«

»

Jun 15 2016

Print this Post

Holding The Truth In Unrighteousness

This is a must reveiew reprint of Charles Finney who is now enjoying his eternal home. He is a great man with a great message that deserves to be reviewed by this final generation. When G-d rewards a man for discovering HIS effigy in Egypt with the world’s wealth the godly should pay attention.  Grab a cookie and some milk and enjoy the message.

 

Holding The Truth In Unrighteousness
By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY
August 14, 28, 1861
 

For the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Romans 1:18

In speaking from these words I inquire,

I. What is ungodliness?

The original word means, primarily, to neglect G-d. It is the omission of duty to G-d; the withholding from him of worship, love, confidence, obedience. It is the withholding from G-d that which is his due.

II. What is unrighteousness in the sense here used?

The original word properly means, neglect of duty to man, as ungodliness implies neglect of duty to G-d.

It is an omission of duty, a withholding from man his due.

Unrighteousness, as the term is evidently here used in distinction from ungodliness, means the withholding of that equal love to man which is his due–that regard for his interest, and feelings, and character, and whatever is to him a good.

Withholding this from man is unrighteousness, as withholding it from G-d is ungodliness. Unrighteousness, in the broader sense, consists in withholding either from G-d or man, whatever is their due from us.

But as the terms ungodliness and unrighteousness are here both used, we are undoubtedly to understand unrighteousness here as having reference particularly to the omission of duty to our fellow men. Every thing then, is unrighteousness, which is short of doing our whole duty to our fellow men; and every thing is ungodliness which is short of doing our whole duty to G-d.

III. I inquire in the third place, What is it to hold the truth in unrighteousness?

1. The word rendered hold in this case, means to restrain, to hold down, to hold back. To hold the truth in unrighteousness, is, for selfish reasons, to refuse to obey the truth.

2. When duty is once known or seen, indifference is impossible. Truth is the natural stimulus of the mind, and especially truth that reveals moral obligation.

When moral obligation is perceived, the mind cannot remain inactive. The perception of moral obligation forces the mind into a state of activity. The freedom of the Will does not imply, that in such circumstances the mind can remain inactive altogether.

But the freedom of the Will implies, that in every case of perceived moral obligation we have power to act one way or the other, to comply or refuse compliance with moral obligation.

When, therefore, moral obligation is perceived, passivity becomes impossible. The mind must act; it must either comply with the obligation; or it must refuse.

This should always be remembered–that indifference, or a state of non-activity, becomes impossible in the presence of perceived obligation. In such circumstances truth must be embraced or rejected; obligation must be accepted or rejected; duty must be performed or neglected.

To hold the truth in unrighteousness, then, is to withhold the heart, and life from obeying it; it is to persist in neglect of duty when convinced, and when obligation is seen.

3. To hold the truth in unrighteousness, is to refuse to perform duty when it is known. Neglect in these circumstances, is real refusal. There cannot be neglect in the sense of no action at all. The mind must act in opposition, must gird itself and refuse, in order to neglect when obligation is seen.

To hold the truth in unrighteousness, then, is precisely this: when obligation to our fellow men is perceived and admitted, to selfishly refuse to meet the obligation.

4. To hold the truth in unrighteousness is to unjustly neglect or refuse to perform our duty to G-d or man. Ungodliness, or withholding from G-d, is injustice or unrighteousness toward G-d.

All, then, who neglect to perform their duty either to G-d or man, are guilty of holding the truth in unrighteousness in the sense of this text.

IV. What are we to understand by the wrath of G-d in this text?

I reply, not a selfish anger such as selfish men exercise; but a benevolent, holy indignation, such in kind as a benevolent father or ruler might exercise toward injustice, selfishness, and madness in an undutiful child or subject. The term is a strong one, and is rendered wrath, by which we mean something more than mere anger in a low degree; it implies an intense indignation.

