after being previously admonished, would
sin were he still to eat meat so offered. But though abstinence, on his
part, is necessary, in respect of a brother, as it is prescribed by God,
still he ceases not to retain liberty of conscience. We see how the law,
while binding the external act, leaves the conscience unbound.
Penelope Marris
<pen...@rotterdam.net> wrote:
>Part One
>We are now to treat of Christian Liberty, the explanation of which
I am a pathological narcissist posting what I know is off topic, doing
the net.equivalent of tagging Jewish homes with swastikas, racist
graffiti outside black homes etc.
I know that this is a hate crime so I go after the one minority I
irrationally hate that "polite society" still allows me to.
This is because I am mentally ill.
The condition is called pathological narcissist personality disorder.
This explains why I am such a jerk towards people who live outside my
little fantasy world...
http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html
"If you're like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their
casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform
narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better
nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see
is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem
here is that narcissists lack empathy."
The person who owns that web page is right - it is impossible to
appeal to my better nature because I have none. I have no empathy and
am incapable of seeing my actions from the point of view of those at
the receiving end.
"Lacking empathy is a profound disturbance to the narcissist's
thinking (cognition) and feeling (affectivity). Even when very
intelligent, narcissists can't reason well. One I've worked with
closely does something I characterize as "analysis by eggbeater."
They don't understand the meaning of what people say and they don't
grasp the meaning of the written word either -- because so much of
the meaning of anything we say depends on context and affect,
narcissists (lacking empathy and thus lacking both context and
affect) hear only the words. (Discussions with narcissists can be
really weird and disconcerting; they seem to think that using some of
the same words means that they are following a line of conversation
or reasoning. Thus, they will go off on tangents and irrelevancies,
apparently in the blithe delusion that they understand what others
are talking about.) And, frankly, they don't hear all the words,
either. They can pay attention only to stuff that has them in it.
This is not merely a bad habit -- it's a cognitive deficiency.
Narcissists pay attention only to themselves and stuff that affects
them personally. However, since they don't know what other people are
doing, narcissists can't judge what will affect them personally and
seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get
trouble back. They won't take other people's feelings into
consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will
react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get
really pissed off by being lied to or lied about."
Yep, that's me.
"Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only
by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations -- though,
again, this can be obscure to casual observation if you don't know
what they think their reputations are, and what they believe others
think of them may be way out of touch with reality [see remarks on
John Cheever elsewhere on this page]. Their moral intelligence is
about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules
they recognize are things that have been specifically required,
permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they
know personally. Anyhow, narcissists can't be counted on not to do
something just because it's wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as
long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can't
stop them or punish them (i.e., they don't care what you think unless
they're afraid of you)."
I know I don't have any mature conscience.
"Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b)
extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen
as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not
actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) -- or else
they are worthless. There's no middle ground of ordinary normal
humanity for narcissists. They can't tolerate the least disagreement.
In fact, if you say, "Please don't do that again -- it hurts,"
narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that
they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something
like "I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn't
hurt you and you are lying about it now..." -- sorry, folks, I get
lost after that. Anyhow, narcissists are habitually cruel in little
ways, as well as big ones, because they're paying attention to their
fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your
imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might
do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in
one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will
withdraw. Be wary of wandering into this dragon's cave -- narcissists
will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own
self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate
restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes
physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt,
threats, etc., and then -- well, it's kind of like they had
indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: "There. Now I
feel better. Where were we?" They feel better, so they expect you to
feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn
around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to
this kind of treatment, they will say, "You just have to accept me
the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are
too stupid to understand how special I am.)" Accepting them as they
are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice. The
other "punishment" narcissists mete out is banishing you from their
glorious presence -- this can turn into a farce, since by this point
you are probably praying to be rescued, "Dear God! How do I get out
of this?" The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the
withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while -- a
few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use
you for something) -- the narcissist will expect you to have learned
your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned
your lesson, you won't answer that call. They can't see that they
have a problem; it's always somebody else who has the problem and
needs to change. Therapies work at all only when the individual wants
to change and, though narcissists hate their real selves, they don't
want to change -- they want the world to change. And they criticize,
gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone
almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists
regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or
actual crime, and about whom they won't brook the slightest
criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though
they'll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently
they don't know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists
just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other
authority figures that they've feared die off, and there's less and
less outside influence to keep them in check."
