Weaver1has's Blog

taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_van_Mastricht

Our question is: What do the Protestant and Reformed Traditions teach us about the conscience?

Herman Bavinck gives us an outline on pages 181 – 189 in his Reformed Ethics edited by Bolt.  So, what is the main idea?

As usual Bavinck gives us a summary on page 189:

““Van Mastricht provides us with a nice brief summary overview of the preceding: “Conscience is the judgment of humans about themselves, insofar as they are subject to God.” It belongs to practical reason and judges according to a syllogism: the major premise is the syntérésis; the minor premise, the syneidésis; the conclusion, the krisis. The first one is law, the second is witness, the third is judge.””

A Historical Digression

Before looking at Van Mastricht’s summary: Who was he and why does Bavinck quote from him?

Wikipedia says about him:

“Petrus (or Peter) van Mastricht (or Maastricht) (1630 – February 9, 1706) was a Reformed theologian.

He was born in Cologne to a refugee from Maastricht during the Dutch revolt. His father’s family name was originally “Schoning,” but he changed it to “van Mastricht” on moving to Cologne. Petrus occasionally used the Latinized pseudonym Scheuneneus.[1] Johannes Hoornbeeck was Masticht’s pastor from 1639 to 1643 and his teacher at the University of Utrecht starting in 1647, along with Gisbertus Voetius and others. From 1650 to 1652 he took a tour of study at Leiden University and possibly Oxford and the University of Heidelberg.” Taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrus_van_Mastricht

Mastricht was a top theologian, and he was into practical theology.  He did not turn his back on tools of the past, a clean sweep.  For example, you will not find many references to Aristotle in the institutes of the Christian Religion in which Calvin returned to the Bible and did a clean sweep where he saw necessary. 

“Given his defence of the use of scholastic theology as a polemical tool for engaging Roman Catholic theologians, it might seem counterintuitive to assert that Voetius was a proponent of practical theology, especially in light of how heavily the older scholarship juxtaposes practical piety and scholastic theology.8 Yet, in response to the questions, “Is the study of and familiarity with scholastic theology in some way consistent with practical theology?” and, “Does

familiarity with and consideration of the former corrupt and overturn the latter?” Voetius responded: “‘Yes’ to the former, ‘No’ to the latter. No more than a meticulous exposition of practical theology overturns the other: ‘Test everything; hold fast to what is good’ (1 Thess. 5[:21]). William Perkins and William Ames are two outstanding examples of practical theologians.” Mastricht was also in agreement with Voetius that practical and scholastic theology are not inherently antithetical, the latter being a polemical tool and the former being the application of theological determinations.”” From (The Best Method of Preaching; The Use of Theoretical-Practical Theology; Petrus van Mastricht; Translated and Introduced by Todd M.Rester; Reformation Heritage Books; Grand Rapids, Michigan from a pdf found at the above wikipedia)

Anyhow the above outline, I think demonstrates Bavinck’s choice of intellectual material.   So, Herman Bavinck gives us the syllogism and the conscience works through law, witness and Judgement.  We now need to start to dig deeper to find these golden truths from the Protestant and Reformed branches of the Church.  Herman Bavinck does not mince his words when he says that the very historical Reformation itself was an act of conscience.   It is no surprise then that ‘Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin’ regularly discussed ‘conscience’.  Calvin’s definition then about conscience it,” a “sense of divine judgment,” as a witness joined to them [human beings], which does not allow them to hide their sins from being accused before the Judge’s tribunal.”” (From page 181 Reformed Ethics, Bavinck) He continues in explaining that there is no escape for man from God. That the conscience acts as a guardian and it spies out all the hidden secrets.  The conscience then ‘only has respect to God alone’ (page 182). Calvin’s conclusions on Bavinck are therefore, “Calvin teaches us the following: (a) conscience is a knowledge of our deeds in relation to God, his judgment; (b) only God can bind the conscience and not any human person; (c) conscience is a witness, a guardian of our deeds; and (d) conscience stands above all human judgments. Conscience provides us with some knowledge of the moral law, but it is an incomplete and imperfect knowledge.” (Page 182, Reformed Ethics.)