V. I inquire, against whom is this wrath of G-d revealed from heaven?

I answer,

1. Against all persons who do not act upon, and up to their conviction in respect to their duty either to G-d or man. It is a very common thing to find persons admitting that such and such things they ought to do, and there they stop. They seem to make a virtue of admitting their obligation in words, while they deny it in action.

You press them with their obligation, and they will say–“O yes, I know that I ought–but what then?” There they stop and do not lift a finger to perform their duty.

Now against all such persons whether they be professors of religion or non-professors, the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven.

2. The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all who allow themselves in short-comings. I say allow themselves in short-coming, in respect, either to G-d or man. It is not an uncommon thing for persons, in looking back, to accuse themselves of short-comings, when after all they are not aware of having deliberately and knowingly, at the time, fallen short of their duty.

But observe, I say that the wrath of G-d is revealed against all who allow themselves in short-comings–who are aware of their duty and reallyindulge themselves in neglect and short-comings; as if a man owed a debt to a neighbor, and knowingly and deliberately neglected to pay him; or when an individual admits his obligation to love, to confide in, to worship and obey G-d, and indulges himself in disobedience, or allows himself to neglect to perform his duty to G-d; against all such, the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven.

3. The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all who stop short of living up to their privileges, as well as their duty.

It is really a mans duty to live up to his privilege; and a man cannot allow himself to live below his privilege, without at the same time allowing himself to live below his duty. It is certainly a man’s duty to avail himself of all the means within his reach of promoting his own holiness and usefulness in the highest degree; and to stop short of this, for selfish reasons, is a great crime against G-d; and therefore the wrath of G-d is revealed against all such as do this.

4. The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all who rest, and stop short of full sanctification, full obedience to G-d as they understand their duty. I say, rest short; by which I mean that they knowingly quiet themselves in this state of short-coming.

There are a great many professors of religion who seem to have very little anxiety about being entirely sanctified, and fully obeying G-d. If they can believe themselves safe, they seem very well satisfied; although they know they are indulging in more or less sin from day to day.

It is not with them a matter of intense struggle and effort, to render to G-d full obedience. It is enough for them that they think themselvesjustified; the question of sanctification they are very willing to postpone.

They say they do not believe in sanctification in this life. They seem to throw up the reins and live on loosely, talk about continually sinning and repenting; while it is evident enough that they do not care to render to G-d a full and continued obedience. They care but little for sin if they can be forgiven.

They care but little about sanctification if they can ensure justification. Now it is perfectly plain that the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all such persons who are living on in known and allowed short-comings in regard to sanctification–sinning and sinning and caring little about it–being anxious only to know that they are safe.

The fact is, such persons are not safe. You should understand this at once, that you are as far as possible from being safe.

You are under the wrath of G-d which is revealed from heaven against you. You are knowingly and carelessly withholding from G-d his due; you are allowing yourself in sin, caring more for your justification than for your sanctification.

What is sanctification but full obedience to G-d? And can you make G-d believe that you are a sincere Christian, while you are careless about rendering to him, in all things, a full obedience?

5. The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all whose religion is of the negative rather than of the positive kind.

The law of G-d is positive. It requires supreme love to G-d and equal love to man. It requires action toward G-d and man, intense action, energetic devotion to G-d and man. Now there are many who seem to suppose that this is the doing nothing bad, as they say.

They run hither and thither, and indulge themselves, and live in most things like the world around them. Their way of spending their time, of spending their money, of using their influence, is such that you enquire, why they do this, and why they do that. “Why!” they reply, “whatharm is there in it?”

With them the question is, what harm is there in this or that course of life and not what good will this do? If they live without committing flagrant sin they think they do well. It does not seem so much as to enter into their designs to do all they can for the promotion of G-d’s glory, but only to avoid doing such things as will be an open disgrace to religion. Their religion is a mere negation, if it may be called religion; which, indeed it cannot properly be, for all true religion is love, confidence, worship, obedience. Let all such, then, as are satisfying themselves with this negative form of what they call religion, remember that the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against them.

