A Christian’s Motivation for Living a Moral Lifestyle

Whether you are a professing Christian or not; I believe we can all agree that there are valid reasons for all mankind to set personal moral standards and strive to live by them.  However, the big question is: “Are there important motivating factors that are unique to Christianity?”

This article will hopefully help answer that question and also clarify for the reader:  1) the temporary benefits of morality for all mankind while living on this earth; 2) the motivating factors that both Christians and non-Christians have in common; and; 3) why it is so important that we understand these differences.

Let us begin by examining the outcome of living by moral standards that would be true for all peoples.  I don’t believe anyone can bring forth a good argument against the benefits of a life lived avoiding: lying, cheating, stealing, excessive drinking, promiscuity, self-centeredness, rage, gossip, and the like.  We all can admit that breaking certain rules can have negative effects.  Even violating the vehicle code section of the law, like breaking the speed limit or running a red light has the potential for profound negative consequences, i.e. receiving a hefty ticket or even being the cause of a head on collision which kills another person or ends one’s own life.  With that in mind, let us look at the list below.

Some Positive Outcomes of Living by Moral Standards which are true for ALL peoples:

• ·               You are more likely to avoid negative consequences
• ·               You will hurt less people
• ·               You will make the world a safer place to live and raise children
• ·               You will leave an honorable legacy to your children
• ·               You will live with less regrets for bad choices
• ·               You will have deeper and more meaningful relationships
• ·               You will need to apologize less
• ·              You may even save money by avoiding monetary penalties for violating the law of the land.

Pretty compelling reasons for a person to desire to set moral standards and to live by them, right? 

Now really examine the list.  What are the common threads running through it?  Well, there are two that we need to take special note of.  The first is that the good and positive outcomes are temporal in nature.  That is that they are of or relating to time as opposed to eternity.  In other words, they are related to life on earth.  The second thread is that they are all focused upon “You”.  Therefore, they are truths that can be used to promote and motivate both Christians and non-Christians to desire to live more morally upright lives so that they can experience the benefits for themselves, their families and their culture.

However, are they, in and of themselves, the primary factors that should help motivate a Christian to do so?  Why is this such an important question?

First, many people are confused about what true Christianity is.  Many people outside the church (and some inside the church) think that Christianity is a religion of do’s and don’ts.  They have no real concept that becoming a Christian is the result of a super natural act accomplished by God in the heart, soul and mind of a person that radically transforms everything about the person.  A true Christian, although still living in the world, is governed by a total different reality—a super natural reality, if you will.

And what does that mean.  It means that a true Christian’s reality is of or relating to an order of existence which is beyond the visible observable universe.  They are no longer strictly motivated by temporal things but they live with an eternal perspective and they have been given a higher reason for living a moral lifestyle—a reason that transcends the temporal benefits of doing so.

Therefore, a true Christian’s understanding of life is radically different from the world and the reasons they do, or do not do, certain things is radically different, as well.  This is where I feel much of the church is lacking in the attempts to promote morality to those inside the Church.

What should motivate a Christian to live by moral standards?

As followers of Christ, our motivation and desire for living and teaching other Christians to live moral lives should look very different from the world’s. The emphasis should not be what we have in common with the world, but those things that are unique to the reality of true Christianity. So, what are some of the Christian reasons or motivational truths for doing so?

Perhaps this table will help illustrate the motivating factors that we as Christians have in common with the world and those things that are unique to the Christians reality. This is, by no means, an exhaustive list—but I hope it helps us to think things through.

Motivation for a Moral Life	Non-Christians	Christian
The desire to bring honor to the family name.	X	X
Loyalty to self and family	X	X
The better good of Self, Family, and Culture.	X	X
The desire to not suffer the negative consequences associated with immoral behavior	X	X
To please self and others by making wise and good choices	X	X
Have less regrets	X	X
The reality that Christ is present at all times.		X
Higher Loyalty to Christ than to family or self.		X
Does not want to bring dishonor to the name of Christ by the way they live		X
Belief that they are not living for themselves, but are representatives and ambassadors of Christ		X
The desire that Christ’s honor, power and reality be magnified by the way in which they live and the choices they make.		X
To personally experience the joy, happiness, and peace that comes with avoiding the things that would go against God’s moral standards for all of His creatures		X
The desire to please God.  Not out of fear of punishment or out of desire for personal temporal rewards but out love.		X
Understands the difference between temporal good and eternal value.		X

In the above, note the things that we have in common and the things that are unique to a Christian reality.  If you are a professing Christian, how many factors can you identify with as highly motivating factors for living a moral lifestyle?