The conscience is very important for us and no government has a right to try to control this aspect of the human but alas, it goes on.  Nationalism in its extreme in whatever guise, Fascism, communism to eradicate certain people groups or mould them into the ‘master race’. As an example of this we hear of the Uighur people being ‘re-educated in special camps’, forced to ‘learn Chinese’, forcing them against their will to become more Chinese.  https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-22278037

So yes ‘conscience’ is a very important topic for all of us!

It is well worth following Bavinck’s reference to Calvin and I am going to quote this whole section. This section is from the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

“ . Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the

common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience.  When the whole world was enveloped in the thickest darkness of ignorance, it was still held dike a small ray of light which remained unextinguished) that conscience was superior to all human judgments. Although this, which was acknowledged in word, was afterwards violated in fact, yet God was pleased that there should even then exist an attestation to liberty, exempting the conscience from the

tyranny of man. But we have not yet explained the difficulty which arises from the words of Paul. For if we must obey princes not only from fear of punishment but for conscience’s sake, it seems to follow, that the laws of princes have dominion over the conscience. If this is true, the same thing must be affirmed of ecclesiastical laws. I answer that the first thing to be done here is to distinguish between the genus and the species. For though individual laws do not reach the conscience, yet we are bound by the general command of God, which enjoins us to submit to magistrates. And this is the point on which Paul’s discussion turns — viz. that magistrates are to be honoured, because they are ordained of God (Romans. 13:1). Meanwhile, he does not at all teach that the laws enacted by them reach to the internal government of the soul, since he everywhere proclaims that the worship of God, and the spiritual rule of living righteously, are superior to all the decrees of men. Another thing also worthy of observation and depending on what has been already said, is, that human laws, whether enacted by magistrates or by the Church, are necessary to be observed (I speak of such as are just and good), but do not therefore in themselves bind the conscience, because the whole necessity of observing them respects the general end and consists not in the things commanded. Very different, however, is the case of those which prescribe a new form of worshipping God, and introduce necessity into things that are free.” (From the Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4, 10, 5 Ages software)

Reflection

What ever country or state we are from; How do we treat its citizens?

I am so glad that Herman Bavinck is looking at the use of conscience from the Reformed minds of this historical period.  The conscience is about making the right choices in life. 

Before God: How do I treat my neighbour?

As a Parliament of whatever Country: How do we treat our citizens?

As a Parliament of whatever Country: How do we treat our neighbouring countries?

As a Parliament of whatever Country: Is it USA first or China first, or the UK first at the expense of other people basic human rights? 

I think the Reformation as it was driven by conscience, Europe ended up with better laws. However, it seems to be the case that Europe is also on this bandwagon of Europe first, or Finland First with the Perus-Suomalaiset.  This is tantamount to racism!

There is too much racism in the world and Herman Bavinck is reminding us earlier in his book about the fact that every individual human being is precious in God’s sight.  We need our consciences renewed; for Christians through prayer and reading the Bible and living according to the golden rule ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’.  In fact, this golden rule is found in all of the major religions of the world.  I thank God for Herman Bavincks writings.  We certainly need to get back to basics.  Too many bad things are happening in the world!

Bavinck says a lot more about Conscience from the Protestants and Reformers but unfortunately, I have run out of steam so we will continue next week with this topic.

Bavinck really understood the Church Fathers and the scholastics.  In that case, what did the Church Fathers and scholastics understand about the conscience?

(Bavincks summary on page 180. Reformed Ethics, edited by John Bolt)

“Those conclusions—that is, the functions of the conscience—are threefold: (1) to witness, whereby “we recognize that we have done or not done something,” thus, merely consciousness;(2) to bind, or to “judge that something should be done or not done”; (3) to incite, whereby “we judge that something done is well done or ill done, and in this sense conscience is said to excuse, accuse, or torment.”70 Conscience, therefore, is always a “concluding knowledge,” a derived, applied, subsequent knowing.”

So, for the church fathers and scholastics the conscience has three aspects.

