You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February, 2008.
10. THE “DESCENT INTO HELL” AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE SPIRITUAL TORMENT THAT CHRIST UNDERWENT FOR US
“But we must seek a surer explanation, apart from the Creed, of Christ’s descent into hell. The explanation given to us in God’s Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation. If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No — it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God’s vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason, he must also grapple hand to hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death. A little while ago we referred to the prophet’s statement that “the chastisement of our peace was laid upon him,” “he was wounded for our transgressions” by the Father, “he was bruised for our infirmities” [Isaiah 53:5 p.]. By these words he means that Christ was put in place of evildoers as surety and pledge — submitting himself even as the accused — to bear and suffer all the punishments that they ought to have sustained. All — with this one exception: “He could not be held by the pangs of death” [Acts 2:24 p.]. No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he suffered the death that, God in his wrath had inflicted upon the wicked! Those who — on the ground that it is absurd to put after his burial what preceded it — say that the order is reversed in this way are making a very trifling and ridiculous objection. The point is that the Creed sets forth what Christ suffered in the sight of men, and then appositely speaks of that invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he underwent in the sight of God in order that we might know not only that Christ’s body was given as the price of our redemption, but that he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.” -John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion
“Some of the Puritans believed that perseverance of the saints referred to the saints persevering in good works. This amounts to works sanctification or sanctification by law keeping, a very dangerous anti- gospel doctrine.”
The quote above was included in a set of notes for a class I’m currently taking. Since the statement is somewhat unclear, and lacks any kind of primary source documenation, I’m a little baffled as to what he’s intending to say. These thoughts are my reflections upon this statement, and not a personal attack upon the professor himself.
It seems like we have two options here. Either this professor is objecting to a Reformed understanding of sanctification which upholds the necessity of repentance, obedience, and perseverance as non-meritiorious fruits of saving faith, or he’s historically revising the Puritanical understanding of sanctifcication by claiming that its somehow legalistic or theologically Romish. The former position is nothing but an anti-nomian attack upon confessional Reformed theology. The latter position smacks of an unwarranted revisionism with no historical basis. Maybe its both, and he’s claiming that any view other than Ryrie’s anti-nomian heresy MUST be Roman Catholic. Since this statement is worded so poorly, its really difficult to know what to criticize. The rest of this post will operate under the assumption that this objection is indeed an anti-nomian criticism of Reformed spirituality. As a pretty hardline dispensationalist, I’m quite sure this is what he’s getting at.
Perhaps one of the greatest heresies of our day arises from a theological ignorance with respect to the Bible’s teaching on sanctification. While the popularity of theological anti-nomianism has certainly waned in evangelical circles throughout the past few years, the devastating effects of it remain alive and well within the church. Many simply operate under the assumption that obedience, repentance, love for God’s law, and mortification of sin are unnecessary addendums to true faith,
reserved for a special class of “spiritual Christians”, yet still optional for those “carnal Christians” who embracce Christ as Savior but refuse Him as Lord. This theological dichotomy between spiritual and carnal Christians fueled the Lordship debate in the 80’s, and was popularized by the likes of prominent dispensational authors such as Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges. The fundamental theological thrust of their argumentation was that true faith, saving faith, justifying faith, is nothing more than a change of mind regarding the objective facts of gospel truth. Thus Charles Ryrie, in his book So Great a Salvation, states that,
“People who reform have repented; that is, they have changed their minds about their past lives, but that kind of repentance, albeit genuine, does not of itself save them. The only kind of repentance that saves is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. People can weep; people can resolve to turn from their past sins; but those things in themselves cannot save. The only kind of repentance that saves anyone, anywhere, anytime is a change of mind about Jesus Christ. The sense of sin and sorrow because of sin may stir up a person’s mind or conscience so that he or she realizes the need for a Savior, but if there is not change of mind about Jesus Christ there will be no salvation” (So Great a Salvation)
How does Ryrie respond to the New Testament texts, especially in the gospels, which so obviously teach that both a change of mind and heart are necessary consequences of justifying faith? This is where Ryrie’s hardline dispensationalism comes into play. The gospel’s teaching concerning the absolute necessity of obedience finds itself within the dispensation of law, and therefore cannot apply to the believer operating under the dispensation of grace. Thus the arbitrary theological cowardice of Ryrie can be seen in his twisted hermeneutical method.
