# Self-love or fear of damnation



## Mr. Bultitude (Feb 12, 2015)

In the Belgic Confession we read:



> Therefore it is so far from being true that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation.



This inspires a few questions in me, a sinner.

1. Consider this hypothetical: an atheist, secure in his atheism, who gives little to no thought to God, and doesn't believe in or think about the final judgment. He loves his wife and children and gives to charity, and always does so with genuine happiness. Is his love a sham? Is it all in some sense merely "self-love or fear of damnation"? Part of the reason I ask this, is because there are times that certain unbelievers appear to me to be more mature than I am in certain respects. How can that be explained in light of this idea in the confession?

2. Are those two ideas exhaustive? Are there any other motives that may inspire an unbeliever to good deeds other than "self-love or fear of damnation" that aren't subsets of one or the other?

3. Doesn't the Bible teach that every man has a conscience? What's the role of the conscience in the reprobate? Is it merely to condemn?


----------



## aadebayo (Feb 13, 2015)

Hi David

The bible teaches that God ordains everything and yet He is not the author of sin. This hypothetical atheist though unknown to himself is operating under God's common grace in the good things that he does. Yet the bible also proclaims that his conscience is active when he refrains from stealing, commiting murder or breaking any of God's commands. Scriptures such as Luke 12:47-48 makes him accountable to God even where he is seemingly unaware of God's will. Please See also Romans 2:14-15


----------



## KeithW (Feb 13, 2015)

The context of that article is provided in the following paragraphs, where it talks about good works. But the article is unclear with respect to your questions. The Reformed church recognizes that a single document may not answer all questions, so this article in *The Canons of Dordt* (within the same book) may be more helpful.



> Article 4
> 
> There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural understanding, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the difference between good and evil, *and shows some regard for virtue and for good outward behavior*. But so far is this understanding of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this understanding, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and hinders in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.


I'm sorry, I don't know where the Reformed confessions might address your questions more clearly.

The unsaved person may have love and good deeds which far surpass most of us believers. And that "goodness" is not motivated by "self-love or fear of damnation". There can even be unsaved people who perform good works in the name of God, believing they are doing it out of love for God. But in that case Jesus gave this caution.



KJV said:


> Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? *and in thy name done many wonderful works*? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt. 7:21-23)


----------



## Jack K (Feb 13, 2015)

I think that when we ask how that line in the Belgic Confession applies to atheists, we end up fairly far from the main point the Belgic is trying to make. Yes, we could say it is true of atheists that underneath a love for family members and such (which is part of common grace) there is also a corruption to that love so that it is really done for themselves; they feel good about themselves when they show love. But this is not really the point. The Belgic mostly has in mind people who believe in God and desire his favor.

In addressing such people, the Belgic gives one of the all-time great answers to the objection that free justification, by grace alone, will end up making people lax about obedience. The Belgic contends that only completely free justification can release us from the nagging need to impress God and earn our way with him. Therefore, only free justification allows us to serve God out of love, without any selfish agenda.

The implications of this point turn the objection on its head. Since love for God is the greatest commandment, people who insist that justification is purely by grace actually become MORE serious about obedience, not less. They end up able to tackle the greatest obedience of all; the command to serve God out of love for him. This point is an important one still today, and not just in debates with Catholics or Arminians. I interact with Reformed people all the time who assume that because I like to emphasize how we are justified freely, I'm probably slack when it comes to obedience. They don't get it. They don't see that I'm actually trying to aim high.

Are there also other motivations to obey? Of course there are. Obedience is good for us and disobedience is dangerous, and the Bible often points this out. But love for God is an important motivation that must not be overlooked or pooh-poohed out of a mistaken view that it is not rigorous enough. There's no way anyone is going to truly love God while also being worried that God might actually be intending to damn him for eternity due to moral failures. This is why free justification is an essential doctrine for those who wish to wish to obey God as he intended—which the Belgic Confession so brilliantly points out.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Feb 13, 2015)

Jack K said:


> I think that when we ask how that line in the Belgic Confession applies to atheists, we end up fairly far from the main point the Belgic is trying to make. Yes, we could say it is true of atheists that underneath a love for family members and such (which is part of common grace) there is also a corruption to that love so that it is really done for themselves; they feel good about themselves when they show love. But this is not really the point. The Belgic mostly has in mind people who believe in God and desire his favor.



Isn't it contrasting the before and after of justification though? Later in the same article it says:



> So then, it is impossible for this holy faith to be unfruitful in a human being, seeing that we do not speak of an empty faith but of what Scripture calls “faith working through love,” which moves people to do by themselves the works that God has commanded in the Word.
> 
> These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God, since they are all sanctified by God’s grace. Yet they do not count toward our justification—for by faith in Christ we are justified, even before we do good works. Otherwise they could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good in the first place.