1.       Recognizing we have done or not done something (consciousness)

2.       To judge or not to judge something done or not done.

3.       The part of us that judges what we have done (right or wrong) excusing us or accusing us.

So, how do we fit into this.  A couple of chapters ago I mentioned that the conscience is very important for Bruce Lee.  It is part of being human.  It is something that is universal to every human being.  The question is what type of person are you, my friend?  Are you the type that listens to that inner voice or mind accusing or defending you? Another universal fact is that as far as God is concerned, we have all sinned.  The conscience I believe shows us this to be the case to all human beings.  Some of us choose not to listen to the conscience at all but it is always there under normal conditions.  Whether one is a Christian or not, this topic is bigger than any one religion, this is a question that affects all of us. Let us now go back in time to page 176.

Tertullian

“testimony of the soul naturally Christian”  acknowledges an inclination to morality just as the soul, though enslaved to the body and to false gods, when it awakes and “comes to itself,” spontaneously speaks of God, using such expressions as “God is great and good,” “which God may give,” “God secs,” “I commend myself to God,” and “God will repay me.”36 At the same time, such ordinary human morality is not sufficient; it must be Christian.

(Bavincks summary on page 176. Reformed Ethics, edited by John Bolt)

Clement of Alexandria

“Thus, especially in Clement of Alexandria, a good conscience keeps the soul pure and preserves it from ignorance.”

Chrysostom on Genesis 27:41 and 42: NASB

“So, Esau bore a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him; and Esau said to himself, “The days of mourning for my father are near; then I will kill my brother Jacob.” Now when the words of her elder son Esau were reported to Rebekah, she sent and called her younger son Jacob, and said to him, “Behold your brother Esau is consoling himself concerning you by planning to kill you. “

In summary form for Chrysostom the conscience is an adequate instructor for us.  He says that ‘nothing is more pleasurable than a good conscience’.  On the other hand, a bad conscience can cut deep and presses hard on us.  We cannot escape the conscience.

Irenaeus, Augustine, Jerome, Aquinas, and the later scholastics

Bavinck then gives a discussion about Ezekiel 1. 4-14.  The main interpretation of these Church fathers was that these four creatures represented various aspects of the 4 Gospels.  In fact, Jerome’s commentary also touched on anthropology and Bavinck here is more concerned about this.  Bavinck gives the background information to this, but he is more interested on how Jerome uses syntérésis as conscience.   Actually, some think syntérésis is a mistake and that Jerome meant synderesis.  To cut a long story short Aquinas used both words.  He then says accurately “In any case, Scholastic theologians used the term synderesis/syntérésis for either a capacity(power) of the soul or as a natural habit of concrete activity.”

For a couple of paragraphs, I am moving away from Bavinck to understand ‘syllogisms’.  Once we understand the basic concepts, we will return to Herman Bavinck.  Syllogisms are used a lot in philosophy, so we need to understand them here.  I think the first three and a half minutes of this video is a good explanation. (It goes on into Venn diagram theory, but you don’t need that.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze7iKbKsC7Y

A syllogism has two premises and a conclusion, and the conclusion comes from the premises Or  A syllogism has two statements and a conclusion and the conclusion comes from the statements.  The examples from Academic Kids breaks it down nicely;

“Syllogisms consist of three things: major, minor (the premises) and conclusion, which follows logically from the major and the minor. A major is a general principle. A minor is a specific statement. Logically, the conclusion follows from applying the major to the minor.

For example, this is the classic “Barbara” syllogism, given by Aristotle:

If all humans (B’s) are mortal (A), (major)

and all Greeks (C’s) are humans (B’s), (minor)

then all Greeks (C’s) are mortal (A). (conclusion)

That is,

Men die. (general principle)

Socrates is a man. (specific statement)

Socrates will die. (application of major to minor)

   ”.  From:  http://www.academickids.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Syllogism

For Thomas Aquinas synderesis is not a power but a habit. Bavinck quotes him:

“Now it is clear that, as the speculative reason argues about speculative things, so that practical reason argues about practical things. Therefore, we must have, bestowed on us by nature, not only speculative principles, but also practical principles. ” Now the first speculative principles bestowed on us by nature do not belong to a special power, but to a special habit, which is called “the understanding of principles,” as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. vi, 6). Wherefore the first practical principles, ‘bestowed on us by nature, do not belong to a special power, but to a special natural habit, which we call “synderesis.’ ”

So then with this argument, in the same way that we are born with the idea of true and false we are also born with the idea of good and evil.  For Aristotle I think habit is within the noetic realm. See the abstract on Aristotle’s understanding https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4217385/

I think this is important that we see synderesis as being first principles that we are endowed with the idea of good and evil.

