- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostFree Stuff Fridays
- Next Post »Why Memorize Scripture?
Resisting Christ's Mercy
- 05/22/10
- 19
This week, while reading Richard Sibbes’ The Bruised Reed, I came across a quote I wanted to share with you. Here Sibbes offers a sharp warning against anyone who would resist Christ’s mercy. There are not too many people today who will preach what he teaches here.
There are those who take it on themselves to cast water on those sparks which Christ labors to kindle in them, because they will not be troubled with the light of them. Such must know that the Lamb can be angry, and that they who will not come under his scepter of mercy shall be crushed in pieces by his scepter of power (Psa. 2:9). Though he will graciously tend and maintain the least spark of true grace, yet where he finds not the spark of grace but opposition to his Spirit striving with them, his wrath, once kindled, shall burn to hell. There is no more just provocation than when kindness is churlishly refused.
When God would have cured Babylon, and she would not be cured, then she was given up to destruction (Jer. 51:9). When Jerusalem would not be gathered under the wing of Christ, then their habitation is left desolate (Matt. 23:37,38). When wisdom stretches out her hand and men refuse, then wisdom will laugh at men’s destruction (Prow. 1:26). Salvation itself will not save those that spill the medicine and cast away the plaster. It is a pitiful case, when this merciful Saviour shall delight in destruction; when he that made men shall have no mercy on them (Isa. 27:11).
Oh, say the rebels of the time, God has not made us to damn us. Yes, if you will not meet Christ in the ways of his mercy, it is fitting that you should ‘eat of the fruit of your own way, and be filled with your own devices’ (Prow. 1:31). This will be the hell of hell, when men shall think that they have loved their sins more than their souls; when they shall think what love and mercy has been enforced upon them, and yet they would perish. The more accessory we are in pulling a judgment upon ourselves, the more the conscience will be confounded in itself. Then they shall acknowledge Christ to be without any blame, themselves without any excuse.
If men appeal to their own consciences, they will tell them that the Holy Spirit has often knocked at their hearts, as willing to have kindled some holy desires in them. How else can they be said to resist the Holy Ghost, but that the Spirit was readier to draw them to a further degree of goodness than was consistent with their own wills? Therefore those in the church that are damned are self condemned before. So that here we need not rise to higher causes, when men carry sufficient cause in their own bosoms.
Harsh words? Yes, they are. But necessarily so.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (19)
These deeper truths of the faith may have gotten lost on this generation, but we know that God is constant and He will not contend forever. We’re living in an hour when these truths must be proclaimed unapologetically.
When I consider the fullness of His mercy as expressed in the cross, I cannot help but remember how the fullness of His wrath was also portrayed in His cross.
In Christ, mercy triumphs over judgment. But without a clear understanding of His severity I would not have a clear understanding of His kindness.
May God strengthen you and give you even greater boldness, brother.
If a sinner is one of the elect is it ever possible to resist the mercy of Christ. Is not grace ultimately irresistible? Does not the regenerate heart - caused by God Himself - recognize the calling of God? Every unregenerate heart resists God’s grace - even as Adam rejected that grace. Although incredibly eloquent I’m not sure whether Sibbes type preaching is truly biblical. He talks about the Holy Spirit knocking on the door of the heart and people resisting. Is he talking about regenerate men and women who resist the Holy Spirit or unregenerate sinners who, if to be part of the bride of Christ, will never ultimately be capable of resistance, as their new heart will cause repentance and trust. If one doesn’t truly hold to the doctrines of grace, one will fall into the pit that man somehow can resist the grave and mercy of God in a quasi Arminian type view. How does Sibbes type preaching compare to what is preached to gentiles in the book of Acts??What is Sibbe’s talking about with this vague statement, “Though he will graciously tend and maintain the least spark of true grace, yet where he finds not the spark of grace…”?
While well written, this is little more than the Arminian drivel I heard back in the Assemblies of God and other churches of that ilk. The basic message of today’s semi-Pelagian Evangelicalism — and the foundation of this passage — is that we get salvation by (synergistic) faith, but it must be maintained by each believer in order that God would be pleased with their right-heartedness. Rather than the Doctrines of Grace, this article presents regeneration as reversible and thus logically confuses sanctification with justification; a classic Arminian/Roman Catholic misunderstanding. Missing, too, is any concept of imputed righteousness.