Indeed, there are some whose history seems to be one of omission. They are continually neglecting many forms of duty; and they know it. Perhaps some of you here are admitting from day to day that this, and that, and the other thing is your duty; and yet you never address yourselves seriously to the performance of it.

Some of you are perhaps neglecting secret prayer–are neglecting your Bible–are neglecting to pay your debts–are neglecting in the outward life a great multitude of things, but in regard to G-d and man, and in your inward state you cannot but know that you are really neglecting to render to G-d all the love and confidence that are his due, and that you are neglecting to love your neighbor as yourself. Your history is one ofomission. You seem to overlook the fact, that omission is the very thing against which this text is arrayed; that this ungodliness and unrighteousness are omissions of duty to G-d and man.

Again, you seem also to forget that omission is a real withholding, a real refusal; that it is not a state of inaction, but of contrary action–a girding yourself to resist the claims of G-d and the claims of duty.

Your omission is not a mere passive state, but a state of selfish activity; the omitting to perform your duty to G-d and man for the sake of gratifying yourself.

Now can you not, some of you, right here, accuse yourself of living a life of omission? Is not this the history of your religion?

Are you not acknowledging from day to day in your conscience that you owe this, and that, and the other duty to G-d and man; while you are neglecting to perform these duties? Now remember, if this is so, the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against you. If you are neglecting any heart duty, or any outward duty–and if you allow yourselves in this neglect or continue to indulge in this omission, you are as far as possible from being safe. I pray you, lay it to heart.

6. The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all sinners who neglect repentance and faith; in other words, who neglect to become Christians.

(1.) The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all sinners who neglect G-d, who neglect prayer, and who neglect to perform all the duties enjoined upon every son and daughter of Adam.

(2.) The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all procrastinators, whether in or out of the church. By procrastinators, I mean, those who have it in their mind at some future time to perform their duty; and who for some reason put it off for the present. This is the great sin of many persons. They know their duty–they know that now is the accepted time and now is the day of salvation; but for unrighteous reasons they continue to procrastinate, to put G-d off.

(3.) The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all sinners who neglect to do and be what G-d requires Christians to do and be. All mento whom the Gospel is preached are bound to be Christians immediately.

A great many sinners are constantly watching Christians and accusing them, but they seem not to understand that G-d requires of them what He requires of Christians, and that in condemning Christians they only condemn themselves; in pointing out the short-comings of Christians they only point out their own. Now sinners, what you suppose G-d requires of Christians, you are bound to perform yourselves. For you seem to know what the Christian’s duty is; you continue to judge the Christian, and therefore you show that you know what he ought to do and what he ought to be. But if you neglect to do and to be what you require of him, then you fall short of your known duty, and the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against you for not doing what you exact of Christians.

(4.) The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all who know better than they habitually do. Now all sinners are in this state; and this is what constitutes them sinners. They know better than they do; they know their duty but they do it not. And this is that for which the wrath of G-d is revealed against them.

Impenitent sinners are very apt to think of their sins only as commissions of something outbreaking in the outward life; but they seldom think much of their neglects of duty either to G-d or man. But it should be understood that all sin resolves itself into either neglect or refusal to render to G-d and man their due. Indeed, there are many, both professors and non-professors, who allow themselves to live habitually in opposition to their convictions of duty. Now let it be understood that this is the very essence of sin; and against all such persons the wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven.

VI. Why is the wrath of G-d thus revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men?

1. Neglect of duty implies a knowledge of duty. A man cannot be said to neglect a duty of which he has no knowledge.

2. Neglect of duty implies ability to perform it. A man cannot be truly said to neglect that which he has no power to perform.

3. Neglect of duty, as I have already said, implies a refusal to do duty. Indeed it involves it. A state of passivity in the presence of perceived obligation being impossible, neglect of duty must involve deliberate and persistent disobedience to G-d.