The following came to mind as I was pondering this topic and I will share the results of that pondering with the reader..

First, I want to examine an often-used quote (which, by the way, is very similar to Bill Hybels book entitled, “Who You are When No One’s Looking”). The quote I am referring to is: “The true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching.” Here is the problem I see with this statement.

The truth is that there is not a single moment in our life where there is no one watching. Yes, I am aware that in that statement the term “no one” means no human being. However, when it is used inside the church as an attempt to promote and motivate Christians, it tends to eclipse what should be emphasized and that is that for the Christian we are never alone. A less confusing and a more motivating statement would be, “The true test of a Christian man is that whether he is being observed by people or in the privacy of his own room, he is always intimately aware of the presence of Christ.” Living in that reality should be all the motivation we need to adhere to a moral standard of living. My fear is that most professing Christians do not live in that reality and that is why they struggle so.

Secondly, as Christian’s (Followers of Christ) we represent Him. We are to be His ambassadors to a lost and dying world. We are not living for ourselves. We are living for Him. Our motivation for living by moral standards and principals should be born out of an overwhelming desire that our lives do not in any way bring dis-honor to His name. Christian, ask yourself—Do you care about that? Do you care about that more than you care about avoiding negative consequences or thinking of yourself as a man of character because you are moral even when “no-one” is watching?

Thirdly, loyalty is a powerful motivating factor which can even make people willing to die for their country. For Christians, loyalty (which is interwoven with love) for and towards our Savior and King should be one of the highest motivating factors for living a life of obedience to the moral standards outlined for us by Him.

In conclusion, if you are a professing Christian and are not motivated by the following:

· A deep, intimate, abiding relationship with Christ
· An unswerving loyalty and love for Him above everything else
· A desire to live a life that will NOT bring dis-honor to His name;
· An uncompromising preoccupation with His Glory;
· A genuine love for others, both inside and outside the church;
· and, an awareness of the reality of His presence every moment of your life;

Then, my friend, I believe that you have a much bigger issue to wrestle with than setting personal moral standards and living by them.


__________________________________________________________________________

Old Adam put in a better dress

(Thomas Watson, "A New Creature")

"I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom
 of God unless he is born again." John 3:3

Natural honesty, moral virtue, prudence, justice, liberality,
temperance--these are not the new birth. These make a
glorious show in the eye of the world—but differ as much
from the new birth, as a stick differs from a star! Morality
indeed is commendable, and it would be well if there were
more of it. Yet morality is but nature at its best; it does not
amount to saving grace. There is nothing of Christ in morality.
That fruit is sour--which does not grow on the root of Christ!

Heat water to the highest degree--and you still cannot
make wine out of it; it is water still. Just so, let morality
be raised to the highest, it is nature still; it is but old
Adam put in a better dress.

Moral virtue may exist with the hatred of godliness.
A moral man hates holiness--as much as he does vice!
"You must be born again." John 3:7

Hyperbole?

hy·per·bo·le:  exaggeration: deliberate and obvious exaggeration used for effect.

I recently heard a pastor make a statement in a video message that had me actually say out loud, "What did he just say?"  I could not believe what I was hearing.  In fact, overall, the video message was more akin to that of a "Shock Jock" (a DJ or radio host who uses provocative language and broadcasts his or her extreme views) than of a mature man of God.

He actually said,  "Let this be a church populated by the unconverted dressing immodestly".

Really?  Let's leave out the "dressing immodestly" part of the statement and address the "populated with unconverted".   Isn't that what most seeker friendly churches, that water down the gospel, are populated with?  Is not the church to be populated with God's people who gather to worship Him?  Of course, there are unconverted people there; but, do we really want the church to be populated with the unconverted?  Of course not.  In fact, the unconverted should be very uncomfortable at church, regardless of how they are dressed-even when the Christians are loving to them.