Consequently, anti-nomian Christians have this theological foundation upon which to build their particular doctrinal emphases. How does this all connect to the comment made by the professor? If I’m right, and this comment is indeed an anti-nomian objection to Reformed practice and piety, then really its not surprising at all. Ryrie, Hodges, and others like them have been vainly criticizing Reformation Christianity for decades. What’s the answer? It’s my opinion that neither evangelicalism, fundamentalism, or any other modern day Christian sub-culture can provide the historical and theological sustenance necessary to fight against the devastating effects of anti-nomianism in the church. What’s needed is a return to Reformation Christianity and all of its theological and practical ramifications. Reformation Christianity avoids the dangers of mono-covenantalism, while all the while maintaining the absolute necessity of obedience, mortification, and love for God’s law. Reformation Christianity alone provides the covenantal context in which sanctification finds itself, and thus avoids the vague and amiguous doctrinal categories provided by evangelicalsim. Reformation Christiantiy understands the law of God to be the perfect expression of God’s righteous character, and therefore insists that it remains normative for the life and practice of every Christian. Reformation Christanity, unlike evangelicalism and fundamentalism, possesses the confessional historicity necessary to refute such heresies as the anti-nomianism of Ryrie and Hodges, and therefore is more than a mere fad which lives and breathes in a historical and theological vaccuum. God is calling our generation to a lively faith in Jesus Christ which overcomes the world. Petty attacks, such as the one displayed by this professor against the Puritans, are nothing more than myopic attempts to discredit Reformation Christianity in favor of one more suited to cultural needs. The truth is staring us in the face. In reality, its anti-nomianism which is “anti-gospel”, not Puritan and Reformed Christanity. May we join the voices of the faithful reformers who have gone before us, and exalt, obey, cherish, and proclaim the holy law of God as the perfect expression of God’s intrinsic holiness.
I know how difficult this theological issue can be to resolve. On the one hand, Federal Visionists and Roman Catholics have responded to anti-nomianism by making no distinction between law and gospel, justification and sanctification, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This has aggravated the problem, and has provided anti-nomians with more reasons to equivocate saving faith with intellectual assent. What this professor and other anti-nomian theologians fail to understand is that lawless Christianity is not the answer! Running to one extreme after experiencing the sad and devastating effects of the other, will provide no Biblical solution to the question concerning the role of obedience in the life of a Christian.
For those who need some clarification, I’ve provided Westminster’s sections on sanctifcation and perseverance.
Of Perseverance
“I. They, whom God has accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.
II. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which arises also the certainty and infallibility thereof.
III. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins; and, for a time, continue therein: whereby they incur God’s displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded; hurt and scandalize others, and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.” WCF, Chapter 17
Of Sanctification
“I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
II. This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” -WCF, Chapter 13
I thought I’d post a few thoughts on this issue before I head to bed tonight. I’m reading through the Westminster Confession for the second time this year (I try to read through it at least once a month), and last night I read chapter 7 on God’s covenant with man. I don’t intend to give a full-length exposition on this chapter of the Confession. I only want to point out something I’ve been thinking about for a few months, something which the Confession reaffirmed for me last night. It’s general knowledge that most Federal Vision advocates have never once claimed that their mono-covenantal understanding of redemptive history and Reformed theology is at odds with the Confession. Here and there, you’ll find them suggesting better ways in which the Divines could have phrased certain things, certain semantical misunderstandings which “modern Presbyterians” have made throughout the years regarding the true intent of the Confession, etc. etc. Nevertheless, FV advocates are insistent that their particular theological views are consistent and harmonious with the true teaching of the Westminster Confession. Here’s the first thing I thought of: The Federal Vision theologians have missed what’s staring us in the face when we pick up the Westminster Confession to read it: It’s a Confession! Instead of regarding the Confession as a Confession, a systematic interpretation of the Christian faith, a positive statement of reality concerning the teaching of the Bible, FV advocates treat the Confession as some sort of master jig-saw puzzle, which by the way, has apparently been figured out by a group of former theonomists in the 21st century, despite the hundreds of years of historical and theological teaching to the contrary. The endless nonsense regarding the “true teaching of the Confession” by FV theologians is a direct attack upon the essential role of Westminster as an unambiguous statement of fact regarding what the Bible says. The Confession is a Confession, and its teaching cannot be ignored. The second thing I thought of as I read chapter 7, was how the Westminster Divines went to such great lengths to espouse a fundamentally bi-covenantal structure of redemptive history in God’s covenantal dealings with mankind. Far from the kind of law-gospel mish mash we see being taught by the likes of Leithart, Lusk, Wilson, and others, the Divines are absolutely clear that Reformed theology is fundamentally bi-covenantal. So what’s the point I’m trying to make? The Federal Vision possesses an incredible measure of historical and theological dishonesty which will only be solved when they actually admit that their teaching has no place within historic Reformed thought. The second point, related to the first, is that the Westminster Confession is radically, explicitly, inescapably, bi-covenantal. This fact cannot be escaped, no matter how much subtle historical revision is being attempted. I think the best step for FV’s (besides repenting of their grievous theological errors) is to take a fresh look at the Confession, and then really, honestly, truly ask themselves whether what they are teaching is harmonious with it. Chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession is staring them in the face. Mono-covenantalism has no theological heritage within Reformed orthdoxy. See for yourself…
II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
This article is one of the most intellectually stimulating responses to “Baptist Calvinism” that I have ever read. Muller argues that the term “Reformed Baptist” is historically oxymoronic and dishonest. The doctrines of grace find themselves within the larger theological context of other key Reformed doctrines , without which, the doctrines of grace stand insignificantl. Now don’t get me wrong on this issue. I have many Baptist friends and relatives, I was raised in a Baptist home, and I have a great measure of respect for such Baptist’s as Spurgeon, Gill, the Haldane Brothers, John Bunyan, etc. I attended a “Reformed Baptist” church for a few years during high-school, and can’t overestimate the wonderful Providences God bestowed upon me through that ministry. Therefore, I’m not arguing that Baptist’s can’t be Calvinists, or that all Baptist’s are functioning Arminians. I’m only emphasizing the fact that the doctrines of grace don’t exist in a theological vacuum, and must be understood within the larger confessional context of other important doctrines which give the doctrines of grace their significance. Well, I’m done rambling and I encourage you to read Muller’s entire article. The entire article can be found here.
“What is the place of reprobation in this scheme? God has reprobated as well as chosen. Taken by itself, reprobation is the decree of God in which He has determined, as sovereignly as in election, that some individuals should not enter eternal glory, but are destined for destruction. Thus it should be expressed. I realize it seems milder to say that God decided to leave others in their sins and ruin. This is the way it is formulated in our Canons, in which the Synod of Dordt adopted the infra standpoint, contrary to the wishes and protestations of Gomarus.
Yet, as a matter of fact, this is not a milder way of expressing it. We may close our eyes to the problem and refuse to seek an answer, but the problem remains. The question inevitably arises, How did these people fall into the sin in which God permitted them to lie? Another question also arises, Why did God leave them in this sin and misery when He could have saved them? I fully realize that all questions cannot possibly be answered. Nevertheless, it is also true that by closing our eyes to the problems that arise we fail to find a solution.