Reason is also seen as natural endowment for idea of right and wrong which originally came from Aristotle; “Aristotle focuses on reason and mind as part of human natural endowment. Individuals are born with the natural ability to think which enables them to make rational decisions. Individuals through their minds and reason develop abilities which could become habits if they continue to be rational.” From Google  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_(philosophy)

So for Aquinas he follows Aristotle on reason and the synderesis as being given to humans by God.  It is in the very nature of humans.  This is important to accept these two premises if we are to follow Bavincks understanding for conscience to be the conclusion of the ‘practical syllogism.’

We already know what a syllogism is but now we need to understand what a ‘practical syllogism is’.

The definition

“The practical syllogism is an instance of practical reasoning which takes the form of a syllogism, where the conclusion of the syllogism is an action.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_syllogism

An example of a practical syllogism

“Major premise: Good students take notes;

Minor premise: I want to be a good student;

Conclusion: I should take notes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_syllogism

Let us return to Herman Bavinck.  Herman Bavinck says that the Conscience is not a habit but an act. 

A habit is something that has been endowed on humans by God that is in their nature. 

In page 180 Bavinck writes “Synderesis is sharply distinguished from conscientia, which applies the synderesis to the particular and the concrete. Conscience is not-a habit but an act. In terms of a syllogism, synderesis is the major premise, and reason the minor premise, of an argument for determining whether a particular act is a duty or is to be repudiated. The conscience is therefore the “practical syllogism in the intellect.”  So then we deduce that from synderesis and reason we get conscience as the practical syllogism of the intellect.  We now come full circle and as a reminder.

So, for the church fathers and scholastics the conscience has three aspects.

1.            Recognizing we have done or not done something (consciousness)

2.            To judge or not to judge something done or not done.

3.            The part of us that judges what we have done (right or wrong) excusing us or accusing us.

Now we can understand what Bavinck means by conscience; “Conscience, therefore, is always a “concluding knowledge,” a derived, applied, subsequent knowing.”  This is now evident to us as we grasp how important synderesis and reason are. 

Synderesis being the facet of humanity that deals with good and evil and reason being the human facet of right and wrong; the conclusion of these is conscience as action in the intellect somehow.

This is still not Bavinck’s conclusion.  Bavinck saw the problem however that we are going to look at.  By separating synderesis and reason synderesis became ‘inactive’ and thus conscience in the syllogism is broken. Let us now read on into page 181.

Page 181 starts with “However, the conscience can frequently draw false conclusions (also because

reason provides a false minor premise). In other words, the conscience can err, judging something to be evil when it is good or making wrong applications.  from premises or general principles that are good in themselves.”  Reason, then can come to false conclusions!  Why is this important.  This is very important because it breaks the perfect practical syllogism of synderesis, reason and conscience.  If one part of the syllogism is found to be false, then it crumbles like a pack of playing cards.   For Bavinck this led the Jesuits into error with their invention of ‘probabilism’.   The Roman Catholic church in its cannon law, when looking at the cases of conscience would look at the church fathers for advice.  As Bavinck says,” The confessors thus gained power of judgment over the consciences of their laity. They used painstakingly developed canon law to determine this. If the good that was required could not be determined, a person’s doubting conscience could be pacified by giving a probable opinion.” page 181.

Bavinck is correct in his estimation but according to a wiki the Dominicans were also influenced by this.  The Wikipedia says,” In Catholic moral theology, probabilism provides a way of answering the question about what to do when one does not know what to do. Probabilism proposes that one can follow an authoritative opinion regarding whether an act may be performed morally, even though the opposite opinion is more probable. (An opinion is probable when, by reason of intrinsic or extrinsic arguments, it is able to gain the assent of many prudent men.) It was first formulated in 1577 by Bartholomew Medina, OP, who taught at Salamanca.