So, why did he make that statement?  I say it was because he didn't want to be accused of being a conservative, legalist.  However, was it a biblically correct statement?  Oh, you say, it was simply hyperbole--he was simply exaggerating to make a point that we should not judge how the unconverted dress when they attend our church .

I would say, if that is what he meant, then that is what he should have said.  If this was hyperbole; it is at best, inappropriate and at worse, dangerous, confusing and misleading.

I could go on and on about this particular video address; but, will save my full review for another time.  I think church leaders should spend a little more time in really listening to messages and being more discerning in which ones they use to "teach" their people.

  Needless to say, I was disappointed.  This same pastor actually stated, that the "mature" should be corrected if they dress immodestly.  I ask you, "If one is indeed mature in the faith; would they still be dressing immodestly?"   Additionally, this pastor did not use the word, "most" when talking about groups of people.  He did not say "most" young ladies don't understand; he said, "young ladies in particular simply don't have a clue"  He did not say "most" men; he simply said "men...young and old".

On a side note:  Is Esther really a good role model for modesty?  I think not; but, that's just me. I would rather think that Queen Vashti is a role model for modesty.  Of course, some of you might think that the Queen should have submitted to her husbands drunken request that she be paraded in front of the Kings men while they were all "three sheets to the wind".

Basically, the video painted all men "young and old" to be weak, lust-filled, leches who can't control themselves and all women to be mindless shop-alcoholic "fashionista's".

Conclusion:  The message was both verbally, audibly and visually manipulative.  The background music was even hauntingly similar to that of the soundtrack to the original motion picture "the Exorcist".  If I had heard this message and was a young woman who was new in the faith, I would actually be afraid to attend any gatherings (church or non-church) where men are present, unless I was clad in a burqa.  But, then again, I might still be concerned that my eyelashes were too long and that I was blinking them to often and would only feel safe around men if I had on a pair of dark sunglasses, as well.  Oh Hyperbole!  What a powerful and manipulative form of speech.

True Religion vs. Churchianity

People who have a problem with God's wrath and the judgement to come are those who do not truly believe that they deserve to be condemned.  It is those who (at the very core of their being), do not really believe that all men (including themselves), deserve to suffer in hell for eternity, who struggle with God's judgement.  Most (including professing Christians) think too highly of themselves and that is really why they find these truths hard to embrace.  They don't really know God.

There must be a knowledge of God. And, mark you, if you know God you will think very little of yourself. He who knows not God thinks man a noble being; he who has seen God thinks man to be dust and ashes. He who knows not God’s holiness thinks himself to be a good creature, but when he sees a thrice-holy God he says, “I abhor myself.” He who knows not God thinks man to be a wonderful being, able to accomplish whatsoever he wills, but in the sight of God human strength is burned up, and man becomes lighter than vanity.

Do you know God? O my dear hearer, do you know God in the majesty of his justice as condemning your sin, and you for sin? Do you know God in the splendor of his love, as giving Jesus Christ to die for sinners, blending that love with justice — for love gave Jesus, and justice slew him? Do you know God in the fullness of his power to save, renewing the heart, changing the mind, subduing the will? Do you know him even in this, which is, comparatively, a slender branch of knowledge? If you do, you have begun to know him, and you have begun to know yourself too, for he knows not himself who does not know something of God. Oh, to know the Father as my Father, who hath kissed me, and put the best robe upon me! Oh, to know the Son as my brother, in whose garments I am accepted, and stand comely in the sight of God! Oh, to know the Spirit as the quickener and the divine indweller and illuminator, by whose light alone we see, and in whose life we live!

To know the Lord — that is true religion, and I say again, any religion, whatever it is — Churchianity or Nonconformity, or what you like — if it does not lead you to know God, is of no use whatever.
From a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon entitled "The Blessings Of Following On."

