Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience: A Brief Exposition of the LBCF XXI

Posted by deangonzales on March 14, 2010
3 Comments

Modern Christians seem to marginalize the doctrine of Christian liberty. The subject is rarely discussed in any systematic theologies. Even practical books on Christian living often gloss over the topic. For some, the doctrine of Christian liberty is just not that important in relationship to other doctrines of the faith. For others, the doctrine of Christian liberty is too controversial. Consequently, many modern Christians fail to give this doctrine the attention it deserves. In contrast, the Reformers and the Puritans saw the doctrine of Christian liberty as central to the Christian faith. Martin Luther wrote an entire book on this subject.¹ John Calvin devoted an entire chapter in the Institutes to “Christian Freedom,” and he argues that any summary of gospel teaching must include this topic.² John Owen referred to Christian liberty as “the second principle of the Reformation.”³ And the Westminster divines and Baptist Puritans agreed by according the doctrine of Christian liberty an entire chapter in our Confession of Faith.⁴

I believe the Reformers and Puritans had Scriptural warrant for their emphasis upon Christian liberty. Following the claims of Jesus Himself (John 8:32-36), the apostle Paul assured believers that Christ had saved them for freedom (Rom. 6:18, 22; 2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:1, 13). In light of this, it is vital that the modern church regain a proper understanding of and appreciation for the doctrine of Christian liberty. We must not allow potential controversy or abuse to keep us from enjoying the blessings Christian liberty was designed to attain.

I.     The Nature of Christian Liberty (para. 1)

The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel, consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law, and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation: as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.
All which were common also to believers under the law for the substance of them; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of a ceremonial law, to which the Jewish church was subjected, and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

The first paragraph consists of two parts. The first part describes Christian liberty under the gospel. The second part alludes to Christian liberty prior to the gospel under the law, and then compares the two. For our purposes, we’ll consider the teaching of this entire paragraph under three headings:

A. The basis of Christian liberty: Christ’s saving transaction

The paragraph begins by identifying Christ’s redemptive work on behalf of believers as the basis of Christian liberty (John 8:36; Gal. 3:13). This implies two complementary truths. First, all men outside of Christ are in bondage and do not enjoy true freedom. Second, only those who believe in Christ, whom Christ purchased with His own blood, can truly enjoy the benefits of Christian liberty. What are those benefits?

B. The essence of Christian liberty: Freedom from … freedom for …

The essence of Christian liberty may be viewed from two perspectives:

1.  Negatively, Christian liberty is …

Firstly, freedom from the guilt of sin, both subjective and objective guilt: “freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the rigour and curse of the law” (John 3:36; Rom. 5:1; Gal. 3:13). Secondly, Christian liberty is freedom from the power of sin: “delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin” (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 2:1-3; Col. 1:13; Rom. 6:14-22).  Thirdly, Christian liberty is freedom from the punishment of sin: “from the evil of afflictions,⁵ the fear and sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation” (Psa. 119:71; Rom. 8:18-28; 1 Cor. 15:54-57; Heb. 2:14-15).

2.  Positively, Christian liberty is …

Freedom for Godward communion and for heartfelt obedience: “as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind” (Eph. 2:18; 3:12; Rom. 8:15; 1 John 4:18).

In summary, Christian liberty consists in our freedom from the bondage of sin and our freedom to know and please God which Christ has purchased for all who believe in Him. But that raises an important question: Did Old Testament believers experience this freedom?

C. The development of Christian liberty: From law to gospel

It’s common for modern Christians to downplay any fundamental continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament saint. Consequently, some view Christian liberty as the experience of only the New Testament believer.⁶ The Puritans, however, did not view the Old and New Testaments in terms of two distinct religions with different religious experiences. Rather, they saw an organic unity with development and progression. As a result, they saw the benefits of Christian liberty as “common also to believers under the law for the substance of them.” That is, the blessings of Christian liberty belonged to the Old Testament saint in essence. On the other hand, the Puritans also recognized that such blessings have been “enlarged” for the New Testament believer. Thus, Christian liberty as experience by the Old Testament saint and the New Testament saint differs not so much in kind but in degree.