4. Neglect of known duty to G-d or man, involves a rejection of G-d’s authority, as not a sufficient reason for action.

It is virtually saying, “What if G-d does require of me such and such a thing? That is no good reason why I should do it. Who is G-d that I should obey Him, or what profit should I have if I should pray to Him?”

It involves a most insolent and contemptuous rejection of G-d’s command as being a sufficient reason for action in that direction.

5. Holding the truth in unrighteousness involves a deliberate rejection of moral obligation as constituting an influential reason for action.

Observe, in this case the sinner knows his duty, he admits the obligation in words but rejects it in practice.

Now what is this but saying, “What do I care for moral obligation? To be sure, I admit that there is a moral obligation; but what do I care? Do you suppose I am going to be influenced by moral obligation? If you do, you do not know me. I hope you do not think that I am so weak as to yield to a mere moral obligation–to a mere command of G-d–to a mere sense of duty. Not I.”

6. Holding the truth in unrighteousness involves a contempt for the idea of duty as being of no real practical account.

“Duty?” says the sinner–“do you think I care for duty? What! my duty to G-d, and my duty to my neighbor? Talk not to me of duty. What do I care for duty?”

This holding the truth in unrighteousness is a real contempt for duty. It is virtually saying–“You never need expect me to be influenced by thatconsideration. You never need to tell me of my duty, for I care not for it. I will pursue my inclination, duty in any wise to the contrary notwithstanding. Why do you come to me whining about the idea of duty, and tell me it is my duty to do thus, and thus, and thus? Away with your cant! I will have nothing to do with duty.”

7. This holding the truth in unrighteousness, involves a real ruling down of all moral considerations. The consideration of duty to G-d–the consideration of G-d’s authority–the consideration of G-d’s rights, of man’s rights, and of all rights–it is just ruling them down; putting the foot upon them; trampling them under the feet; and saying–“These considerations shall never influence me!”

8. This course of conduct in holding the truth in unrighteousness, in holding the mind back from obedience, is of course decisive of the moral attitude. It is taking a deliberate stand against G-d. It is taking a deliberate open stand before all his subjects, and pouring contempt upon his authority, upon his moral government, and upon all the moral considerations with which he attempts to enforce obedience. It is then taking the attitude of an open rebel, an open enemy, a persistent opponent of G-d.

9. Holding the truth in unrighteousness is decisive of moral character. It is a state of total depravity, of total dishonesty in regard both to G-d and men. While the debt is admitted in words, and the obligation both to G-d and man in words is admitted, yet practically it is a denial of the obligation. The sinner virtually says–“I know I ought to obey G-d, but I will not. I know I ought to love my neighbor as myself, but I will not. I know I am indebted to G-d, but I will not pay him. I know I am indebted to man, but I care not for it–I will not pay him.”

This, then, is making an open issue with G-d before the entire universe. It is a deliberate, known, practical, persistent rejection of his authority. Again, it is setting the worst possible example before G-d’s subjects. Suppose a subject of any government to stand forth in the presence of all the subjects, and deliberately refuse to obey the laws; not merely to obey some one law, but to obey the laws in general and universally. Suppose the subject to admit the obligation, to admit the wisdom and justice, and equity, and necessity of the laws, but for unrighteous reasons to refuse to obey them; to take a course directly opposed to them; to persist in that course, and to hold fast his persistent resistance to the authority of the government–should not the wrath of the government be revealed against such a character as that?

But again–

10. Holding the truth in unrighteousness, is the deliberate refusal to pay an acknowledged debt to G-d.

Suppose that some one is indebted to you. You greatly need your pay, and you go to him and demand it. He acknowledges the debt in terms, and you request him to pay it. He has the money; but he prefers to use it in some other way, to promote his own interest. You urge his obligation upon him–you tell him he ought to pay it, and he laughs you in the face, and says, “What do I care for that? Do you suppose I will be influenced by such a consideration as that? Oughtness! shall that influence me? Never!” But you remind him of the authority of G-d, and of his command to pay his debts. He laughs again, and says–“And who is G-d? And what do I care for G-d’s commandments? Do you suppose I am to be influenced by such a consideration as that? Never!”