Modesty

Let us imagine an entire church where there was not a single woman, young or old, who was dressed in the least bit provocatively.  Could a Christian man attend this church on Sunday and not be caused to stumble?  Perhaps.  However, what happens as soon as he leaves the building when he is bombarded with passerby's, billboards, co-workers, etc?  Yes, women who wear the name of Christ should be concerned to reflect their Lord in an honorable way; both inside a church building and everyday they walk out of their home.  However, unless the local church decides to close their doors to everyone accept members who are mature enough in the Lord to dress modestly, men will need to look at themselves in regard to their struggles.

"A Sanctified Eye"

"Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus."

A man does not need to forever walk through life with blinders on in order to gain victory over his unholy lusts. In fact, as his mind and heart are gradually transformed by the Spirit of God through the Word of God, he finds that he can walk through this world with his eyes wide open and the things that were once stumbling blocks will have little to no power over him.

In fact, immoral things that once enticed him to sin, he will find as, not only unattractive to him, but actually nauseating. No "accountability group" can accomplish this; no amount of self discipline or behavior modification can accomplish this. Unless there is an inward transforming going on--a renewing of the mind; these "techniques" used to conquer lust will fail miserably every time. Until a man actually hates what used to entice him to sin, he will be a prisoner of it as long as he walks on this earth. Until he sees these things through a "sanctified eye" he will love them in all their ugliness.

Apply this to the so called "addiction to pornography" by professing Christians. A man whose mind is being transformed and renewed by God, will eventually feel nothing but sorrow and compassion for the women who are giving themselves to this industry. He would think of them as daughters to be rescued, not "things" to be used for his own sexual gratification. He would feel a righteous anger towards this entire industry. He would see it for the emptiness, ugliness, and animal like depravity that it truly is. He would see it as Christ sees it. Yes, this is possible and it is the only way that a man ever gains victory. As he is transformed by the Spirit through the Word, he will want to cover a woman's nakedness out of love for her, not "undress her with his eyes" and desire to defile her. Let us listen to Jonathan Edwards:

"When a holy and amiable action is suggested to the thoughts of a holy soul, that soul, if in the lively exercise of its spiritual taste, at once sees a beauty in it, and so inclines to it, and closes with it. On the contrary, if an unworthy, unholy action be suggested to it, its sanctified eye sees no beauty in it, and is not pleased with it; its sanctified taste relishes no sweetness in it, but on the contrary, it is nauseous to it."

"And as to a gracious leading of the Spirit, it consists in two things: partly in instructing a person in his duty by the Spirit, and partly in powerfully inducing him to comply with that instruction.

But so far as the gracious leading of the Spirit lies in instruction, it consists in a person's being guided by a spiritual and distinguishing taste of that which has in it true moral beauty. I have shown that spiritual knowledge primarily consists in a taste or relish of the amiableness and beauty of that which is truly good and holy: this holy relish is a thing that discerns and distinguishes between good and evil, between holy and unholy, without being at the trouble of a train of reasoning.

As he who has a true relish of external beauty, knows what is beautiful by looking upon it; he stands in no need of a train of reasoning about the proportion of the features, in order to determine whether that which he sees be a beautiful countenance or no; he needs nothing, but only the glance of his eye. He who has a rectified musical ear, knows whether the sound he hears be true harmony; he does not need first to be at the trouble of the reasonings of a mathematician about the proportion of the notes. He that has a rectified palate knows what is good food, as soon as he tastes it, without the reasoning of a physician about it.

There is a holy beauty and sweetness in words and actions, as well as a natural beauty in countenances and sounds, and sweetness in food: Job 12:11 , "Doth not the ear try words, and the mouth taste his meat?"

When a holy and amiable action is suggested to the thoughts of a holy soul, that soul, if in the lively exercise of its spiritual taste, at once sees a beauty in it, and so inclines to it, and closes with it. On the contrary, if an unworthy, unholy action be suggested to it, its sanctified eye sees no beauty in it, and is not pleased with it; its sanctified taste relishes no sweetness in it, but on the contrary, it is nauseous to it. Yea, its holy taste and appetite leads it to think of that which is truly lovely, and naturally suggests it; as a healthy taste and appetite naturally suggests the idea of its proper object.

