All rights reserved, including the right to grant the following permission and to prohibit the misuse thereof:

The Author hereby grants permission to reproduce the text of this book, without changes or alterations, for non-commercial distribution for ministry purposes.

1

A Very Unusual Man

 

In the small frontier town of Adams, in western New York, a young lawyer paced back and forth in his office. He was troubled--deeply troubled.

Outside, trees had turned from the green of summer to the red, gold and brown of autumn. The October morning air had a zestful edge to it. All the signs of nature clearly signaled the waning of the year. Soon 1821 would be history.

But Charles G. Finney's attention that day was not on the weather or the season of the year. The questions that disturbed him so deeply were about matters that reach beyond all time.

He stopped his pacing and sat down again to read the book lying open on his desk. Finney had recently passed his twenty-ninth birthday. For twenty-six of those years he had paid little attention to the Bible. But that was before he began studying law.

Noticing that the old legal authorities frequently appealed to the Scriptures, Finney decided to secure a copy and read for himself the passages cited in the law books.

Meanwhile, he began to attend the local Presbyterian church. There he listened to the preaching of Reverend George W. Gale, the Princeton-educated pastor.

Gradually he became aware of the pressing importance of eternal issues. Heavy conviction of sin weighed him down. This frame of mind continued for some time, becoming almost unbearable. Then, on Sunday night, October 7, he resolved to seek the salvation of his soul without further delay.

Monday came. Then Tuesday. He prayed. He read the Scriptures. Whenever he heard someone coming to the office, he threw his Blackstone law books over his Bible so the visitor would not know he had been reading it.

His stress increased. Tuesday night Finney's nerves nearly gave way under the stress of his spiritual conflict.

The next morning he rose early and started for the office. Just before he arrived, an inner voice stopped him with the question: "What are you waiting for?"

Suddenly, standing there in the street, he realized that salvation comes not through our own works but through the completed work of Christ on our behalf, accepted as a free gift.

"Will you accept it now--today?" The question bore down on Finney's mind.

"Yes, I will accept it today, or I will die in the attempt!" he replied.

Self-consciously he walked into the woods north of town. Out of sight of the village, he tried to pray. But every few minutes he imagined he heard someone coming.

Then it dawned on him--he was too proud to be seen praying! He was ashamed to be seen on his knees making his peace with God. Realizing his sinful pride, he shouted out that he would not leave that place even if everybody saw him.

Finney was heartbroken before the Lord. Soon the promise of Jeremiah 29:13 came to him: "Ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart." Immediately he seized the promise by faith. God cannot lie; so Finney decided then and there to trust His word.

As other promises came to him from the Scriptures, his heart took them in. Soon his heart was full. His distress was gone. He had peace with God.

That evening God mightily baptized him in the Holy Spirit. Here is how Finney described it:

"... The Holy Spirit descended upon me in a manner that seemed to go through me, body and soul. I could feel the impression, like a wave of electricity, going through and through me. Indeed it seemed to come in waves and waves of liquid love; for I could not express it in any other way. It seemed like the very breath of God. I can recollect distinctly that it seemed to fan me, like immense wings.

"No words can express the wonderful love that was shed abroad in my heart. I wept aloud with joy and love; and I do not know but I should say, I literally bellowed out the unutterable gushings of my heart."1

The call of God to preach the gospel came to Finney immediately. He was certain of it and eager to fulfill it.

A well-known incident demonstrates Finney's resolve. One of the deacons of the church had retained Finney to be his attorney in a pending lawsuit. On the morning the case was to be tried, the deacon reminded him of it. Finney replied: "I have a retainer from the Lord Jesus Christ to plead his cause, and I cannot plead yours."2

Finney's conversion and his testimony for Christ had a profound effect on the little town. Some of his close friends and associates were converted almost right away. In some cases Finney said just a few words to someone about his personal relationship with God and the person would go off into the woods and seek God for salvation.

Finney began theological studies under his pastor, Reverend Gale. But the experience turned out to be most frustrating for both teacher and student. Hyper-Calvinism was the popular theology of the times. But when the good Reverend tried to instill those views into Finney, the lawyer's keen analytical mind could not accept them as being either Scriptural or logical.

As Finney saw it, man has something more to do in conversion than to wait passively for God to change him. The sinner has a free will. He is a sinner by choice. By the exercise of his free will he can repent of his sins and receive Jesus Christ as his Savior and Lord. This God commands him to do--now.