In his exposition of the confession, Sam Waldron identifies Jesus’ words in John 8:32 as the key text for this understanding of Christian liberty.⁷ In that text, Jesus asserts that it is the truth of the gospel that sets men free.  The Old Testament saint did know and embrace gospel truth (Gal. 3:8, 16). Therefore, the Old Testament saint experienced a freedom commensurate with the truth revealed to him. Conversely, the New Testament saint has received more gospel light than the Old Testament saint. Therefore, he no longer has to depend upon the shadows of Old Testament ceremonial laws. Now he can see the light of the glory of God directly shining from the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 3:7-4:6). Furthermore, the New Testament saint’s experience of Christian liberty is potentially, in the language of the Confession, “greater” and “fuller.”⁸

II.   The Boundaries of Christian Liberty (para. 2)

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to his word, or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.

Paragraph two addresses what modern Christians often have in view when discussing the topic of Christian liberty, namely, liberty of conscience. However, liberty of conscience is actually just one facet of Christian liberty. In particular, liberty of conscience addresses the boundaries of Christian liberty.⁹

A. Positively, God’s Word is the sole authority of a liberated conscience.

The second paragraph begins with an obvious yet profound assertion: “God alone is Lord of the conscience.” And according to the Confession’s opening chapter, God administers His lordship over the conscience through the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, liberty of conscience is a corollary of sola Scriptura. It was this great truth that emboldened Luther to stand firm at the Diet of Worms.¹⁰

B. Negatively, human standards are not the authority of a liberated conscience.

If God’s word is the ultimate authority for a liberated conscience, then the believer is “free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or not contained in it.” This does not mean the believer is free from all appropriate forms of human authority (see paragraph 4 of Westminster Confession of Faith below). Nevertheless, it does mean that the believer is free from human authority when it usurps the place of divine authority (Matt. 15:9; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23). Two implications follow. First, we may believe human doctrines and obey human standards only insofar as they are consistent with God’s word (Gal. 1:10; 2:3-5; Col. 2:20, 22-23). Second, we should not require others to render implicit faith or blind obedience. That is, we should not demand another man believe and obey our teaching as biblical and divinely authoritative without seeking to demonstrate that such doctrines and commands are based on God’s word (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; 2 Cor. 1:24; 1 John 4:1-6).

III.  The Abuses of Christian Liberty (para. 3 [and WCF 4])

Historically, the doctrine of Christian liberty has been a bulwark against the authoritarian abuses of both church and state. Yet, history also demonstrates that one extreme may also give rise to another. Not surprisingly, some Anabaptist sects and radical revolutionaries used the doctrine of Christian liberty as a pretense for licentious and lawless conduct.¹¹ As a result, the Puritans felt constrained to address these abuses of Christian freedom.

A. A licentious disregard for genuine biblical morality (para. 3)

They who upon pretense of Christian liberty do practice any sin, or cherish any sinful lust, as they do thereby pervert the main design of the grace of the gospel to their own destruction, so they wholly destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of all our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our lives.

The main design and goal of Christian liberty is not freedom to do as I (autonomously) please (cf. 1Pet. 2:16; Gal. 5:18).  This is nothing more than license to sin, and, as G. I. Williamson points out, “License is that vain and deceiving thing which Satan has offered as a substitute. It is the suggestion that sinful man be unrestricted in setting his own moral standards and doing his own will.”¹² The design and goal of Christian liberty is, rather, freedom to do what pleases God. The liberated Christian has become the “servant of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18, 22).

B. A lawless disregard for God-ordained human authority (para. 4)

[And because the power which God hath ordained, and the liberty which Christ hath purchased are not intended by God to destroy but mutually to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon the pretense of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.  And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or to the power of godliness; or such erroneous opinions or practices, as, either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the Church; they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.]