Thus a holy person is led by the Spirit, as he is instructed and led by his holy taste and disposition of heart; whereby, in the lively exercise of grace, he easily distinguishes good and evil, and knows at once what is a suitable amiable behaviour towards God, and towards man, in this case and the other, and Judges what is right, as it were spontaneously, and of himself, without a particular deduction, by any other arguments than the beauty that is seen, and goodness that is tasted.

Thus Christ blames the Pharisees, that they "did not, even of their own selves, judge what was right," without needing miracles to prove it, Luke 12:57 . The apostle seems plainly to have respect to this way of judging of spiritual beauty, in Rom. 12:2: "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and perfect, and acceptable will of God."

Jonathan Edwards

Blurring the Gospel for the Sake of Temporal Good

If most of us were honest, we would want Heaven on Earth, right now and many do all they can to try to legislate that very thing.  Many professing Christians (if they are really honest with themselves) are more interested in getting others to live like Christians than they are that others actually become Christians.  I would argue that more time is spent by the average professing evangelical arguing with people regarding the candidates in an upcoming election and debating about homosexuality and abortion, etc., than is spent sharing Christ and the Gospel message with their neighbors, friends and co-workers.

I would also argue that many professing Christians are more concerned about their own safety, comfort, and freedom than they are about the souls of men.   I even believe that some would even risk their lives to retain their freedom and yet tremble with fear at the idea of sharing the Gospel with a 2nd cousin visiting from Missouri.  Why?  Because we fight for what we love.

I just came across Alistair Beggs response to the Manhattan Declaration.  If you don't know what that is, you should.   We are to use wisdom and if we are not aware of the things that are going on in our culture we can more easily be deceived.  Many things sound really good (on the surface).  It is so important to THINK and men like Alistair Begg have the courage to make us think because they take the time to not only know what is going on; but to also research, ponder, pray and then share with others their insight which makes us THINK  and for that, I thank the Lord for men like Alistair Begg.  Here is his article on the topic:

The release of The Manhattan Declaration (an ecumenical document addressing the issues of life, marriage, and religious liberty) has already generated significant discussion.  Since I have been on the receiving end of many questions concerning it, I thought it best to address it directly.  The declaration reads in part as follows:
“We are Christians who have joined together across historical lines of ecclesial differences… …to speak and act in defense of these truths.”

I was present at the meetings in Manhattan in October when the draft of this document was presented.
I listened carefully and was stirred by the ensuing discussions.
I share the concerns expressed in the document.

I also have respect for those who wrote the paper and also for many who have subsequently signed it.
Why then have I chosen not to append my name as one of the initial signers? Because of my convictions about the nature of the Gospel, and the importance of Christian co-belligerency being grounded in it.  The activity of the Christian as a citizen engaging in co-belligerency over civic and moral issues is not the same as the declaration of Christians mutually recognizing the reality of each other’s faith.  This is what I wrote to Chuck Colson:

“Thank you for sending me the amended document. I care deeply about these issues, but I cannot in conscience sign on with those with whom I have fundamental disagreements on the nature of the Gospel. (I just re-read Calvin in the Institutes, Book IV, section 18.)”

This particular section of Calvin’s Institutes provides us with his response to the Roman Catholic doctrine of the mass.

It was maintained at the meeting in New York that this document was not to be viewed as a product of ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together). However, in light of the evangelical leadership behind the declaration, it is hard not to take into consideration the most recent ECT paper on “The Blessed Virgin Mary in Christian Life and Faith”. In examining the place of Mary, the writers “acknowledge the primary authority of Holy Scripture.” This at least gives the impression of a concession to Roman Catholicism.  Protestant theology affirms the sole authority of Scripture.  Sadly contemporary evangelicalism seems little concerned with the solas of The Reformation and is therefore susceptible to initiatives, which make something other than the Gospel, the basis of unity and the focus of our declarations.

I am reminded in this connection of the declaration of Jude.

 “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”
It is quite common for people to view The Reformation as simply a disagreement between two groups of men. The protestant martyrs and their monuments testify to the fact that they died, not on account of ecclesial differences, but because the issue was the way of salvation. (Interestingly, exactly the same was true of the Roman Catholic martyrs!)