Besides, Scripture certainly teaches more. The Potter does with the clay as He pleases, and no one can deny Him the right to form of one lump of clay a vessel unto honor and of another a vessel unto dishonor. Surely, here we are taught more than that God permits something to lie where it has fallen. The vessels unto dishonor are also made by Him in accordance with His appointment. Therefore, we would rather say that reprobation is that decree of God by which He sovereignly destined some to destruction. For, certainly, the condemnation shall be on the basis of the sin and guilt of the reprobate, but never as if this reprobation rests on foreseen sin. Reprobation, even as election, is entirely, sovereignly free”
To read the entire article, click here
It wasn’t until recently that I became familiar with the ARPC. Here is a brief description and history which I found helpful. It’s nice to know that the PCA and OPC aren’t the only Reformed Presbyterian denominations around, especially in light of the Federal Vision inroads being made into both of these communions.
“The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church as we know it today comes to us across a lengthy history of service in two lands, the British Isles and North America. It had its beginnings in the preaching of John Knox in Scotland when the Scottish Church became the official church of Scotland in 1560 A.D. As always the case when the church and state become too closely allied, controversy and bitter strife over control became a way of life for church and state alike.
Things improved somewhat under King William III in 1688 A.D. as he reorganized the Church of Scotland into the Established Presbyterian Church of Scotland. In spite of the improvement, however, a great number of problems still existed, and in 1733 a pastor by the name of Ebenezer Erskine led a group of Christians in forming a separate Associate Presbytery (from thence comes the first part of our name). Ten years later, another group of Christians who for years had suffered problems with the established church organized themselves into the Reformed Presbytery.
Both churches spread to Northern Ireland as the Scots were forced to emigrate and both came to America with those “Scots-Irish” folks. The immigrants came to the Pennsylvania area at first, and it was there that both the Associate and the Reformed Presbyteries of Pennsylvania were organized in the 1750-1770 time period.
It was a heady time in the new world, and all the “old alliances” were being called into question. The new America was emerging and at the same time our forefathers were seeking to create a new church as well. Formal union talks between the “Associates” and the “Reformed” began in 1777 and by 1782 the Associate Reformed Synod came to be in Philadelphia. This Synod, even though all “Associates” and “Reformeds” did not join, included churches in Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, North and South Carolina and Georgia.
Eight years later, the Associate Reformed Presbytery of the Carolinas and Georgia was formed in Abbeville County, S.C., followed some twenty years later (1803) by the division of the entire church into four Synods and one General Synod. The Synods were those of the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, New York and Scioto with the headquarters of the church in Philadelphia. In 1822 the Synod of the Carolinas was granted separate status, and by the end of the century was the sole remaining body of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church as several mergers over the years had absorbed the rest of the denomination into the old United Presbyterian Church. The remaining “A.R.P.s” in the Southeast continued on as the denomination we have today.
There are now ten Presbyteries in North America: Canada Presbytery, the Presbytery of the Northeast (Northeastern United States), Virginia Presbytery (Virginia and West Virginia), First Presbytery (North Carolina), Catawba Presbytery (Eastern South Carolina), Second Presbytery (Western South Carolina and Georgia), Florida Presbytery, Tennessee-Alabama Presbytery (Eastern Tennessee and Alabama), Mississippi Valley Presbytery (Arkansas, Missouri, Western Tennessee, Kentucky, and Mississippi), and Pacific Presbytery (Washington, Oregon, and California).”
-ARP Synod Website
Here is a wonderful quote I came across at the Heidelblog. R. Scott Clark rightly notes that if the FV theologians are going to one extreme in claiming that every baptized person is savingly united to Christ and share the same salvific blessings, the Baptists err in the opposite direction by claiming that only the elect are included in the covenant of grace. This ecclesiological extremism arises from a failure to distinguish between the administration of the covenant and the essence of the covenant. I’d also say that Baptist ecclesiology fails to understand the sacraments within context of redemptive history. From the Baptist’s I’ve read, many of their arguments for believer’s baptism rest upon a weak foundation made up Jeremiah 31 and a few New Testament proof texts. Here’s the problem with that kind of exegesis. No doctrine exists in a theological vacuum. Baptism, like every other doctrine, is deeply rooted in the over-arching redemptive historical narrative of the Bible. Advocates of “Believers Baptism” fail to study the sacraments from the perspective of Biblical Theology, and in so doing, fail to understand the vital link between circumcision and Baptism, familial solidarity and the covenant of grace. You can find the entire article here: http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/ishmael-and-infant-baptism (Sorry there’s no link. For some reason, the link option stopped working for me!)