This article surely does not present Christ as a Shepard who surely secures the eternity of those He came to save; given to Him by the Father. Rather the impotent Christ of this article must say to the Father: “O, how I came to save them! But, ya know, Father, they just fell away, resisted that Holy Spirit of ours, quenched the embers, and I just couldn’t hold ‘em!”
The book “Easy Chairs, Hard Words” (Douglass Wilson) both stunned and eased me into the Doctrines of Grace. In that book Wilson is clear: when considering the security of the elect, the question is not whether we can lose Christ, but whether Christ can lose a Christian.
Although Calvinistic in theology, Sibbes held the Christ’s work was not completed on the cross but at the end of this age, i.e. the Second Coming[1]. With that error, I can see why he would be comfortable espousing that Christ can (and according to Sibbes, will) lose Christians before His triumphant return.
1. Bryan Ball, A Great Expectation: Eschatological Thought in English Protestantism to 1660 p. 47, citing Sibbes’ The Bride’s Longing, p. 72.
Having re-read what Sibbes wrote I have to agree with Eloquorius that it is Arminian drivel. How is it that he writes this: “Christ labors to kindle in them”. How about some sound doctrine please Mr Sibbes!! We really don’t need this kind of preaching!
(My spam test is: What color is the sky (red, orange or blue)? Well I have seen it in all colours)
If this passage is “Arminian drivel,” what do you make of Hebrews 3:14-16 and Hebrews 6:4-7? Is that Arminian drivel too?
A genuine believer does not cast water upon the work of Christ, no. But a man may be deluded to think he is a believer despite the fact that he casts water upon the spark of conviction that springs in his heart from a guilty conscience when confronted with the work of Christ. Acts 17:30 says that God “is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent.” The Word is a product of the cross, so Christ is working upon unbelievers, though in a general and not particular (and therefore salvific) way.
Amen to the comments by Eloquorius. Would this “least spark” be that which so many claim exists in the heart/soul of the natural man (who does not and cannot receive the things of the Spirit -1 Cor. 2:14), the very same spark which is purported to allow a man “dead in trespasses and sin” (Ephesians 2:1,5) to “flip the switch” and regenerate himself by “asking Jesus into his heart?” That is the soteriology to which I was first exposed, the pitiful construct that has poor, anemic Jesus waiting outside, wringing His hands, hoping that somehow he’ll be asked into the heart which can only be opened from the inside. Nonsense. Jesus doesn’t hunt for little, barely glowing embers, or weak little sparks or anything else.
Jesus KNOWS His sheep and they know the voice of their Shepherd. His sheep hear His voice and follow Him, and He gives them ETERNAL life, not conditional life (John 10:27-29). Jesus assures us that of all who come to Him, He will cast out none, and that on the last day He will raise them up, losing nothing (John 6:37-40). Those that depart from us/fall away, do so that it may be made manifest that they were never really of us (1 John 2:19). Jesus says, in Matthew 7:23, “… depart from Me, you workers of iniquity, I NEVER knew you.” He was named Jesus, because, as the angel said, “… He SHALL save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Jesus did not merely make possible the salvation of His (particular) people, He SECURED their salvation. Paul was confident that “He that began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus” (Phil. 1:6).
Sibbes is in grievous error. Jesus is our sovereign Lord who secures and preserves our salvation. The perseverance of the saints (preservation of the saints) precludes the diminishing “spark of grace” from being a legitimate peril. Jesus said “and they shall never perish”, and I’ll take His word on that.
Contrary to your assertion, dear brother Tim, many teach same/similar doctrine today, albeit less elegantly dressed. “Enter into a synergistic partnership with Jesus (He’s paid for your ticket, but you must pick it up”, etc., ad nauseum) and then climb on the performance treadmill to maintain your approval with God.”
AJY,
Why would God create us with free choice only to take it away right before the point of salvation? Is God creating a heavenly, robot society? Isn’t the better society filled with people who choose freely, people who could have resisted but chose God instead? Those are the kind of people I want around me.
Dear Daniel, our choice will always end up like Adam’s - bound in sin, always ultimately rejecting Him and His grace. We can never freely chose Him. Thanks be to God that He was the one who gave me a new heart to believe the gospel of Christ when I was 10 years old and has given me His Spirit who testifies of that I am a child of God.