As the brackets indicate, this last paragraph is found in the Westminster Confession but was omitted in the Savoy and the 1689. The reason for this omission was probably due to the teaching of the second half of the paragraph, which, in its original historical context, implied the establishment of one state church and allowed for the intervention of the state in punishing heresy. In other words, this paragraph was seen as an open door to the intrusion of the state in matters that are purely ecclesiastical. The American Presbyterians partly acknowledged this problem with the paragraph by omitting the last phrase with its proof-texts.

Properly interpreted, this paragraph is primarily concerned with the due recognition of God-ordained authorities, especially ecclesiastical and civil. Christian liberty does not free me from my responsibility to parental, ecclesiastical, or civil authorities. To the contrary, the believer must as a matter of conscience acknowledge God-ordained human authority (Rom. 13:5; Eph. 6:1; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13-16). That’s the real burden of this paragraph, and that burden still needs to be sounded today. Even the second half and last phrase might be interpreted in such a way that does not imply the abuses feared by the Congregationalists and Baptists.¹³ Yet, because of potential abuse, I believe the best solution would have been to drop the second half of the paragraph and retain the first.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary

1. Luther entitled the book Christian Freedom and dedicated it to Pope Leo X. In Philip Schaff’s estimation, the book “breathes the spirit of a genuine disciple of St. Paul” and “takes rank with the best books of Luther.” History of the Christian Church (1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 7:224. [↩]
2. See Book III, Chapter 19 of The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 1:833-49. Calvin opens this chapter by referring to the doctrine of Christian liberty as “a thing of prime necessity” and “an appendage of justification.” (p. 833). [↩]
3. See Volume XV of The Works of John Owen (1850-53; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), pp. 402-04. [↩]
4. Dr. James Renihan is the Professor of Historical Theology at the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies and a modern authority on the 1689 Confession. He treats the chapter 21—“Of Christian liberty”—as the major heading under which chapters 22 through 30 are subsumed. [↩]
5. When the Confession asserts that the believer has been freed from “evil afflictions,” it means punitive afflictions.  Believers may and do suffer remedial and pedagogical afflictions (Psa. 119:67, 71). [↩]
6. I am thinking primarily of the unbiblical dichotomy between the age of law and the age of grace advocated by some more classical dispensationalists. [↩]
7. See A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 2nd ed. (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1995), p. 258. [↩]
8. Of course, the New Testament believer’s actual experience of Christian liberty is not only conditioned upon the degree of gospel truth revealed but also upon his response to that truth. Thus, we must beware of the assumption that New Testament believers are automatically more spiritual than Old Testament believers (though on a corporate level this assumption is correct). Waldron’s caution is appropriate: “Beware of excessive depreciation of the privileges of Old Testament saints. They knew the truth and it set them free. As to their actual experience and holiness, some of them may have exceeded many New Testament saints! The fact that ‘ordinarily’ and corporately New Testament Christians have larger endowments of knowledge and the Spirit does not mean that they universally exceed the Old Testament saints in practical godliness or experience” (p. 260). [↩]
9. Sam Waldron is certainly correct to see liberty of conscience as resting upon the foundation of Christian liberty since man’s conscience cannot be free until he has been loosed from the shackles of sin (pp. 260-61). It seems to me, however, that the paragraph is not addressing the believer’s conscience per se but rather the rule which may properly bind the believer’s conscience. [↩]
10. Luther’s famous words were, “Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the councils alone; it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my conscience is bound by the word of God: I cannot and will not recant any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience. Here I stand. God help me! Amen.” (cited in Schaff, 7:304-05). [↩]
11. The Anabaptists of Munster and the Fifth Monarchy Men of England provide historical examples. [↩]
12. The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), p. 148. [↩]
13. For example, the teaching of this fourth paragraph including the last phrase is defended by Robert Shaw (An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith [1845; reprint, Ross-shire, U.K.: Christian Focus Publications, 1992], pp. 209-12) and by G. I. Williamson (pp. 154-57). [↩]