“Ironically, both the Baptists and the FV have the same problem. Neither one of them adequately recognizes the distinction between the substance or essence or benefits of the covenant of grace and its administration. Paul certainly makes this distinction in Rom 2:28 (as the Hebrew scriptures do repeatedly) between those who are in the covenant of grace “outwardly” and those who are in the covenant of grace “outwardly” and inwardly, i.e., by grace alone through faith alone.
Isn’t this the solution to the problem that the FV finds so perplexing? In Heb 6 there are apostates and the FV boys talk, like the Arminians, as if those who apostatized were elect, united to Christ etc. In other words, they set up the problem just as the Arminians did.
That’s the wrong problem. It’s possible for those who participate in the administration of the covenant of grace, in the New Covenant, to “taste of the powers of the age to come.” Sure they do. They’re baptized (1 Cor 10) and they come to the Lord’s Table. They’re in the congregation. They hear the gospel. They sing the psalms and when they leave, they “profane the blood of the covenant.” They’ve walked between the pieces, as it were, they’ve gone through the covenant cutting ritual by coming to the Lord’s Table. They’ve received baptism and come under its promises but also its jeopardy.
They’re members of the New Covenant outwardly but not inwardly. They are in the covenant of grace externally but not internally.
It’s too much to say that Ishmael wasn’t in the covenant of grace or that, a priori there can be no Ishmael’s in the New Covenant. Of course there are Ishmael’s in the New Covenant, the NT mentions several of them, e.g., “Hymenaeus and Alexander,” in 1 Tim 1:20. If there were Esaus and Ishmaels in the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace and there was a Hymenaeus and an Alexander (and Ananias and Sapphira) then is the New Covenant so utterly different from the covenant of grace is it was under Abraham? Different in degree, but in kind? So that children are no longer eligible to participate in the administration of the covenant of grace until they demontrate that they believe — really?
No, not if we avoid an over-realized eschatology and we distinguish between the outward and inward relations to the (new) Covenant of Grace.”
I was looking through the WTS online bookstore today when I came upon this new compilation of essays, a written response to Westminster Seminary California’s book Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry. Not surprisingly, most of the contributors include FV advocates such as Peter Leithart, Mark Horne, Rich Lusk, Andrew Sandlin, and the infamous Dr. Norman Shepherd himself. John Armstrong, a theologian and pastor from whom I have profited greatly, is also a contributor in this new book. I can’t say that this really surprises me either. From what I have seen, John Armstrong’s vocal ecumenicity with the likes of N.T. Wright, the NPP, and even Rome herself can be clearly seen from his publications and books throughout the past few years. What I didn’t know was that Armstrong’s loyalties lie closer to the Federal Vision than to historic Reformed soteriology as it relates to justification by faith alone. I’ll be interested to read the book, and see how Armstrong and others respond to WSC. Yet I can already guess that this book will be another historically dishonest attempt to justify a pseudo-Roman Catholic soteriology with Calvin and the Reformed Confessions. Wouldn’t it be nice if the Federal Vision advoates would be honest with themselves, stop parading around as genuine Reformed scholars, and actually admit that their particular views are at complete odds with Calvin, the Three Forms, and the Westminster Confession? Time will tell if this ever pans out. Until then, we’ll keep seeing these kinds of publicaitons, while the Presbyterian community becomes even more confused as to their historic soteriological roots. As Presbyterians, may we be even more vigilant to defend our faith in the midst of mono-covenantal heretics who are desperately attempting to re-define the Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide in the name of Reformed orthodxy.
