1. Gospel and legal mortification differ in their principles from which they proceed. Gospel mortification is from gospel principles, viz. the Spirit of God [Rom. 8. 13], ‘If ye through the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live’; Faith in Christ [Acts 15. 9], ‘Purifying their hearts by faith’; The love of Christ constraining [2 Cor. 5. 14], ‘The love of Christ constraineth us.’ But legal mortification is from legal principles such as, from the applause and praise of men, as in the Pharisees; from pride of self-righteousness, as in Paul before his conversion; from the fear of hell; from a natural conscience; from the example of others; from some common motions of the Spirit; and many times from the power of sin itself, while one sin is set up to wrestle with another, as when sensuality and self-righteousness wrestle with one another. The man, perhaps, will not drink and swear. Why? Because he is setting up and establishing a righteousness of his own, whereby to obtain the favour of God here is but one sin wrestling with another.
Thus wrote Ralph Esrkine, via The Difference Between Legal and Gospel Mortification – Tullian Tchividjian.
What kind of vile attack on God’s holy character is going on here?
I have to assume that Erskine had some strict definition of “legal” that was not identical with the Law of God.
Is any Christian really going to claim that the Law of God motivates the people of God by?:
- The praise of men
- the pride of self-righteousness
- the power of sin itself
Sorry, but I have it on inspired testimony that the law is “holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7).
It is good to warn people off from false, sinful, and self-destructive motives that creep into the human heart. But these should not be associated with God’s gracious law. This is standard Reformed Orthodoxy:
3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
Nothing here about a covenant that promoted a desire for human praise, self-righteousness, or reliance on the power of sin.
Makes me wonder what he stuffed in his pipe before writing this stuff.
ADDENDUM: I should add that looking at the context more closely leads me to hope Erskine really meant “the legalist’s mortification.” So he would not be talking about a self-righteous idolater in contrast to a Christian who loves the Law. But even if I am right about this, I think Erskine should have said so explicitly in the paragraph.
So the Spirit fills us with some kind of motions that are common to us and the unregenerate, but that common motion is apparently fits in a list with a whole bunch of very bad and scary things.
What about ‘natural conscience’ though? the testimony of conscience is usually defined as the ‘law written on the heart’ that everyone knows. If you are trying to fight sin with only that, even though that natural law consciousness of sin is a graciosus gift, won’t it be useless?
Is he really saying that the impulse to live obediently is by definition self-righteous, or is he saying that even a regenerate man may well be keeping the law outwardly from self-righteous motives? Doesn’t the structure of the paragraph indicate that he is using the phrase “legal mortification” to mean that which is apart from, and in opposition to the gospel?
It’s a poor choice of words, casting an unnecessarily negative tone onto the concept of “law,” but I don’t think he’s saying an active desire to practice righteous behavior must be self-righteous. I think he’s just poorly choosing the phrase “legal” to mean, well, self-righteous, or legalistic.
It reminds me a bit of C.S. Lewis’ idea that pride may be the worst of all sins, because people hold it up as a reason not to be cowardly, or selfish, or whatever — it’s “beneath you” to be like that.