Probabilism is one way of approaching difficult matters of conscience. In such cases, according to probabilism, one may safely follow a doctrine approved by a recognized Doctor of the Church, even if the opposite opinion is more probable as judged by other considerations, such as scientific considerations or many other recognized authoritative opinions.

A more radical view, “minus probabilissimus”, holds that an action is permissible if a single opinion allowing that action is available, even if the overwhelming weight of opinion proscribes it. This view was advanced by the Spanish theologian Bartolomé de Medina (1527–1581) and defended by many Jesuits such as Luis Molina (1528–1581). It was heavily criticised by Blaise Pascal in his Provincial Letters as leading to moral laxity.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_probabilism

If you want to know more about this, I would seriously look at the Provincial Letters by Blaise Pascal the inventor of modern probability. I want to finish this section off by quoting Herman Bavinck; “This is the source of the terrible notion of probabilism that was developed later by the Jesuits. Here synderesis disappears completely, the conscience is regarded as a bias, and probabilism (with the authority of this bias) determines everything. It was Pascal’s personal mission to oppose this. The Scholastics, therefore, began by maintaining the moral human nature within the synderesis, but they separated and distinguished from it the conscience as something defective and erring. By means of that separation, the synderesis became inactive (a notion that contained a great truth). Meanwhile, the conscience, much too weak to stand on its own and be a guide, became subject to an alien authority.” From Herman Bavinck’s Reformed Ethics, page 181

Reflection

I have to say that I found this section rather heavy, but the spade work was worth it!  This section raised interesting points.  You may believe as I do that God created us in his likeness and his image.  However, you might not have thought about what your natural attributes are.  Now I think there is more room for thought but we must remember that the Fall happened, and sin came into the world.  It is only through Jesus Christ by the holy Spirit and by regeneration, that we can hope to enter heaven and be in perfect union with God.  Next time we will look at Protestants and the Reformed Tradition.

                      Knowledge in the mind and Holiness in the will

Google Blog community complained about this blog and it was taken down and then reinstated it.  I haven’t been told why apart from some infringement.  I have changed the photos and will republish it.   Next time I hope they have the courtesy to explain to me before reacting.  If this becomes a regular thing then I may move my blog away from Google.

In this section we will here the words natural and supernatural.  Perhaps your understanding of supernatural has come from the comic books.  Science fiction has given us some great stories to read.  It is great when Superman, Spider man or the Flash are able to stop the super villains but remember this is only fiction.  Even if it is great to read and gives us a buzz it is only fiction.  When we look at Bavinck, we will have a better understanding of natural and supernatural and it is only God that can do this lovely stuff.

This section is interesting because his definition on natural and supernatural here is very important.  As he says on page 152 that good works must proceed from a true faith (page 152).  He then quotes the Heidelberg Catechism. 

Then, what is true faith?

By way of diversion…

I’m actually going through the book of Ruth.  The interesting thing is that I would say that Naomi and Ruth are true examples of faith.  So, if you’re interested in what true faith looks like then after you have finished this blog or even before go and have a read at;

https://weaver1hasonline.international/

Why Naomi and Ruth?

As King David’s and Christ’s ancestors we can learn some serious stuff from them.  Don’t look down on the short story because it is short.  God can teach us a lot about true faith here.

Going back on track with Bavinck…

“Spiritual good is what spiritual perform, worked in them and through them by the Holy Spirit”: This good according to Bavinck is supernatural because it is by the Holy Spirit.  The goods the natural man has are other goals but not this one.  We have looked at the natural man earlier and we discovered that his main goal is the ‘I’.

Bavinck goes on to say that the image of God is total conformity to the True. We have read enough to realize that the true is an impossibility for the natural man even without the 10 Commandments. Are there only 10? We cannot in the natural fallen state even fulfil these.  Remember that the Torah there are hundreds of laws, but the fact is, we cannot even keep ten perfectly. 