Could someone explain in today’s English what Richard Sibbes is talking about here:
“Though he will graciously tend and maintain the least spark of true grace, yet where he finds not the spark of grace but opposition to his Spirit striving with them, his wrath, once kindled, shall burn to hell. ”
What is a “spark of grace”? Where did it originate from? I’m confused? Sibbes was a Puritan and calvinist but I’m not sure where this language comes from?
All,
I’ve not been reading along so I comment here cautiously.
It is true that the elect are chosen by God and are therefore imperishable (cannot be lost).
John 10:28 (NIV) I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand.
Even so, the regenerate heart can and still does commit sin, and by sinning, resists the irresistible, and because he has a new heart he is sorrowful for this shameful act. If Christ kindles anything in the heart of the elect it’s the desire to not sin. Christ’s success is not in the cessation of sinning, that debt has been paid fully. Christ’s goal (by the Spirit) is the believer’s increased realization that without Him - he would have been lost, he would have been undone!
This is as about as anti-Arminian as one can get!
In Christ,
Dan…
I like how some folks are so quick to call something “drivel” that they happen to disagree with. Way to be.
I don’t see much here that contradicts Reformed Theology. Sibbes appears to be speaking of human responsibility and God’s authority to judge man’s sins (which is consistent with RT). This is not a formal essay on election on predestination. Although man has no power to procure his own regeneration, Scripture nevertheless hold’s man completely responsible for his sins and often warns man of God’s coming judgement unless he repents. These types of warnings are good in that they are the “means” by which the Holy Spirit uses to regenerate the elect. We evangelize NOT because people have complete human autonomy over their salvation (we most definitely DO NOT). Rather, we evangelize because it is the normative “means” by which the Holy Spirit works and because we are commanded to do it by our Lord. I wouldn’t throw around “Arminian” or “Calvinistic” labels too strongly here. And I definitely would not be quick to label this as “drivel” (unless you are also willing to label Scripture’s warning to repent in the Bible as “drivel”). There are nuances and subtleties here that need to be respected. And I personally like the quote (even as a Calvinist).
ATY,
In order to figure out what Sibbes means, I have to break down what he says and how he uses the words he uses in order to extract the meaning he pours into certain key words and doctrines. So let’s break this down:
“Though he will graciously tend and maintain the least spark of true grace…”
Here we have the first use of the word grace, which is (at least Biblically) understood as not only undeserved favor but in fact ill-deserved favor/reward. Sibbes says God will “graciously tend and maintain” it. This should mean that God will maintain His grace towards us, meaning that when we are unfaithful He is faithful because of His grace in which we stand. But when Sibbes refers to “the least true spark of grace” we have the first clue that Sibbes has another idea in mind. Importantly, Sibbes calls it “true grace” but doesn’t seem to have saving grace in mind. This raises serious concerns, as it raises the obvious question of how Sibbes’ “true grace” differs from saving grace. But he’ll get to that.
Sibbes continues: “…yet where he finds not the spark of grace…”
The phrase “where he (God) finds” explains, via usage, how Sibbes is really using the term “grace.” Here Sibbes is clear that what he calls “true grace” is something that does not originate from God, but it originates in and is maintained by man. Sibbes seems to assert that God does not give this “true grace,” but rather He “finds” it within man, who He then helps maintain it. Grace, as Sibbes uses it, refers to the esteem in which a Christian holds God, not the other way around as you’d expect it.
Sibbes continues: “…but opposition to his Spirit striving with them…”
For those uninitiated, this is classic language of the Arminians and the Remonstrants that followed. In 5-point Calvinism, the “I” in TULIP stands for “Irresistible Grace” and defends the Biblical understanding that when God elects to save a soul, His grace, worked through regeneration, is irresistible. God does not “find” opposition to His Spirit, but rather that fallen, sinful, dead mankind has been at enmity and opposition to God since Adam — it’s our natural born state until we are born again.Sibbes continues: “…his wrath, once kindled, shall burn to hell.”