Now you would feel, in such a case as this, that such a deliberate refusal, and such a contempt of obligation, was a dreadful sin against you.

But just see that negligent professor of religion, see that impenitent sinner, deliberately refusing to pay an acknowledged debt to G-d; virtually saying to G-d, “What do I care for your authority? What do I care for my obligations to thee? I will not be influenced by an obligation to pay my debts either to G-d or man.”

But again, suppose a child should take such a stand, and deliberately, and habitually, and universally neglect obedience, refuse, omit all obedience–what would you say of such a child? Should not the parent be angry? Should not he reveal his indignation against that child?

And what would you say of your debtor, in case he should treat you in such a way? Would you not feel yourself called upon to put him in a way to pay you, if he deliberately contemned all obligation for selfish reasons, and deliberately refused to pay an acknowledged debt?

Suppose in this case you should go and sue him, and bring him before a court, and he should say, “Why, you appear to be displeased, you appear to feel indignant that I do not pay you.” Would you not reply, ” I have reason to be indignant. You are a scoundrel; you are a dishonest man; you contemn all moral obligation, and I will see what I can do by enforcing legal obligation.”

“You treat all moral obligation with contempt; and what is left to me but to compel you to pay your debt?”

So in the case of holding the truth in unrighteousness: obligation to G-d is treated with contempt; G-d himself is treated with contempt; his authority is treated as a mere trifle; his feelings are outraged and contemned, and is it not appropriate that G-d should be “angry with the wicked every day,” that He should have a benevolent indignation toward those who thus contemn their obligation? And is it not appropriate in Him to express or reveal this indignation, this wrath from heaven against such conduct as this? What would you think of a human ruler, who should let such conduct pass without manifesting the least displeasure at it? Or a parent, who should let such conduct pass without manifesting any displeasure at it?

The fact is, G-d has infinitely good reasons for being highly displeased. His wrath must be enkindled against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.

Now what will be said of Him if He does not manifest this wrath? What will his subjects think of Him? Can they maintain their confidence in Him? Will He not forfeit their confidence? Will He not inevitably lose the confidence of all his faithful subjects, if He neglects to manifest or reveal his wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness?

REMARKS.

1. From this standpoint we can see the awful delusion of mere moralists.

There are many men who totally neglect G-d, and are, therefore, in the sense of this text, emphatically ungodly. They withhold from G-d the love, confidence, obedience, and worship which is his due, and still imagine that they are doing nothing very wrong. You speak of their danger of being lost–they are ready to say, “Why, what have I done that is bad? Whom have I wronged?” Now the answer is plain, in the light of this text; you have wronged G-d out of his whole duty; you have never performed your duty to him in any sense or degree. What if you should refuse to pay your debts to men?

Suppose you were indebted to many persons, and never paid them the first cent–habitually and universally neglected to meet their just demands; and then you should set up for a moral man–should ask, “What evil have I done?”

Suppose these creditors of yours should often demand their pay, and you should as often acknowledge in words that the debts were just, and you ought to pay them, but still you should neglect and refuse to pay them, and never pay them at all; and then suppose they should complain of you, and you should say, “Why, what have I done?”–would not this be ridiculous?

But this is the manner in which you treat G-d; and you make little or no account of your neglect to pay what you owe to G-d. You would feel intensely if anybody owed you, and they should treat their obligation as you treat you obligation to G-d.

But just think! you are perfectly ungodly, and yet laying the flattering unction to your soul that you have done nothing very bad.

But again, you have neglected your whole duty to man as well as to G-d. The law of G-d and the law of your own conscience, requires you to love your neighbor as yourself; to regard and treat his interests as your own; to be careful of his reputation as of your own, of his feelings as of your own, of his interests as of your own. Now, have you done this? You satisfy yourself by saying you have not wronged him.

Wronged him! Have you not withheld from him that which is his due? Have you not refused to love him? refused to be interested in his welfare? Have you cared for his soul? Have you done anything to save him?