That's right. I'm only posting this rudeness and stupidity to atheists
because they took exception to my crashing their group and killfiling
anybody who objected to my bullshit.
haiku jones
> Part One
> We are now to treat of Christian Liberty, the explanation of which
> certainly ought not to be omitted by any one proposing to give a
> compendious summary of Gospel doctrine.
Oh, quite the contrary -- it is entirely possible that the
capture of alpha-proteobacteria by methanogens,
leading to the organelle now known as the mitochondrion,
was what enabled eukaryotic cells to explore morphological
spaces forever barred to the bacteria, whose much smaller
intra-membrane volumes strictly limited the energy
that could be stored as a proton gradient.
Hope this helps.
Haiku Jones
Enkidu
> We are now to treat of Christian Liberty . . .
. . . and virgin sex, fat free lard, and square circles, I presume.
--
Enkidu
haiku jones
> Part Two
> Christian liberty seems to me to consist of three parts. First, the
> consciences of believers, while seeking the assurance of their
> justification before God, must rise above the law, and think no more of
> obtaining justification by it.
On the other hand, as has been remarked, "Poltergeists
are the principal form of spontaneous material
mainfestation" (P. Dog, "Pogo")
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Part Four
> Another point which depends on the former is, that consciences obey the
> law, not as if compelled by legal necessity; but being free from the
> yoke of the law itself, voluntarily obey the will of God. B
And since you now say that, I see no way you can continue to
deny that Kopi Luwak, being harvested as it is from
the feces of the Asian Civet Cat (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus),
is the world's most expensive coffee.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Another point which depends on the former is, that consciences obey the
> law, not as if compelled by legal necessity; but being free from the
> yoke of the law itself, voluntarily obey the will of God.
How is lightning like a violist's fingers?
Neither one strikes in the same place twice.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Part Five
> See how our works lie under the curse of the law if they are tested by
> the standard of the law.
On the other hand, what's the difference between
a violin and a viola?
1. The viola burns longer.
2. The viola holds more beer.
3. You can tune the violin.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Part Six
> This is the reason why the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews ascribes
> to faith all the good works which the holy patriarchs are said to have
> performed, and estimates them merely by faith, (Heb. 11:2.)
In spite of that, I still demand to know: what's the difference
between a viola and a trampoline?
{You take your shoes off to jump on a trampoline)
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Part Seven
> The third part of this liberty is that we are not bound before God to
> any observance of external things which are in themselves indifferent,
> ("adiafora") but that we are now at full liberty either to use or omit
> them.
Calvin wrote the "Institute's of Christian
Religion" when only 27 years old at an
impressionable time in history when an
organized theology was needed. Calvin has
misled so many people that many still consider
the writing of the "Institute's" the single
most influential book on theology in church
history. One wonders what his writing could
have achieved in the hearts and minds of men
if only he truly had the love of Jesus. His
insistent stress upon the awful majesty and
righteousness of God drove him to emphasize
with equal severity the utter worthlessness of
fallen and sinful man. He taught the belief
that we are powerless in the salvation act,
the belief that man's salvation rests solely
upon grace, but only for the elect. Because
man is fallen and the human intellect is
distorted and has become the instrument of his
sin, the consequences of natural theology are
idolatrous. The followers of Calvin lived in
the delusion that the spirit of Christ worked
within them, drawing them toward the
perfection that God had called them. Calvin's
doctrines had a tendency toward perfectionism
and demanded rigorous control over private and
social behavior. Calvin never had the humility
to acknowledge that those like him who seek to
be justified by the law have fallen from
grace. Certainly, Calvin was not saved.
In all essentials, Calvin's state was a
theocratic dictatorship. Contrary to the
teachings of Jesus, he assumed the existence
of a capitalist economic system for society
and set up his ethics on that basis. Like the
lukewarm church of today, he identified good
works with the accumulation of riches.
According to this perverse logic, God
dispenses riches and poverty as He wills. It
is not man's merit, or man's toil that gets a
person riches, rather it is God's grace and
riches are given as an evidence of God's
favor.
(http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/Calvinism/
john_calvin_exposed.htm)
Haiku Jones
Pink Freud
"haiku jones" <575j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3a9dc5aa-1a76-4308...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
<piggybacking>
Wow, is that stupid fucking bitch Penelope Marris *still* spamming
alt.atheism?