The "Common Sense" of Thanksgiving

Posted by deangonzales on November 27, 2008
4 Comments

By the “common sense” of Thanksgiving, I’m not referring to the ability to make sound judgments, or to practical savvy upstairs, or to practical suggestions for cooking a turkey or decorating for the Thanksgiving holiday. Rather, I am referring to an intuitive awareness or an instinctive knowledge that is common to all men.  And therefore, when I speak of “the common sense of thanksgiving,” I am referring to that intuitive sense possessed by all men of the ethical propriety of giving thanks. All men in their heart-of-hearts instinctively recognize the appropriateness of expressing gratitude to another for benefits received.

I.    Some Indications of the “Common Sense” of Thanksgiving

Is there really a universal awareness of the appropriateness of giving thanks? In light of a national holiday, it certainly seems that Americans recognize the propriety of thanksgiving. Even in spite of the ongoing recession, Americans still feel the need to give thanks. Of course, there are some people who would attribute the American practice of thanksgiving to our Christian heritage.  “Americans give thanks,” they would argue, “not so much out of instinct as out of tradition.”

It is certainly true that our national holiday of thanksgiving has Christian roots.  Thanksgiving Day is most commonly associated with the Pilgrim’s first harvest feast in 1621. Without doubt this feast was prompted by Christian conviction. The Pilgrims’ Bible made it clear that the giving of thanks was their religious duty. And leadership of our country has perpetuated this Christian tradition. In his first presidential proclamation, President George Washington declared November 26th, 1789, the first national day of thanksgiving and said, “It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” President Lincoln reaffirmed this tradition when on October 3rd, 1863, he invited all his fellow citizens to observe the last Thursday of November “as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwells in heaven.” So undoubtedly, the American practice of thanksgiving is to some degree rooted in Christian tradition.

There’s good evidence, however, that the practice of thanksgiving extends beyond Christian tradition. For example, the American Indians recognized the propriety of giving thanks even before the Pilgrims landed on American soil. One ancient Indian ritual makes this statement: “Our Creator shall continue to dwell above the sky, and that is where those on earth will end their thanksgiving.” So the Indians believed it was proper to thank their Creator. In Dallas, Texas, there is an organization called The Center for World Thanksgiving. And they have several articles on their website regarding the origins of thanksgiving. Allow me to quote some extracts from these articles:

Thanksgiving and gratitude have marked important milestones in American life for hundreds of years, but thanksgiving isn’t only an American tradition. The roots of thanksgiving and gratitude stem from the human universal need to express gratitude through prayer, gift-giving, and celebrations practiced throughout the world.¹

Here’s another quote:

Worldwide, the values and traditions of thanksgiving are found in every culture and religion. Indeed, all the major world religions—including Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity and Islam—have rituals, observances and liturgies that express thanks to a higher power for the gift of life and its wonders.²

I wouldn’t advocate the ecumenical agenda of this organization. Nevertheless, I do agree with their observation regarding the universal need to express gratitude. The presence of gratitude in the language and culture of every nation and every religion seems to indicate a common sense of thanksgiving.

II.    Some Implications of the “Common Sense” of Thanksgiving

What is the significance of this common sense of thanksgiving? What implications can we draw from this universal phenomenon?

A.    Our common sense of thanksgiving proves God’s existence.

You’ve heard of the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments for the existence of God. Well, this is what I am calling the “thanksgiving argument” for the existence of God. How does the universal sense of the propriety of thanksgiving prove the existence of God? In this way: apart from the existence of God, it is impossible to explain the fact and significance of this common sense of thanksgiving. And the only way that we can explain the fact and significance of this common sense of thanksgiving is to presuppose the existence of God.