Suppose you had seen him asleep in his house, and the house on fire, and you had suffered it to burn down and consume him, and had given him no warning; and then you should say, “Wherein have I wronged him?”

The fact is, you have wronged both G-d and man. You have withheld from both their due, and you have no more right to claim to be a moralman than Satan has to claim to be moral. For, a mere moralist, an unconverted man, a man that neglects his duty to G-d and his fellow-men, as all unconverted sinners do, is void of all moral honesty; and must be, of course.

Why, how ridiculous it is for you to pretend to be morally honest, when you refuse, universally, to pay your debts. You do not hesitate to treat the claims of G-d, which you admit to be just, with utter contempt in your practice. You withhold from him all that is really valuable to him. For if you do not love him, if you do not regard his interests, your outward life, if it appear to be an honest and moral life, is a mere hypocrisy. Your kind treatment of your fellow men is not, and cannot be, because you love them; for if you are a mere moralist, an unconverted man, you do not love your neighbor as yourself–you must, therefore, have some other reason than love to your neighbor for treating him kindly; it must be some other reason than real honesty of heart, and uprightness before G-d and man, that leads you to any appearance of honesty.

But suppose some individual owed you, and was under every possible obligation to you and yet should contemn and despise the whole, and never perform his duty, or pay you a debt, or discharge any obligation, could you believe him an honest man? No, you could not believe that he had one particle of moral honesty in him.

But suppose you should see a son who treated his own parents as you treat G-d–would you believe that son an honest man, however much he might boast of honesty? Would you not be convinced irresistibly that any man that could treat honorable and upright parents with the contempt with which you treat G-d, could not be an honest man? Would you not regard him as void of all moral honesty? Would you not say irresistibly, a man that can do that can have no honesty in his soul? I beseech you to lay aside the claim of honesty and morality, and take home to yourself the charge that you are a totally dishonest and base man, one who has no real claim to be regarded as anything other than as a wicked, unprincipled, selfish being.

2. The same must be said of many professors of religion. What an awful delusion they are under! Supposing themselves to have been converted, they live on in habitual and known transgression. Many things which they acknowledge to be their duty, they never pretend to perform.

They allow themselves all the time to live in the neglect of what every body knows, and they themselves acknowledge to be their duty; and yet they think they are justified–think they are penitent. But what idea can they have on repentance? Is not repentance the renunciation of sin?

But what is sin but withholding from G-d and man their due? Here then is a professor of religion that habitually withholds from G-d and man their due, living on in known omissions; and confessing his omission, and will continue to confess them without end, and never address himself to the performance of these duties. Now what a delusion is this! Why, on the very face of it, it is hypocrisy and a fatal delusion.

3. This text does not agree with the doctrine of inability, about which we hear so much.

There are many who are continually ready to acknowledge their short-comings, and acknowledge in words their crime; but they plead theirinability to obey. Inability! and does this text teach or imply any such doctrine as that? Why, this text assumes the very opposite of the doctrine of inability. It takes the ground that men, so far from being unable to obey the commands of G-d, are positively resisting them. And this is in fact true.

I have already said that truth, and especially the truth of moral obligation, is the natural stimulus of the mind. It wakes it up, and compels it to act in one way or the other. Moral obligation will at once enlist and engage the energies of the soul; and unless they be actively and positively withheld, unless the truth is held back, restrained in unrighteousness, the mind will surely obey it. Here then, instead of being unable to obey, the individual is obliged to gird himself to resist, in order to prevent obedience. Truth is a mighty impulse to draw him into conformity with itself; but, for selfish reasons, he girds himself and holds it back, restrains it in unrighteousness.

This then, is your inability, sinner, and professor of religion.

Truth, if you did not restrain it, would at once quicken you into activity, and into obedience. But you harden your heart, and you stiffen your neck, you resist the claims of truth and of G-d.

