A Christian's Sin Is Treachery

Status
Not open for further replies.

greenbaggins

Puritan Board Doctor
Jeremiah Burroughs explains:

The sins of such as are in covenant with God are sins of treachery. They are sins of a deeper dye than other men's sins. Other men's sins are transgressions against, and disobedience to, the will of God; but they are not so properly treachery: but the sins of those that are engaged to God in covenant have another impress upon them than the sins of other men, their sins are treachery against God. And we know there is nothing accounted more vile amongst men than treachery; it is the highest possible expression of our indignation against a man to say, Such a man take heed of, he is a treacherous man. Certainly the sins of those that have engaged themselves unto God, go nearer to the hear of God than other men's sins do; they are more dishonourable to him, they provoke the eyes of his glory more.

O let us then look back to what we have done ever since we first entered into covenant with God, ever sins we first gave up our names to him; and let us charge our souls with this aggravation of our sins: O my soul, what has thou done? Thou has not only trespassed and disobeyed as others, but thou hast been treacherous against the Lord. Let us keep ourselves from sin, and awe our hearts and strike fear into our spirits with this meditation, What! shall I, that have so deeply engaged myself to God, now forsake and deal treacherously with him? From An Exposition of the Prophecy of Hosea, p. 282.​
 
Tremendous thoughts, and a blessing to consider. It does, however, raise a question I'd not previously considered. Our sin is especially awful because it is made against the one who made particular atonement for us. But was the covenant itself particular? God unilaterally set his covenant upon his image-bearers who proved to be covenant-breakers. Was that covenant only with the elect? The formula given is if you obey ... then. If you disobey ... then. Is that not as true for those who never trust Christ as their perfect obedience?
 
Just read this on the train this morning:
(8) What may make us blush is that the sins we commit are far worse than the sins of the heathen. We act against more light. To us have been committed the oracles of God. The sin committed by a Christian is worse than the same sin committed by an Indian because the Christian sins against clearer conviction. This is like the dye added to the wool, or the weight put into the scale: it makes it heavier.

(9) Our sins are worse than the sins of the devils: lapsed angels never sinned against Christ’s blood. Christ did not die for them. The medicine of his merit was never intended to heal them. But we have affronted and disparaged his blood by unbelief.


The Doctrine of Repentance
Thomas Watson
 
Tremendous thoughts, and a blessing to consider. It does, however, raise a question I'd not previously considered. Our sin is especially awful because it is made against the one who made particular atonement for us. But was the covenant itself particular? God unilaterally set his covenant upon his image-bearers who proved to be covenant-breakers. Was that covenant only with the elect? The formula given is if you obey ... then. If you disobey ... then. Is that not as true for those who never trust Christ as their perfect obedience?

The covenant of grace is properly made with Christ and the elect in Him. Non-elect can belong to the administration of the covenant, but never the essence. So, the non-elect could never sin against salvation, as it were. The covenant of works was made with all humanity. The covenant of grace was not. It sounds like you might be confusing them a tad. In terms of the conditions, you are describing the covenant of works. All sin of unbelievers breaks the covenant of works. But the elect are no longer a part of that covenant. They have been transferred to the covenant of grace.
 
Thanks, Rev. Keister. I'm going to have to muse on this one. The covenant terms given to the nation of Israel were clearly conditional, hence possible to break. God bound himself to his people (which I'm guessing is your reference point) yet his own violated the terms of the covenant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top