Then on page 153 of his ethics Bavinck starts to get serious and shows us lots of proof texts.  We can look at these now.

⁷ I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart. Jeremiah 24:7

³³ “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33

²⁵  At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Matthew 11:25

¹¹  Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. Matthew 13:11

³ Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3

¹⁴ A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. Acts 16:14

²⁷  FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES;
OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.”’
²⁸ Therefore let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen.” Acts 28:27-28

Interesting verses that point to the fact that when God moves by the Holy Spirit in the natural man, he will get a brand-new heart (the focus moves from the self-back to God!).  We plainly see this working in Lydia as “the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul”.  In the Christian tradition God is always active and working in the lives of his people.  In the story of Ruth as well in one verse Naomi doesn’t understand why but she says something like “God caused this situation to happen and”.  We do not need to be Superman, Spider man, the Hulk or the Flash to move from the natural to the supernatural.  With God it is completely normal to take us into His dimension and into the perfect relationship.

Then, the question has to be begged; Why is it impossible for the natural fallen nature of Man to make it into eternity and back into a relationship with God?

Bavinck continues with another set of proof texts that shows us the reason.

The Natural Man:

¹¹ THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; Romans 3:11

The natural man is hostile to God

⁷ because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, Romans 8:7

From the point of view of the natural man it is Seen as foolishness:

The Wisdom of God
¹⁸ For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹For it is written,
“I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.”
²⁰  Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. ²² For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; ²³ but we preach  Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, ²⁴ but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25

The natural man lacks spiritual understanding

⁷ but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; ⁸the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory; ⁹ but just as it is written,
“THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD,
AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN,
ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.”
¹⁰   For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. ¹¹ For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. ¹² Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, ¹³ which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words. 1 Corinthians 2:7-13

There are some more proof texts, but I think you get the idea.  Having completed his section on the proof texts he sums up on page 154.

“The ability to do the good, the supernatural, God-pleasing, eternal-life deserving good, is totally lost. Indeed, even the believer accomplishes not

a single perfectly good work. But the believer’s good work can be good in

principle, because it derives from the Holy Spirit, from faith, and it takes

God’s law as its standard, and it aims at God’s honour. Then whatever is still

lacking is atoned for by Christ and supplemented by him. The fact remains,

however, that the spiritual good remains lost.”

Reflection

Having looked at “Knowledge in the mind and Holiness in the will” we have come to recognize that goodness only comes from God.  God’s saving power comes from God, God’s saving power comes from the Holy Spirit and not from fallen man.  This has caused theologians over the centuries to battle out the doctrine of election.  For some Calvin’s double predestination is a driving force of people going to heaven and hell.  I have to say I think Calvin is very sharp, but I don’t think he intended it to be this way.  Karl Barth saw this, and he emphasised ‘in Christ’ but for some this over emphasis can lead some to think that Karl Barth is on his way to universalism.  I think the truth is that it does not matter!  Pelagius was wrong because it gave God’s sovereignty to man.  I am looking forward to reading Bavinck’s ideas on election.   Here however in his ethics God is Sovereign and that is the way it should be. 

Prayer

Perhaps as a Christian we may have gone astray like the prodigal son.

O Lord I pray that by your Holy Spirit you will put us on the same road as Jesus Christ.  I pray that you will work in our intellect and wills to bring us into the great salvation that you created.

Help us to show mercy as you showed mercy.

Help us to show love as you show love.

Help us to see with the eye of faith like Lydia.

Amen

 At the end of his New testament selection Bavinck writes:

“However, even among believers, the conscience is not immediately perfected or healthy. For many, the conscience remains weak (1 Cor. 8:7; 10:12; cf. 1 Cor. 10; Rom. 14) and must therefore be spared. It can still be bound to idols, to pagan laws and customs, from which it must gradually be set free to be bound solely and most strictly to God and his law. In other words, the activity of the conscience must be determined by the Holy Spirit alone (Rom. 9:1).” Reformed Ethics page 176, Herman Bavinck, edited by John Bolt.

The Christian person is not perfect even after repenting and following Christ.  It is all by grace.  The believer can and is still bound to ‘to idols, to pagan laws and customs.’  How does this differ to God’s laws?  