This is plainly the doctrine of this text, as it is of the Bible universally when it is properly understood.

4. Men feel that neglect is sin, when self is the object of this neglect. Parents feel that the neglect of their children is sin; husbands and wives feel that the neglect of the other party is sin; men in business feel that it is sin in their debtors to neglect to pay them, especially where this neglect is owing, not to inability, but to selfishness, or carelessness of the rights of others. Selfish men are loud in their complaints of others who neglect to pay their debts to them; but it would surely be more consistent for them to cease complaining of anybody’s neglecting them, while they are neglecting to pay their debt to G-d. Thou that complainest that others neglect to pay their debts to you–dost thou neglect to pay thy debts to G-d?

5. How little stress is laid upon the neglect of duty as a sin. Now it should always be remembered that the law of G-d is positive. G-d is never satisfied with a man’s doing nothing; He requires him to act, and that with all his heart, and soul, and mind, and strength. And now when G-d is totally neglected, when men are ungodly and unrighteous, neglecting their duty both to G-d and man, how strange it is that this neglect should be so little regarded as a great and abominable sin against G-d, and as indeed the essence of all sin.

6. Church discipline is often a great stumbling block on this account. Men are allowed to live in fellowship with the churches, and neglect their duty habitually and notoriously; men who neglect their duties to the church and their duty to G-d, and live cold and formal lives, and do not hesitate in words to confess it, while they do not reform.

How strange it is that persons are allowed to remain in the church as accepted members, who so neglect their duty both to G-d and man.

7. Sinners are greatly misled by the church in this respect. Children in Christian families see that their parents are living in constant neglect of duty; and if they attend meetings, they hear Christians confessing that they are constantly neglecting duty, and they know very well that they expect to continue to neglect their duty. Yet very little stress is laid upon this by the church or by the ministry. Now this fatally misleads many sinners. They come to think but very little of omission of duty. The example of the church on this subject is the greatest stumbling block to them. They hear their parents say that they neglect G-d, and they neglect duty. Very well how little, then, do they think of neglecting their duty!

It has come to this, that the example of the Church in this respect has completely stumbled the world; so that sinners are living for scores of years in the neglect of all their duty to G-d, and yet do not consider themselves as very bad sinners. They say they have done nothing very bad. Now how came they to this idea? The fact is, they have learned it from the church. They have been in the habit of hearing the church members speak of the omission and neglect of duty as a thing almost of course.

8. Orthodox neglectors of duty are the greatest sinners in the world. I have said that neglect of duty implies a knowledge of duty. Now the more orthodox in sentiment men are, and the more enlightened men are, the greater, surely, is their obligation. Those, therefore, who are truly orthodox in sentiment, but heterodox in practice, living in the neglect of their known duty, are the greatest sinners in the world.

9. From this stand-point we can also see the actual difference between real saints and sinners.

I have just spoken of professors of religion who live in the habitual neglect of duty; and of the church, which is so largely composed of mere nominal professors, as being a stumbling block to the world. Remember, then, that I am now about to speak, not of nominal professors, of negligent souls, but of real saints and sinners. But I also wish to be understood as meaning by enemies all who live in the habitual neglect of known duty. Saints are converted persons; sinners are unconverted. Saints are penitent souls; sinners are impenitent. Saints are obedient; sinners are disobedient. Both know their duty; saints do their duty; but sinners omit theirs.

With the true saint, G-d’s will being known, is reason enough; he wants no further reason to influence his conduct. It is just this state of mind that constituted him a saint. He has given up his spirit of disobedience; he has ceased to hold truth in unrighteousness; he has yielded his mind to the influence of truth; G-d’s will has been accepted by him; he has laid aside his rebellion and become an obedient subject of Christ.

Now mark! he wants no better or higher reason for any course of conduct than to know that such is the will of Christ.

But with the sinner, the opposite is true. He knows his duty, but this is no influential reason with him at all. He has not accepted the will of G-d as his rule of life. He affirms it to be his duty to do so; but he does not do it. And it is this which constitutes him an impenitent sinner.