How very Christian of her.
haiku jones
> Part Eight
> "I know," says Paul, "that there is nothing unclean of itself," (by
> unclean meaning unholy;) "but to him that esteems any thing to be
> unclean, to him it is unclean," (Rom. 14:14.)
I still fail to see what relevance this has to the question
of how "Lear" would have turned out if the king had
had Buffy Summers as a daughter, instead of Cordelia...
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Part Nine
> It is, however, to be carefully observed, that Christian liberty is in
> all its parts a spiritual matter, the whole force of which consists in
> giving peace to trembling consciences, whether they are anxious and
> disquieted as to the forgiveness of sins, or as to whether their
> imperfect works, polluted by the infirmities of the flesh, are pleasing
> to God, or are perplexed as to the use of things indifferent.
No, no, no, putting the condom on the banana was
only a DEMONSTRATION. That is NOT how you
are supposed to use it in practice.
Sheesh, some days I'm surprised I have to explain
these things.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Part Ten
> Very many also err in this: as if their liberty were not safe and
> entire, without having men to witness it, they use it indiscriminately
> and imprudently, and in this way often give offense to weak brethren.
In spite of that, I feel that "Duma Key" is the best thing that
Stephen King has written in a long, long time.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> I will here make some observations on offenses, what distinctions are to
> be made between them, what kind are to be avoided and what disregarded.
Spot the beastie!:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/08/mimicry/mimicry-interactive
(don't neglect to click on your best guess)
Haiku Jones
Pink Freud
I just finished "Under the Dome" and thought it rocked, too!
Free Lunch
<575j...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
They're Pinky, They're Pinky and the Brain Brain Brain Brain Brain.
haiku jones
> "haiku jones" <575jo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I personally have trouble keeping track of any
story with more characters than, say, the Roadrunner
cartoons. So, "Under the Dome", with its sixty-five
"main characters", (and three main dogs), left me
struggling a bit.
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Part Twelve
> The matter still remains uncertain, unless we understand who are the
> weak and who the Pharisees: for if this distinction is destroyed, I see
> not how, in regard to offenses, any liberty at all would remain without
> being constantly in the greatest danger.
Has anyone else figured out how to get those 216 Buckyballs
back into the nice little cube they came in?
Haiku Jones
haiku jones
> Part Thirteen
> Whatever I have said about avoiding offenses, I wish to be referred to
> things indifferent.
From the Wikipedia entry on the Ig Nobel Awards:
The prizes are presented by genuine Nobel laureates,
originally at a ceremony in a lecture hall at MIT but now
in Harvard University's Sanders Theater. It contains a number
of running jokes, including Miss Sweety Poo, a little girl who
repeatedly cries out "Please stop. I'm bored" in a high-pitched
voice if speakers go on too long
Please stop. I'm bored.
Haiku Jones
Andre Lieven
> On Jan 4, 1:28 pm, Penelope Marris <penn...@rotterdam.net> wrote:
>
> > Part Nine
> > It is, however, to be carefully observed, that Christian liberty is in
> > all its parts a spiritual matter, the whole force of which consists in
> > giving peace to trembling consciences, whether they are anxious and
> > disquieted as to the forgiveness of sins, or as to whether their
> > imperfect works, polluted by the infirmities of the flesh, are pleasing
> > to God, or are perplexed as to the use of things indifferent.
>
> No, no, no, putting the condom on the banana was
> only a DEMONSTRATION. That is NOT how you
> are supposed to use it in practice.
So, you are saying that if Penelope has carnal knowledge with
said banana, that she would be at risk of pregnancy and STDs ?
<g>
> Sheesh, some days I'm surprised I have to explain
> these things.
With willful loons like Penny, you have to explain breathing...
Andre
Christopher A. Lee
Have you read Portnoy's Complaint or seen the movie? Did the girl use
a condom on the banana?
>
>
>
>
>Haiku Jones
>
LC
"Penelope Marris" <pen...@rotterdam.net> wrote in message
news:hhtiii$tb8$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Part Two
> Christian liberty seems to Not exist
Hey Penny, howz about you and your altered ego Vini fuck off.
Soonest.
TIA!
panam...@hotmail.com
with her spoon on her cell's stone wall:
snip Witch Doctor shit
..is an oxymoron. As opposed to you, who is a *true* moron.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!