In love, God is doing all He wisely can to persuade the sinner to change his own heart. But God will not force him. The sinner is totally responsible for being a sinner. His own desires have such a hold on him that he will not repent unless the Holy Spirit mightily persuades him to do so. But the divine influence is aimed at getting him to make the decision to submit to God and believe the gospel. And that decision is up to the sinner.

And so, armed with these convictions, and with an intense love for God and the souls of men burning deeply inside him, Charles Grandison Finney set out to preach the gospel.

Initially Finney felt that all he was qualified for was home missionary service among the frontier settlements.

Finney's strategy in preaching was to appeal to reason--to press the claims of Christ upon the intelligence of his hearers. But he knew full well that his own persuasions alone would not move the stubborn wills of the unconverted. For that he depended entirely on the Holy Spirit. That is why he prayed so much and so earnestly. He prayed in faith, and so prayed effectively.

Things began to happen immediately. When he called on the people at Evans Mills to indicate publicly whether they would accept Christ or reject Him, they were astonished. No preacher had ever confronted them with such a demand! They rose up in anger and walked out of the meetinghouse. Finney went to prayer.

The next night the building was packed. Once again Finney preached. The evangelist, assuming that they had indicated the day before their intention to reject Christ, pressed upon them the consequences of their commitment. Many listeners became deeply distressed. Through the night these alarmed souls came to Finney for help. They were lost if they did not find peace with God, and suddenly they realized it.

Conversions multiplied. Revival fires spread to the little German village of Antwerp, then to Perch River, Brownville, LeRayville, Governeur, DeKalb, and Western. In some cases nearly the whole community surrendered to the Lord Jesus Christ. Some conversions were dramatic. The Holy Spirit was mightily at work!

Such a revival could not go unnoticed very long. Soon the churches in the east began hearing of the unusual happenings in western New York, particularly in the town of Western. When the revival hit Western, the eastern establishment took notice. As the news spread, accounts of what was happening grew proportionately. Some stories were factual; some were distorted.

With the theological climate extremely Calvinistic, strong objections were inevitable. Telling sinners that they can repent on the spot if they but choose to do so! Telling them that they were to blame for not being Christians! Such heresy! Pelagianism! Self-salvation! Emotionalism! Didn't Finney know that sinners can do nothing about their own salvation? Didn't he know that everyone has to wait passively and see if God will regenerate him before he can know whether or not he is elect?

But the reaction was not all negative or hostile. Some influential ministers in larger city churches recognized that Finney's preaching and his methods were right on target.

So Finney was invited to Rome, New York. Immediately the power of God took hold of the people. Hardened sinners were cut down by the Holy Spirit under Finney's preaching. People of all classes were affected equally.

Meanwhile, over in Utica, the spirit of travailing prayer took hold of an influential Christian woman. The worldliness of the church and the carelessness of sinners distressed her deeply. Soon her pastor became aware of her prayer burden and recognized it as the work of God. Believing that God was ready to awaken Utica, he sent for Finney. The evangelist arrived shortly and began laboring for souls. In a few weeks' time, five hundred people were converted to Christ.

During the revival at Utica, the evangelist was invited to tour a cotton factory a few miles west of the city. He agreed to go to a nearby village, preach there in the evening, and go through the cotton mill the next day. Finney tells us what happened:

 

"The next morning, after breakfast, I went into the factory, to look through it. As I went through, I observed there was a good deal of agitation among those who were busy at their looms, and their mules, and other implements of work. On passing through one of the apartments, where a great number of young women were attending to their weaving, I observed a couple of them eyeing me, and speaking very earnestly to each other; and I could see that they were a good deal agitated, although they both laughed. I went slowly toward them. They saw me coming, and were evidently much excited. One of them was trying to mend a broken thread, and I observed that her hands trembled so that she could not mend it. I approached slowly, looking on each side at the machinery, as I passed; but observed that this girl grew more and more agitated, and could not proceed with her work. When I came within eight or ten feet of her, I looked solemnly at her. She observed it, and was quite overcome, and sunk down, and burst into tears. The impression caught almost like powder, and in a few moments nearly all in the room were in tears. This feeling spread through the factory. Mr. Wolcott, the owner of the establishment, was present, and seeing the state of things, he said to the superintendent, 'Stop the mill, and let the people attend to religion; for it is more important that our souls should be saved than that this factory run.' The gate was immediately shut down, and the factory stopped; but where should we assemble? The superintendent suggested that the mule room was large; and, the mules being run up, we could assemble there. We did so, and a more powerful meeting I scarcely ever attended. It went on with great power. The building was large, and had many people in it, from the garret to the cellar. The revival went through the mill with astonishing power, and in the course of a few days nearly all in the mill were hopefully converted."3

 

While at Utica, Finney became aware of the nature and extent of the opposition building up in the east. The reports clearly indicated that many objections to the revival were based on misinformation. But Finney refused to be diverted from the work at hand, and left to others the task of replying to the misrepresentations.