The revealed will of G-d is with him no sufficient reason at all to induce obedience. He knows his duty, perhaps as well as the saint does; but he does not do it. He holds the truth in unrighteousness. Again, with the true saint, the omission of any duty is a dreadful thing. What! to disobey a command of G-d!

To know that G-d requires of him a certain course of action, and for him to refuse! Why, it is a dreadful thing! a thing not to be thought of! But with the impenitent sinner, the omission of duty is a mere trifle, a thing scarcely worth considering. He goes forward omitting all his duty, and all with as little consideration, or fear, or regret, as he would have in view of any trifle that you can name.

10. This text is more frequently suggested by facts around us than almost any other in the Bible. It is so very, very common to find persons neglecting what they know and even confess to be their duty, and it is utterly amazing when we consider that so many of these confessors are really professors. They confess themselves to be in the habitual neglect of some duties, and perhaps of many, and yet they profess to be the children of G-d; they profess to be converted, to be G-d’s saints, his holy ones. Now who can live with such surroundings without being constantly reminded of this text–“The wrath of G-d is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.”

11. The announcement of this text ought to shock such persons like a thunder bolt. See these dreamers! this multitude of souls that are crying peace, peace, when there is no peace! neglecting their duty to G-d and to their fellow-men! Hark! hear the thunder of this text, and let your nerves tremble!

12. Ministers have reason to tremble for their hearers. How perfectly common it is for ministers to preach and hold out the claims of G-d, while their people will confess that it is truth, and that so they ought to do, but do they do so? Let such a minister watch his people. He holds out to them on the Sabbath the claims of G-d, and they go away, perhaps eulogizing the preaching, at any rate, they confess that they have been instructed in regard to their duty–but does he find them the next day, and every subsequent day, addressing themselves to this duty? Does he expect them to do it? Does he even expect his own church to do it? I should like to ask ministers, how many members of their church they have reason to believe, from acquaintance with them, will do their duty as soon as they are instructed in regard to it.

And I should like to ask them if it is not true that in a great multitude of instances, they have no expectation at all that the members of their church will wake up and be influenced by the truth, and will do what they know to be their duty. After preaching on the Sabbath and holding out to the church the claims of G-d, would they not be surprised on Monday to see the church all astir, and full of energy and vigor in carrying out the instructions of the Sabbath? How common it is for ministers to hold out the claims of G-d, to pour the truth upon their hearers; and then to see, right before their faces, that they hold the truth in unrighteousness. They know and acknowledge their duty, but they do not do it.

13. Let us reflect that it is the wrath of G-d that is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. It is the wrath of G-d, and therefore it cannot be resisted. It is the wrath of G-d, and therefore it cannot be endured. “Can thine heart endure, can thine hand be strong in the day that I shall deal with thee, saith the Lord? What then wilt thou do in the day when I shall punish thee?” Sinner and negligent professor, have you really considered what it is to have the wrath of an Omnipresent and Almighty Being revealed from heaven against you? Revealed from heaven! See, the holy mount is covered with dark clouds, the batteries are charged, the match is lighted‚ and the Almighty is there!

Are you not afraid to pursue your course of neglect of duty, holding truth in unrighteousness? In just such a time as you think not, and when you are crying peace and safety, these batteries of Omnipotence will open upon you–the discharge will wither you in a moment–and you will sink down, down, down in the blackness of darkness forever!

What then shall you do? I answer, immediately discard this spirit of delay–lay hold upon eternal life–let your heart go to Christ–no longer hold the truth in unrigheousness. Arise, and what you do, do quickly. Lay hold upon eternal life; for “now is the accepted time, now is the day of Salvation.”

_________________________________________________

From: The Oberlin Evangelist, August 14, 28, 1861

By The Rev. CHARLES G. FINNEY

 

Permanent link to this article: http://www.whitehorse-radio.com/06/15/2016/holding-the-truth-in-unrighteousness.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>