 Paganism has outlying features for example:

“During the past thirty years, scholars have gradually become aware of the existence, across the western world, of a rapidly growing complex of modern religions organised under the label of Paganism. [1] Although they differ from each other in the nature of their deities, rites, and organisation, they have certain definitive features in common: most obviously, a veneration of the feminine principle of divinity as well as the masculine, a sense of an inherent sanctity in the natural world, an ethic of responsible individual self-expression that rejects concepts of sin and salvation, and an identification with the pre-Christian religions of Europe and the Near East. They are also more or less united by the observation of a common pattern of eight annual seasonal festivals.”

From https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00155870802352178

So, although the Christian has made a break with the old life and has made Christ Lord of his life there are things that hang on.  It may be that the Believer follows Jesus, but he came from another religious background and still holds on to some of his earlier deities.  It may be that he has problems with food that has been sacrificed to some god.  It may be that before he became a Christian, he had a selfish mentality and a materialist.  He is still holding on to these things.  ‘Paganism’ covers a very wide spectrum, no wonder the believer holds on to old ways because he/ she still does not know any better. As Paul says and Bavinck reminds us: “I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,” Romans 9:1. As Bavinck has said and reminds us:

‘the activity of the conscience must be determined by the Holy Spirit alone’.

Let us look at some of the basics:

Who is the Holy Spirit?

The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Spirit and it is he who sanctifies us and gets us ready to be in god’s presence.  He the Holy Spirit teaches us everything we ought to know including to love our neighbours and enemies.

Let us look at some of these verses:

Paul says:

However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 1 Corinthians 8:7

Paul again says:

Therefore, let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.   No temptation has overtaken you, but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. 1 Corinthians 10:12-13

Again, all of Romans 14 but I only quote a few verses here:

Therefore, let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this—not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother’s way.  I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclear.  For if because of food your brother is hurt, you are no longer walking according to love. Do not destroy with your food him for whom Christ died.  Therefore, do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil; for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.  For he who in this way serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men.  So, then we pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another.  Romans 14:13-20

At the time of Paul Paganism was a major religion in that part of the world.  With the spread of Christianity, it has shrunk but not destroyed (almost destroyed).    This was a war of ideas and people hearts.  We can see these real issues being played out on a daily basis. Now in the 21^st century the new paganism is secularism and through secularism Christianity is now being attacked in the name of democracy.  The idea of secularism I suppose it the political view that “it the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.” From the oxford dictionary and google.

At the time of Saint Paul these temples we governed by the state.  Even though religious institutions have been separated from the state, religion has only prospered and has become multiple faceted like at the time of the first century AD.  As the new religious belief systems move in, there is more persecution of Christians even in Western countries.  Perhaps we need a revisit of the two kingdoms of light and darkness by St Augustine needs to be revisited.   Certainly, when we look at our consciences, we need the Holy Spirit to look into our souls and purify our consciences and make us Holy.  No one in their own strength can purify and make the conscience pure; it is only by the death, resurrection of Christ and the Holy Spirit working in our lives can we ever hope to obtain entrance into God’s presence. 

Reflection.

“Herman Bavinck finishes this section of the conscience and the New Testament by saying: “The testimony of the conscience must be the witness of the Holy Spirit. Here we also need to appeal to 1 John 3:18—20, where the activity of the conscience is ascribed to the heart: “Whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart.” From Reformed Ethics page 176, Herman Bavinck, edited by John Bolt.

I find that last sentence: ‘Whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart’ a real encouragement.  No matter how far we feel that we have failed, God will be there to help us and save us from our own destructive ways.

So, then my friends. Repent on a daily basis asking God for his grace in Christ to help us.  No one is perfect.  I’m not perfect but neither is anyone else but Christ.