This really bothers me. God’s wrath toward the unsaved has been kindled since the first sin, but His wrath toward those in Christ was kindled, bundled, imputed and nailed to the Cross, never for eternal wrath to be kindled against Christians. But here Sibbes could not be more clear: God can and will re-kindle His wrath toward Christians who will then go to Hell, he warns. This is the only intellectually honest interpretation of Sibbes’ words that I can see. Writing to Christians, he warns them not to oppose God and threatens them with God’s re-kindled wrath for their opposition and ultimately Hell. Again, this is perfectly possible due to Sibbes utter misunderstanding of grace as human in both origin and quantity, rather than a state in which ransomed sinners stand before a Holy God who extends the real “true grace” toward those who have been fully redeemed by the finished work of Christ on the Cross in all its sufficiency. In Sibbes’ economy, the ransomed Christian, if found unable to maintain “true grace” (toward God) will find himself unsaved, facing Hell again. That is, according to Sibbes’ conclusion, the Christian can find himself un-ransomed, the righteousness of Christ un-imputed, his sins once propitiated now un-propitiated, and God’s election now thwarted by God’s “finding” opposition in the Christian’s heart. For sibbes, it seems, where sin increases wrath increases.
Remember, Sibbes is writing to Christians! So to answer ATY’s question, I paraphrase Sibbes in today’s English as: “God will help you, dear Christian, maintain the inherent warmth toward God with which you were born and for which he seeks in you, but if you don’t maintain it then off to Hell you will go, in God’s wrath, which He will re-kindle anew against you.” No matter how you slice it Sibbes is threatening believer s with Hell for failure to maintain “true grace”.
As for human agency, Sibbes is crossing the line and turning human agency into human dependency, which is very closed to changing us from elect to electors.
I’m on the same page as you Eloquorius. The only thing is he talking to unbelievers or believers?
Tim Challies can you please enlighten us? How would you preach the themes contained in this quote? What tone would you preach to a non Christian and what tone to a Christian. Yes the unregenerate needs to hear of the wrath of God to come. But what of the believer - would you be warning them of hardness of heart to the Spirit of God, in the terms Sibbes uses? This is a genuine question sir.
I see no reason why Sibbes can’t be talking about unbelievers here. The grace was God-given first, and men squandered it. That’s why he talks about Babylon and Jerusalem. He extended grace to them but they rejected it.
Dan are you referring again to free-will to accept or reject the gospel? If so I think there are learned people who follow this blog who would disagree with you from sciptural grounds . That is not my calling.
However I would like to hear Mr Tim Challies views on this seeing he is an elder of the church.
I read this article and the comments and then went back and read the article again. I am no theologian so I can’t argue points on Calvinism and the like but I really think that some people are over analyzing what he is saying in this quote. When I first read it although the language in some spots makes it difficult for me to discern his meaning there is enough that I feel I do understand to get the “point”. (I don’t always understand the updated versions of Oswald Chambers either but am able to still glean something out of his writings).
My first thoughts on this quote are this; that the author is speaking regarding unbelievers who have some sense (however small) of enlightenment that the Spirit is calling them to repent and change their ways and they repeatedly ignore (procrastination) or refuse outright his gestures of mercy. I personally have seen this happen in the lives of people that I know. I would never be so bold as to “play God” and assume that I know when the door to the kingdom is forever closed for any one particular person. In fact I’ve been surprised when years later the Spirit appears to be knocking on someone’s heart’s door again.
Resisting Christ’s mercy is a dangerous thing and there are repeated warnings against this response in scripture in both direct and indirect ways. I will not argue with theological debate but keep the application current and personal for the people that I know by saying that there are those in my life whom have been evangelized and heard the word of God and think that they can get away with just believing in God and that somehow everything will be fine. But the bible says even the demons believe there is a God and they shudder! Perhaps this is preaching to the choir here, but I think the gist of what he is saying is that each person has opportunity to answer the Holy God who calls them to repentance and that in the end when they stand before them they will know when those moments were when they rejected him.
One more thing with regards to believers and the content of this passage. As a believer who is still capable of sinning I am not immune to God’s discipline. It is true that when I am saved by God’s mercy that nothing can separate me from the love of Christ, but that does not mean that there are not consequences to my actions when I behave in a way that is not fitting for a child of God. I do not have the direct scripture reference here but try to follow me when I say that when I sin there are times when I am “given over” to the consequences of that sin and the pain and sorrow that it produces is meant to bring me back to repentance. I do believe once saved (God knows the validity of that) that I cannot lose my salvation based on what I do anymore than I could earn it in the first place but as a child of God I am still disciplined and receive in a way a non-eternal form of punishment within the natural consequences for my wrong behavior. The people of Israel were no different. God often disciplined his people because of their sins against him and they would eventually turn back to him. Babylon never does.
So we have free will at every other time in our lives except when it matters (salvation)? Then we have our free will back after salvation (Obviously we still sin after we are saved)? Does God force salvation upon us?