For example, try to explain the fact and meaning of gratitude from the standpoint of a purely secular and materialistic worldview. According to secular materialism, you and I are nothing more than a complex cluster of atoms and electrical impulses. And if that’s what we are, then why should one cluster of atoms give thanks to another cluster of atoms? We don’t expect the soil to thank the sun for warming it. We don’t expect the tree to thank the raindrops for watering it. We don’t expect the carpet to thank the vacuum for cleaning it. If we’re basically made of the same stuff as everything else in this universe, then how can we account for this universal intuition among men of the propriety of thankfulness?

Let me approach it from another angle. Most Americans are grateful to have been born in America. Most Americans recognize that there are many benefits and privileges in this country that are not found in other places in the world. Thus, we tend to look down on those Americans who are ungrateful. We tend to expect every American to feel some measure of gratitude for having been born in this country. Now follow me carefully—“Thanksgiving” is defined as an act in which one expresses gratitude to another for benefits received. Here’s the question: if thanksgiving is an act whereby we express our gratitude to another, then to whom should Americans give thanks?

Someone says, “We should thank our parents.” True, inasmuch as our parents have faithful cared for us and provided for our needs we certainly owe them thanks. Someone else says, “Americans should thank their government.” I agree that inasmuch as our government faithfully upholds the laws of the land and protects our liberties, we can give thanks to our government. President Bush says that we ought to thank our fellow Americans for being such a generous people. I agree that we should appreciate the kind acts of our fellow Americans. But let us remember that neither our parents nor our government ultimately determined that we would be born in America. Yet there is something inside of us that prompts us to offer our thanks to Someone greater and higher than either the government or our parents. This is why multitudes of Americans still gather in churches and temples and synagogues and mosques and shrines in order to give thanks to the One who created them.

You see, the common sense of thanksgiving—the universal recognition of the propriety of gratitude—proves and confirms the very existence of the God to whom all men owe thanks. One writer has observed, “Were there no God, we would be in this glorious world with grateful hearts and no one to thank.” But the truth of the matter is—were there no God, there would be no so thing as grateful hearts!  But there is such a thing as gratitude. And that gratitude confirms the existence of God!

B.    Our common sense of thanksgiving reveals a primary purpose for our existence.

Why did God create man? The Bible tells us that God created man for His own glory (Isa 43:7). This is why the Shorter Catechism teaches us that man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. What does it mean to “glorify” God?  Basically, it means, to honor God. And one of the primary ways by which men honor and glorify God is when they give Him thanks. Indeed, the Bible closely connects the ideas of glorifying and thanking.

Now one of them, when he saw that he had been healed, turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice, and he fell on his face at His feet, giving thanks to Him. And he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine — where are they? Was no one found who returned to give glory to God, except this foreigner?” (emphasis added).³

If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks? Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (emphasis added).⁴

And when the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to Him who sits on the throne, to Him who lives forever and ever (emphasis added).⁵

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, saying, “Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen” (emphasis added).⁶

These passages teach us that we were created to glorify God, and one of the primary ways we fulfill our purpose for existence is by rendering Him thanksgiving.  And if this is so, then we cannot expect to live happy and productive lives unless we are fulfilling the purpose for which we were created. The great theologian, Augustine of Hippo taught that the human soul is restless until it finds its rest in God. Likewise, it can be said that the human soul is never truly happy unless it’s overflowing with gratitude to God.

C.    Our common sense of thanksgiving exposes our sin of ingratitude.

At some level in their consciousness, all men recognize that they should be thankful to Creator—that’s the very purpose for which they were created. However, as we consider our fellow men, and ourselves and as we reflect upon our attitudes and actions, we have to conclude that God does not receive that gratitude He really deserves.