Are we wise to lay aside crucial historical differences of eternal significance so as to secure temporal advantages? George Smeaton, in his classic work on the atonement observes, “To convert one sinner from his way is an event of greater importance than the deliverance of a whole kingdom from temporal evil.”
 
I do not believe it is possible to embrace the premises of ecumenical strategy and still draw the conclusions of evangelical orthodoxy.

In accord with others who have chosen not to sign, my reservation is not with the issues themselves, or in standing with others who share the same concerns, but it is in signing a declaration along with a group of leading churchmen, when I happen to believe that the teaching of some of their churches is in effect a denial of the biblical gospel. I wonder whether it might not have been more advantageous for evangelicals to unite on this matter, rather than seeking cooperation with segments from Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latter Day Saints.  The necessary co-belligerence, as far as I’m concerned, can never be rooted in a Gospel other than that which has been given to us.

Alistair Begg
(updated and expanded November 25, 2009)

Morality & Regeneration (Part Two)

Morality is a neat cover for foul venom,
but it does not alter the fact that the heart is vile,
and the man himself is under damnation.


Men will be damned with good works
as well as without them,
if they make them their confidence.


You may go to hell as well dressed
in the garnishings of morality
as in the rags of immorality.


It is still the old nature- wash it, and cleanse it,
and bind it, and curb it, and bridle it-
it is still the old fallen nature,
and cannot understand spiritual things.
C.H. Spurgeon

To the eye of one who sees not as God sees, there is much that is comparatively illustrious in the character and conduct of such men. But while we cheerfully make these concessions, we may not substitute a mere visible morality, however exemplary, however vivid and useful, for true holiness. It is easy to conceive all the virtues of an unexceptional moral deportment concentrated in men who are at heart strangers to the spirit of Jesus Christ. A person of the character to which we refer may, for example, be a professed disbeliever in the truths and doctrines of the Gospel. There are not lacking even infidels who rarely disregard the laws of good neighborhood and civil society. David Hume would have blushed at the imputation of moral dishonesty and yet could boldly deny his God and Savior.

Seneca and Socrates inculcated by their writings and sustained by their conduct a morality which, though not faultless, did honor to the pagan world, but they were pagans still. There are also men in these Christian lands who from the peculiarity of their condition, from the restraints of education and habit, from high notions of honor from a keen sense of propriety and gentlemanly deportment, or from motives of mere ambition and personal aggrandizement, would seldom be detected in an immoral action; who, at the same time, disclaim every principle of the Holy Scriptures.

The morality of which we speak, with all its excellencies, is subjected to a lamentable defect. It regards only a part of the divine law. A merely moral man may be very scrupulous of duties he owes to his fellow men, while the infinitely important duties he owes to God are kept entirely out of sight. Of loving and serving God, he knows nothing. Whatever he does or whatever he leaves undone, he does nothing for God. He is honest in his dealings with all except God, he robs none but God, he is thankless and faithless to none but God, he feels contemptuously, and speaks reproachfully of none but God. A just perception of the relations he sustains to God constitutes no part of his principles, and the duties which result from those relations constitute no part of his piety. He may not only disbelieve the Scriptures, but may never read them; may not only disregard the divine authority, but every form of divine worship, and live and die as though he had no concern with God and God had not concern with him.

The character of the young man in the Gospel presents a painful and affecting view of the deficiencies of external morality (see Mat. 19:16-22). He was not dishonest, nor untrue; he was not impure nor malignant; and not a few of the divine commands he had externally observed. No, he says, “All these have I kept.” Nor was his a mere sporadic goodness, but steady and uniform. He had performed these services “from his youth up.” Nor was this all. He professed a willingness to become acquainted with his whole duty. “What lack I yet?” And yet when brought to the test, this poor youth saw that, with all his boasted morality, he could not deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Christ. I said that mere morality regarded only a part of the divine law, but to speak more correctly, it disregards the whole of it.

