The Unsettledness of Works-Righteousness
Sep 16th, 2008 by Nathan White
In the excellent work, Precious Remedies for Satan’s Devices, Thomas Brooks lists 8 ‘devices’ or ’schemes’ Satan uses to hinder people from religious services and duties, and he then he follows up with several ‘remedies’ to combat each lie.Regarding Satan’s attempt to hinder our obedience to the faith, I found the 8th device and 4th remedy to this device as very fitting considering today’s society:
“The eighth device that Satan hath to hinder souls from religious services, from holy performances, is,
Device (8). By working them to rest in their performances; to rest in prayer, and to rest in hearing, reading, and the communion of saints, etc.“
Now, in order to give the context, let me quickly list the 3 remedies that Brooks expounds upon before I share a few thoughts on the 4th remedy. Remember, the lie of Satan is stated in the device above, and the remedies to combat this lie is as follows:
1) To dwell much upon the imperfections and weaknesses that do attend your choicest services.
2) To consider the impotence and inability of any of your best services, divinely to comfort, refresh, and bear your souls up from fainting, and sinking in the days of trouble…If God in that day doth but withhold the influence of His grace, they former services will be but poor cordials to comfort thee.
3) To consider that good things rested upon will as certainly undo us, and everlastingly destroy us, as the greatest enormities that can be committed by us.
So with that background and understanding Brooks then exhorts us to rest in Christ, a ‘remedy’ that should be refreshing to our souls:
“The fourth remedy is to dwell much upon the necessity and excellency of that resting-place that God hath provided for you. Above all other resting-places, Himself is your resting-place; His free mercy and love is your resting-place; the pure, glorious, matchless, and spotless righteousness of Christ is your resting place.”
Bottom line: Our Christian culture is infatuated with temporal and empty fads. Just take a walk through your local Christian bookstore to see that 95% of what they offer is not really Christian, and will be off the shelves in a short time due to lack of interest. Natural man must have something new and exciting, with instant results, and the pseudo-Christian publishers stop at nothing to give them this.
But in addition, even within my own life and others who have sifted through some of the empty, popular fads, I see a troubling tendency to always thirst for something newer. A new doctrine, a new way of praying, a new way of reading, a new way of repenting, etc. For example, ‘I now pray in the mornings, and it has changed my life’. Or, ‘I’ve just stopped thinking about the law of God when I sin, and it has increased my sanctification.’ Or, ‘just read this one book and you’ll never be the same.’ Etc.
In other words, we tend to be very inconsistent in matters of faith and practice –partially because we too crave fads and new ways of thinking of things. We want to be entertained; we want to see instant results in our sanctification; we are easily bored and we oftentimes refuse to believe that the ‘old paths’ and the simple doctrines are our only hope for a steadfast faith.
Just take a look around; you’ll notice those who cannot seem to rest in one thing or another –but are always shifting, changing, talking about something new. This is sin, my friends; it is deeply-imbedded self-righteousness, and it’s end is a belief that it is our works that approve us to God.
Thus, I hope Brooks’ words take root in your heart. We do not rest in a righteousness of our own. We do not rest in our abilities and in what we can produce in the flesh (Phil 3:3); we rest in Him and what He has accomplished for us in His perfect life and perfect death. It is knowing this, beholding it, meditating on it, living in it, resting in it, and hoping in it, while neglecting our own interests of ‘flashy’ new doctrines and practices, that will ultimately keep us from resting in our own performances. There’s nothing new or flashy in resting in Christ alone, but it’s something that very few are willing to embrace.
[…] Posted by donaldkim under Spirituality, Theology I recently read Nathan White’s review of Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices, which pointed me to the importance of resting […]
“Just take a look around; you’ll notice those who cannot seem to rest in one thing or another –but are always shifting, changing, talking about something new.”
You may disagree because these practices arise from Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but I’ve always seen a beauty in the monastic life. The avoid the allure of fads and the “new” through simplicity. They work, they pray, they study. That’s it. Some even spend much of their time in silence because they view most chatter as just “vanity”. Perhaps you might label this as empty ritual, but to me, this is their cross: scraping off the ever-present need to do “great things” and “become important”. In such an environment, I can’t see how one would easily gain an inflated idea about oneself.
James,
The Monastic life of self-depriviation can just as easily become all about “me’ as anything else. Most people tend to see it as holy because it’s against our nature to deprive ourselves, but what’s the motiivation? Is God glorified in a life of isolated, self-centered, inward-seeking depriviation? God did not tell us to stay out of the world to be sanctified, He commanded us to go into the world and spread the gospel, but not be OF it. The Monastics seem to have chosen the latter.
Hannah, how do you discern whether something is self-directed? Couldn’t charges of egotism be leveled against any Christian endeavor, including those like creating apologist blogs? “I must be holy because I have such profound knowledge of the things of God and I write about them all the time.”
I’m sure there are the self-deceived among the monastics, but I’m not sure how many people would enter into a such a lifestyle simply because they thought they’d be “getting something out of it”. What’s to gain? There’s no money, no sexual indulgence, the menu’s limited, no flood of continual sensory stimulation or entertainment, no accolades or praise of other men because their prayers are in secret and their writings are often anonymous, and there’s nowhere to really “move up” to: monastics generally do not take positions of leadership.
Further, evangelization doesn’t have to be carried out in the same manner by everyone. Some people would insist you aren’t evangelizing if you aren’t out on a street corner every weekend with signs (I know a few like this). Do you? How are you suggesting evangelization must be done?
Look, I’m no shill for either the RCC or the OCA. Personally, there are doctrines that I just don’t buy, and there’s most definitely corruption within the ranks. However, my experience with the monastics is that, generally speaking, they are dedicated, humble and God-directed men.
James, Catholicism and the monastic life are built around principles of works-righteousness and self-justification. I abhor that life, everything it stands for, as anyone who takes scripture as authoritative should.
In fact, the Apostle Paul referred to those “who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods” as “devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons”. Doctrines of demons is serious language.
In addition, in Col 2 he states:
So it doesn’t matter what they abstain from, whether that be vain talk, marriage, entertainment, etc., their abstinence is of no help in restraining their flesh and their lusts. As Jesus said, the root and fountain of all sin and evil is the human heart, not in what comes to us from the outside.
Not only that, I agree with Hannah in that they lead very selfish and self-centered lives. Great job they do at loving their neighbor, huh? And that is the second most important command in all the law.
But ultimately these things all comes down to this: must we do something to earn righteousness, or is it given to us, fully, on account of Christ’s merits? There is no in-between.
Oh dear, I feel I’m in the awkward position of defending an institution I have no particular affinity for. I can’t recall the number of times that pastors have suggested we “pray and fast” for x or y. Fasting, as in abstaining! (”Do not eat!”)
What’s the difference between the monastic who, for a time, abstains and the Baptist who, for a time, abstains? In both instances, both believe they are doing what God desires, no? Neither believe that they’re doing it for no particular reason, that it’s “useless”. All believe that their fasting will have an impact … see http://www.ccci.org/growth/growing-closer-to-god/how-to-fast/index.aspx
Fast, and “x” will happen. How is this “relying solely on God’s grace”? No, there is an expectation based on human endeavor in both cases!