Think for a few moments of all the benefits, which God has bestowed upon men. First, consider the fact that God created us and the beautiful world in which we live. Did God owe us our existence or a place in His created universe?  Of course not; it’s a gift! Second, consider that fact that God sustains our existence every day. God is the one who gives us the food that we eat, the water that we drink, and the air that we breathe. These too are gifts for which we ought to be eternally grateful. Third, consider the great dignity with which God has endowed mankind.  Consider the engineering marvel of our bodies. We can taste, we can feel, we can smell, we can see, and we can hear. All of these are wonderful blessings. And think of our minds and emotions. We have the ability to reason and think and calculate. We have the ability to experience joy and love and even warm feeling of gratitude! Beyond all of this, consider the fact that the Invisible God who created us has also chosen to reveal Himself to us. The heavens declare the glory of God! Our own conscience and heart bear witness to the reality of God. And not just that there is a God, but a GOOD God! As Paul the Apostle once declared to a city of pagans, “God has not left you without a witness, in that He did good and gave you rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

Now if we truly appreciate God’s goodness to mankind, and if we weigh it against man’s attitude and expressions of gratitude, I’m afraid we find human gratitude to be greatly deficient! How often to you see people in the restaurant bowing their head before a meal to given thanks? How often do you hear successful businessmen, give God the praise for prospering their work? How often do you hear our government leaders thanking God for the blessings and liberties this country enjoys? We don’t hear it often, do we? Not as often as we should!

This is what the Scripture means when it teaches, “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). It’s not that all men fail to be as glorious as God is glorious. Rather, it’s that all men fall short of rendering God the honor that is due to His name! God deserves the highest measure of gratitude that men can give. But how little thanksgiving we hear offered to God! And when we do hear men thank God, it’s often not the true God who created them. Consider the witness of Romans 1:18-23:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures (emphasis added).

This is a general indictment against mankind. Although all men are intuitively aware of their Creator, they give Him neither the appropriate honor nor the appropriate thanks that He deserves. This ingratitude does not have to take the form of atheism. According to this passage, men may be very religious, and yet fail to thank their Creator. They may exchange the glory of the incorruptible God for an image of their own making. Earlier I alluded to the multitudes of Americans who because of a common sense that they ought to be thankful gather in churches and temples and synagogues and mosques and shrines in order to thank their Higher Power. The sad reality is that most of those people are giving thanks to the wrong God. They are withholding the gratitude they owe to the true God—the God they know in their heart-of-hearts—and they are offering that gratitude instead to a false God.

Imagine a wife who is deeply devoted and faithful to her husband. Imagine that her husband goes away on a month long business trip. During that time she faithful cares for his children and administers the affairs of the home. Then at his coming homecoming, she fixes up the house, buys a new dress, arranges for a babysitter, prepares his favorite meal, and sets the stage for a romantic evening.  Imagine how that faithful and devoted wife would feel if for the whole evening her husband did nothing but praise another woman with whom he had been working.  She would be terribly grieved and hurt. That is exactly how God feels when he loads men with countless benefits, and yet they give their thanks and praise to another! It grieves and breaks His holy heart!  Such is the ingratitude of our sinful heart. And our very sense that we should be endlessly thankful exposes the sinful reality that we are so little thankful.

D.    Our common sense of thanksgiving reveals our desperate need for spiritual transformation.

There is a God. Our chief end is to be grateful to this God. But we miserably fail to do so. Therefore, our common sense of thanksgiving reveals that we desperate need to be saved from this ingratitude. Like the leper cleansed of his leprosy, we need to be cleansed of our ingratitude. We need God to remove our heart of stone, and replace it with a heart of flesh. Are you an ungrateful person? Do you rarely feel compelled to pause and give thanks to God? Are you always complaining about something or someone? Does your conscience convict you tonight? Then I encourage you to flee to Christ!  I encourage you to ask God to give you a new heart—a heart that overflows with gratitude.

Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Church

1. “Thanksgiving—One of Humanity’s Most Universal Gestures” (http://www.thanksgiving.org/traditions.html). [↩]
2. “Gratitude and Thanksgiving—A Worldwide Tradition” (http://www.thanksgiving.org/world.html). [↩]
3. Luke 17:15-18. [↩]
4. 1 Corinthians 10:30-31. [↩]
5. Revelation 4:9. [↩]
6. Revelation 7:9-12. [↩]