The sum and soul of obedience to the divine law consists in love to God. But the people whom we describe, though they many have some knowledge of God and may confess his worthiness to be loved, love almost everything else more than He. They have no supreme delight and complacency in His excellence; it is no source of congratulation to those who He is what He is, and that He sways the empire of the universe; and if they ever fix their thoughts upon God, their contemplation of His holiness, justice, and sovereignty are rather the sources of suspicion, alarm, and uneasiness, than of tranquility, confidence, and holy pleasure. Men of this description, therefore, are wholly destitute of the radical and essential principle of conformity to the law of God. However they may have the appearance of rectitude, they fail in all the essential parts of holy obedience. Nor is there in such a character any conformity to the requisitions of the Gospel. Repentance, faith, humility, submission, hope, and joy are acts of a mind that delights in God.

There is a wide distinction between moral virtues and Christian graces. Christian graces spring from holy love and have their origin in holy motives. They regard chiefly the glory of God and the interests of His Kingdom and then govern the relationships of men with their fellow men as God has required. Moral virtues spring from supreme selfishness. They have their origin in motives that are never recognized by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They have no regard for the glory of God and the interests of His Kingdom and go just so far as a well-regulated self-interest leads the way and there they stop.

Morality & Regeneration

Let us talk about unregenerate, sinful man.

Before we are “born-again”, we all live lives of varying degrees of outward and inward morality. Yes?

We all have different strengths and weaknesses. Some are strong-willed and disciplined and some are weak willed and undisciplined. Some, when they put their mind to a task stick to it and win the battle. Some decide to quite smoking, and with shear determination, quit smoking. One may try the patch and gum and nothing seems to work for them. Some struggle with drugs and alcohol abuse and some do not. Not every lost sinner is a drug addict. Some see what drugs do to people and decide to never indulge. Some are raised by an alcoholic parent and decide to never touch the stuff. Some have too much respect for their own bodies and for others to be used or use others as toys to satisfy their own sexual desires, and some are sexually promiscuous; for various reasons. Some decide to stick to a diet and are successful, some simply cannot seem to deny themselves pleasure for more than three days; some find coarse and vulgar language distasteful and crude and some cuss like a sailor; and the list goes on. I think you get the point. Unregenerate man has varying levels of natural strength based on the strength of their will, self-determination and self-discipline and live varying degrees of “sinful” or moral lives.

Why is this so important to understand? It is important to understand because as Christians we seem to have a very short sighted, and perhaps even erroneous, understanding of what occurs when a person is “saved”. We get confused about the outward life of a person and the inward change that has taken place.

A person who (because of their own nature and strength) lived a life outwardly less sinful (was loving and giving; didn’t practice habitual sinful activities--was “morally” a very strong and disciplined person) will appear as a “strong” Christian after they are reconciled to God through Christ. A person who was weaker “morally” will struggle more with the old nature.

The work of regeneration is perfect as to kind, and perfect as to parts, extending to all his powers and faculties—but is not yet perfect as to degree—as an infant has all the parts of a man, though it is not arrived at the full stature of the perfect man. And thus it is with souls that are new-born, which made a worthy divine say, "every regenerate man is two men"—that is, he has a new nature in him, which is wholly for God, and an old nature still in part remaining, which is wholly for sin. And these two natures residing in the same soul and in all of its faculties, which are but in part sanctified—the corrupt nature, the flesh, lusts against the spirit, or holy nature in his heart—and the spirit against the flesh; and these being contrary, the one to the other, souls that are born again cannot do perfectly the things that they desire, because of sin that dwells in them.

There is then no true holiness in mere morality. Much as there is in such a character that is highly esteemed among men, there is nothing that is right in the sight of God. The principle and motive of such a character is at a great distance from all that God requires and loves. “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” The moral quality of actions lies in the disposition of heart with which they are performed. A man may be very moral, but if the disposition of heart with which the acts of morality are performed be not such as God requires and approves, though he may believe he is going to Heaven, he is in the broad way to hell. Mere morality never aims at the heart and would never touch it if it should. It may lop off the luxuriances of human depravity, but it never strikes at the root. It may not sink into the baseness of degeneracy, but it never soars to the purity of holiness. It is a fascinating picture, but it is cold and spiritless as the canvas on which it is delineated. It is like the twinkling glow worm which borrows all its light from the putrescent and earthy substances of which it is composed, but sustains no relation to the luminary which imparts light and heat to the universe. However fair this exterior, and however accordant with the expectations of the world, it falls far short of what a man must be to become either holy or happy.