Before we're regenerated and justified, we're only motivated out of "self-love or fear of damnation" and our works "could not be good, any more than the fruit of a tree could be good if the tree is not good." The Heidelberg Catechism question 8 says that "unless we are born again" "we are totally unable to do any good."

Therefore, why conclude that the Belgic Confession is speaking of those who "believe in God and desire his favor"? I hope you don't think I'm just being combative; I'd really like to understand the reasoning.


----------



## Jack K (Feb 13, 2015)

That's a fair question. I didn't really define my terms, did I?

By "people who believe in God and desire his favor" I don't necessarily have in mind those with saving faith. Rather, it seems to me as if the Belgic mostly has in mind people who agree that God exists and that it's good to have his favor, even though they might never bring themselves to any true repentance or saving faith in Jesus. By that definition, superstitious and self-justifying Roman Catholics count as "people who believe in God and desire his favor," even though their strategy to win that favor is faith in themselves or in the church's superstitions rather than in Christ.

The Belgic comes from a time when making clear the difference between the Roman Catholic idea of how we're justified and the biblical principle of justification by faith was a paramount concern. Addressing people who don't feel any need at all for justification is less on the radar. So if we're trying to understand what the Belgic says about atheists, it seems to me that in many places we will find it comes up a bit short; there will be things we feel need to be addressed in more detail because the Belgic isn't really trying to address that matter very much. It has other fish to fry.

That's a layman's observation, and I'm open to being corrected by people who've studied more of the history behind that confession. It's probably more nuanced than I've suggested. But I think it's still a fair generalization, and I've always read the Belgic from that perspective. It has seemed to me to be more concerned to show us how the Protestant faith differs from prove-yourself, superstitious Catholicism than how believers differ from professed atheists, which were quite rare in Europe at that time. Keith has the right idea when he suggests that you look at later documents to best study the issue of atheists.




Mr. Bultitude said:


> Isn't it contrasting the before and after of justification though?



Yes, it's clearly contrasting those who have been justified with those have not (or not yet) been justified. But again, there seems to be an assumption that everyone being addressed acknowledges a need to be justified. Those who seek justification outside of Christ will always do their good works out of selfish motives, to save themselves. Only those who are joined to Christ and justified freely in him are released from this condition (by the Spirit's regenerating work, by the confidence and security that comes from knowing once-for-all forgiveness, by the Spirit's ongoing work—and for other reasons as well) and are able to obey in love as God commands. One could add that even then obedience is far from perfect and is acceptable only because we are in Christ, with all that this entails. The many blessings of salvation are intertwined, so that we hesitate to speak of only one aspect as if it alone makes all the difference. Christ makes all the difference.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Feb 13, 2015)

Thanks Jack. That makes more sense. Still, it seems odd to me that even if the Belgic Confession didn't have atheists very much on its radar, that it wouldn't have pagans on its radar either (pagans being others who "don't feel any need at all for justification"). I suppose their weren't very many out-and-out pagans in Europe in the 16th century, but still, a lot of the New Testament motifs of conversion have to do with conversion from false gods to the true God (the conversion of gentiles) as opposed to conversion from false notions of God to true notions of God (the conversion of Jews, analogous to 16th century Catholics).


----------



## Jack K (Feb 13, 2015)

Mr. Bultitude said:


> Thanks Jack. That makes more sense. Still, it seems odd to me that even if the Belgic Confession didn't have atheists very much on its radar, that it wouldn't have pagans on its radar either (pagans being others who "don't feel any need at all for justification"). I suppose their weren't very many out-and-out pagans in Europe in the 16th century, but still, a lot of the New Testament motifs of conversion have to do with conversion from false gods to the true God (the conversion of gentiles) as opposed to conversion from false notions of God to true notions of God (the conversion of Jews, analogous to 16th century Catholics).



Oh, I think pagans probably were on the radar to some extent. And like I say, there are people other than me who're far better qualified to speak to the issue. I just suspect you may chasing a question that is not that the primary concern of that particular confession. That's why you might find its answer incomplete. I weighed in because I happen to really like the particular line you quoted in your opening post, but the reason I like it is because it helps me understand the difference between religious people who don't have true faith in Christ and religious people who do.


----------



## KeithW (Feb 13, 2015)

Something I've noticed about the era of the Puritan writers is they were always talking about "good works" or "doing good" but rarely defined the phrase. They used those phrases in the context of either those works which make us acceptable to God or those works which God rewards us for. So they were always saying that no man can do "good" without God. This explanation makes no sense to the unbeliever who does "good".

Related to the athiest in the original post, we Christians often focus on explaining the sinners need for the Gospel based on their sinful acts -- their breaking of the moral law. This explanation does not work for an unbeliever who thinks of themselves as a "good" person. I was one of those before I was converted. Thankfully the Lord sent me people who explained the part of the Gospel which _could _reach a "good" person.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude (Feb 13, 2015)

Reexamining the context of the quote, I'm satisfied that you're right. Thanks everyone. This has been most illuminating.


----------