09 05 2021

conscience on the new testament as a word file

Last time we considered the Old Testament on the conscience.  Now we are going to look at the New testament.  Part 2

Today in Finland and many parts of the world it is Mothers Day so I say Happy Mothers day.  Without motherhood the world would be a sadder place.  Let us now move on to Bavinck and his teachings on the conscience

Bavinck starts with Matthew 6 22; I need to quote him here,” “The eye is the lamp of the body”—Jesus is referring to the capacity for the human mind to know the eternal, to reason, to the human spirit, and to the light of nature (retained by humans after the fall).”  This is very interesting because there is a residue of conscience after the Fall.  Other religions have the capacity to reach heights unimaginable; Bruce Lee proved this in his art. This height however is not salvific according to the Christian religion.  The Fall was a universal disaster for all humankind, and it is only through Jesus Christ that we can come to the Father and reach our full potential.  This process then is a movement of the particular that many branches of humanity cannot accept.  However, I have accepted it as I believe that Jesus is the answer to all of humanity and humanities problems.

So excepting the story of the prodigal son in Luke (Luke 15:17)and the woman caught in adultery John (8:9). . then the word conscience (syneideisis) is found mainly in Paul’s writings in a lot of places.  This is the route Herman Bavinck follows.   He traverses pages 173 -176.  There is a lot of information to take in.  Obviously if Paul takes the conscience seriously so must we.   Before we come to any conclusions, we ought to follow this road too and see where we find ourselves at.

Bavinck also refers to the woman caught in adultery Joahn 8, 7[syneideisis] that some manuscripts have a different reading. John Chapter 7. 53 through to chapter 8 verse 11 are not found in the earliest manuscripts.   However there is strong evidence that this event took place.  I go along with Carson’s finding (http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40591)

I also found out what Bavinck already knew that

From Novum Testamentum 26th edition

Και uπο της συνειδεισεως ελεγχομενοι ἐξήρχοντο. (U Γ 28. 700.  (892). 1010 πμ

And by their conscience being convicted they began to go away(one by one)

Below from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_uncials

U = Nanianus 9th century Venice

Γ = tischendorf 10th century Russia

So, from the teachings of Jesus we see the idea of conscience is found even if there is disagreement on the literal use of conscience.  The majority text is frowned on by some because it accepted later texts as well.  I’m not interested in those reasons.  For the main point Bavinck is correct to state the idea of conscience is found in the teachings of Jesus.  We must also remember that the teachings of the Apostles are the teachings of Jesus and these were worked out in the day to day running of the church to the point that most Apostles died martyrs.

Paul has his theology on conscience and the mind and use of the mind and heart are very important to him.  Conscience / syneideisis are very important.  Bavinck is now going to prove to us why conscience is such an important word for him.  This is also very important for us because if we really believe and have a high view of Scripture that it contains the oracles of God. The question is What state is our own conscience in?

Are we the type of people that when we do something wrong in our hearts we say “it doesn’t matter” or are we like Bruce Lee people who take our conscience so seriously that we listen to every aspect of the conscience?  It does not matter if Bruce Lee was a Christian or not, he is a good example of a person who understood the conscience.  A lot of Christians and people of other belief systems have not I believe do not fully understand or grasp what a conscience is. 

As a general introduction then Paul is found using the word conscience the most

“And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.” (Acts 23:1)

 So, I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. (Acts 24:16)

Therefore, one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. (Rom. 13:5)

But some, through former association with idols, eat food as really offered to an idol, and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. (1 Cor. 8:7; cf. 8:12—9:27; 10:23—33; Rom. 14)”

From Reformed ethics, Herman Bavinck, edited by John Bolt page 176.

So, Paul always watched his conscience and questioned it before God.  Paul submitted his conscience to God’s will.  For Bruce Lee, he was the measure who measured his conscience with very high standards.  For Christians, the conscience ought to be submitted to God.  This happens by grace and faith.  

Reflection

So, then we have seen that for the Apostles and the teachings of Jesus the idea or the very word conscience is found.  We have seen that even non-Christian’s value conscience.  My question is: Do you value conscience?

As people of faith, we realize that we cannot do perfect things.  We are human and we fail.  This is why the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ gives us hope.  In our own strength we will fail again and again but through the work of Christ by the Holy Spirit, he helps us to do the right thing.  Next time we will continue with Bavinck as he goes into more detail on the conscience.