Reader: If our old nature was more disciplined and strong willed prior to being saved we will have less of a struggle mortifying the flesh since we have been doing that most of our life (not in a “saving” way, in a temporal way). It is our disposition that has been changed, not our old nature.

Let us not judge our brothers and sisters based on outward morality. Let us have compassion on one another and understand that sanctification is a process and there is, and will always be, (while the old nature still resides) an inner battle. Ask a man about Christ before you ask a man about his “walk with Christ” and you will find out a lot more about the disposition of this man’s heart and soul.

To be continued……

Speaking of Morality

Natural honesty, moral virtue, prudence, justice, liberality, temperance—these are not the new creature. The Stoics were moralists and had sublime notions about virtue—yet were the deadliest enemies Paul had. Morality is but a counterfeit jewel—not the new creation.

Religious education is not the new creature. Education greatly cultivates and refines nature. Education is a good wall to plant the vine of grace against—but it is not grace.

A form of godliness is not the new creature. Every bird which has fine feathers, does not have sweet flesh. All who shine with the golden feathers of profession, are not saints. Formalists so counterfeit and play at devotion—that others think they are living saints. They are religious charlatans!

Every change of opinion does not amount to the new creature. Man may change from error to truth—yet be no new creature. Here is a change in the head—but not in the heart. He who is changed only in opinion, is not changed with any eternal benefit whatsoever.

Every sudden passion or stirring of the affections, is not the new creature. One may have trouble for sin—yet not be a new creature. Every abstaining from sin, is not the new creature.

So what happens in regeneration. What changes?

It is an inward change—a change of heart. Though the heart is not newly made—it is newly molded. The outward change will do no good, without the inward change. What will become of those, then—who have not so much as an outward change?

Old pride, old ignorance, old malice; the old house must be pulled down, before you can set up a new one. We must know that the change wrought in the new creature, though it is a thorough change—yet it is not a perfect change. Sin will remain. As there is a principle of grace—so there is a principle of corruption. Like wine and water mixed, there is in the regenerate, flesh as well as spirit.


QUESTION: So what is the difference between a formal morally strong unregenerate man and a weaker man. If outward morality is not the ruler of regeneration what is?

There must be a GRIEVING for the remains of corruption not for the remains of immorality. In the new creature, there must be a mourning for the indwelling presence of corruption.

There must be a DETESTATION of old things—as one would detest a garment in which is the plague. It is not enough to be angry with our sinfulness—but we must hate the sin. Hatred is the highest degree of enmity, and we must hate sin in us not only for its hurtful effect—but its loathsome nature, as one hates a toad for its poisonous quality. Something that you see as poison will not tempt you to drink from it!

There is an OPPOSITION against all old things. A Christian not only complains of the sin that is within him—but fights against it.

QUESTION: But may not a natural man oppose sin?

Yes—but there is a great difference between his opposing sin—and the new creature's opposing it. First, there is a difference in the MANNER of opposition. The natural man opposes sin only for the shame of it—as it eclipses his reputation; but the new creature opposes sin for the filth of it. It is the spirit of mischief; it is like rust to gold, or as a stain to beauty.

The biggest difference between the natural man's opposing sin and the new creature's opposing sin—in regard to the MOTIVES is that a natural man opposes sin from carnal motives—to stop the mouth of conscience, and to make himself feel good. But the new creature opposes sin because he see's it through the eye's of Christ for what it really is. He hates sin because He loves God.

Did you notice that the motive was not to gain Heaven or to avoid Hell. This is critical.

He knows Christ after another manner. An unconverted man, by the light of common grace, may believe Christ to be the Son of God; but the new creature knows Christ after another manner—so as to esteem Him above all, to adore Him, to touch Him by faith, to fetch a healing virtue from Him.

The new creature knows himself better than he did. When the sun shines into a room—it reveals all the dust and cobwebs in it. Just so, when the light of the Spirit shines into the heart—it reveals that corruption which before lay hidden; it shows a man his own vileness and nothingness no matter how “moral” he was before he was saved!

Thomas Watson