In chapter 3, Flavel discusses the doctrine of God’s Providence as it relates to the work of converison. He is quick to point out that God’s merciful Providence extends to the instruments, places, circumstances, and means of our conversion, even to the most seemingly insignificant details. To drive this point home, Flavel recounts a number of incidents from his personal experience, as well as some examples from church history. He continually emphasizes that in nothing does God’s Providence shine more gloriously and beautifully than in the work of our conversion. Flavel’s Calvinsim is apparent on every page as he continues to emphasize the reality of God’s absolute sovereignty in the work of our conversion. At the end of the chapter, we also get a taste for Flavel’s Calvinism when he urges the reader to consider the Providence of God in conversion and hardening. Why do some respond to the Word preached, while others remain in their sin? For Flavel, this question can only be answered through a Biblical understanding of God’s eternal, sovereign, and unconditional decree in election and reprobation. The structure of the chapter can be broken down into two main sections. Here is the basic outline.
Now there are various things in those providences that respect this work, which are exceedingly sweet and taking, as namely:
I. The wonderful strangeness and unaccountableness of this work of Providence in casting us into the way and ordering the occasions, yea, the minutest circumstances about this work.
II. As Providence orders very strange occasions to awaken and arouse our souls at first, so it works no less wonderfully in carrying on the work to perfection. This it does in two ways: 1) by quickening and reviving dying convictions and troubles for sin 2) giving great assistance to the work of the Spirit upon the soul, by ordering, supporting, relieving, and cheering means, to prop up and comfort the soul when it is over-burdened and ready to sink in the depths of troubles.
Well, I was reading The Mystery of Providence earlier today when I was met with a peculiar providence myself. The binding on the book came undone, and the book is now spit in half! I ordered myself a new copy and its on the way! Anyway, I continued to read and was greatly encouraged by Flavel’s thoughts in chapter 2. In this particular chapter, Flavel discusses the merciful providences of God in our birth and upbringing. I’ll provide his main arguments, and then quote one of my favorite passages in the section. This passage deals with the mercies bestowed upon those raised in godly families, the duty of parents to train their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord, and the duty of children to submit to the godly instruction of their parents. As I read, I was again particularly reminded on the importance of family worship. This was a continually emphasized topic among the English and American Puritans. The Puritans believed that family worship was indispensable to the task of training up godly children in the fear of the Lord. This concept has been largely neglected by 21st century Christian parents who all too often care more about their child’s soccer game than they do about their eternal salvation. May God-centered family religion be recovered in our day!
God’s Providences Seen in Our Birth and Upbringing
1. Let us consider how well Providence has performed the first work that ever it did for us: in our formation and protection in the womb.
2. Another great Providence for the people of God respects the place and time of their birth.
3. Another performance of Providence which must be carefully noticed and weighed is the designation of the stock and family out of which we should spring and rise.
“And first for you that are parents, or to whom the education of children is committed, I beseech you mind the duty which lies on you. That I may effectually press it, consider how near the relation is between you and your children, and therefore how much you are concerned in their happiness or misery. Consider but the Scripture account of the dearness of such relations, expressed by longings for them, by our joy when we have them, as Christ expresses it (John 16:21), the high value set on them, the sympathy with them in all their troubles, and by our sorrow at parting. Now shall all these be to no purpose? For to what purpose do we desire them before we have them, value them so highly, sympathize with them so tenderly, grieve for their death so excessively, if in the meantime no care be taken what shall become of them to eternity? Consider how God has charged you with their souls, as well as their bodies, and this appears by precepts directly laid upon you and by precepts laid upon them to obey you, which plainly implies your duty as well as theirs. What shall comfort you at the parting time, if they die through your neglect in a Christless condition? O this is the cutting consideration: My child is in hell, and I did nothing to prevent it! I helped him there. Duty discharged is the only root of comfort in that day. If you neglect to instruct them in the way of holiness, will the devil neglect to instruct them in the way of wickedness? No, no, if you will not teach them to pray, he will teach them to curse, swear and lie. If ground be uncultivated, weeds will spring up….
There is none in the world so likely as you to be instruments of their eternal good. You have peculiar advantages that no one else has; such as the interest you have in their affections; your opportunities to instill the knowledge of Christ into them; being daily with them; your knowledge of their character. If therefore you neglect, who shall help?”