As a result of the Rome and Utica awakening in 1826, three thousand converts were received into the Presbyterian churches of the Oneida Presbytery.

From Utica, Finney went to Auburn, Troy, New Lebanon, Stephentown, Wilmington, and Philadelphia.

In spite of well-organized opposition led by influential men, the larger cities of the east began to open their pulpits to Finney. The pastors who invited him had a love for God and for souls that overrode their objections to Finney's emphasis on man's free will. God blessed their broadminded, Christian attitude.

For about a year and a half, Finney ministered in Philadelphia with great power. The results in the city were deeper and more far-reaching. The city population generally was better educated and more intellectually responsive to the profound logic of Finney's sermons. So the results were more lasting.

From Philadelphia Finney went to two other Pennsylvania cities, Reading and Lancaster. In both, the need for genuine revival was urgent. Professed Christians were very worldly and the public very dull and careless about eternal matters. But God blessed His Word and the cities woke up.

In 1830 Finney returned to the state of New York. During a short revival in Columbia nearly everybody in the town was converted.

Then the Christian philanthropist, Anson G. Phelps, invited Finney to come to New York City. Phelps was both deeply spiritual in heart and highly successful in business. He put both himself and his pocketbook into revival. He rented a vacant church building on Vandewater Street and Finney started preaching there. People were converted and soon a congregation gathered. Phelps purchased a church building on Prince Street, and Finney and many of the converts organized a new church there.

During 1830 Finney received an invitation from Rochester, New York, to labor for souls in that place. Rochester did not look like a very promising field to him. In his own mind he wanted to go back to New York City or Philadelphia. The issue perplexed him for a while. Finally he realized that the problems at Rochester were part of the very reason he should go there. So, trunks packed, the Finneys were off to Rochester!

And it is a good thing they went. A tremendous revival broke out. Most of the community leaders were converted, including many in the legal profession.

News of the Rochester revival spread all over New England. People started coming from far and near. Dr. Lyman Beecher (who, incidentally, had led the earlier opposition to Finney) told Finney later that from that revival one hundred thousand converts were added to the churches in one year! Rochester's jail was said to be empty for years afterward.

Finney worked himself to exhaustion at Rochester. The local doctors thought he had "consumption" and was dying. His friends implored him to rest. But instead of resting, he went back to Auburn. The invitation came from the very ones who had led the opposition to him when he was there previously! Five hundred were converted in six weeks. From Auburn he went to Buffalo, where again the revival had a great effect among the influential classes.

In 1831 Finney went to Providence, Rhode Island, for three weeks. Then Boston opened its doors. The pastors cooperated beautifully and revival started immediately. By this time Finney realized how exhausted he really was from his intense labors and decided to accept an invitation from the Second Free Presbyterian Church in New York City to become its pastor.

Lewis Tappan and others leased a theater on Chatham Street, and in April of 1832 the Finney family moved again to the big city.

Revival broke out. So did the cholera. Finney himself came down with it and spent the winter recuperating both from the disease and from the primitive medical practices of the time. Eventually, Finney recovered and went on with his work.

The people who worked with Pastor Finney realized the power of the printed page. Soon the presses were busy and revival literature blossomed in New York City, spreading its delightful fragrance over the nation and across the ocean to Europe. The New York Evangelist began publication as an "official organ" for the defense and promotion of the revivals. And when Finney's Lectures On Revivals was published, twelve thousand copies sold as fast as they could be printed. Wherever they were read and applied, revivals broke out.

Finney moved into the Tabernacle on Broadway and continued his preaching there.

But out west in Ohio something was happening. A group of young ministerial students had left Lane Seminary because the trustees had prohibited the discussion of slavery. These young students headed for Oberlin. In those days, Oberlin consisted of a clearing in the woods, a few dwellings, a charter for a college and one college building. These dissident students from Lane Seminary, most of whom had been converted under Finney's ministry, now wanted to study for the ministry under the great evangelist himself, even if it meant "roughing it" in barracks out in the wilderness.

The call went out for Finney to come to Oberlin. What should he do? After wrestling with the question for some time, he decided to spend his summers teaching in Oberlin. Arthur Tappan, a successful businessman, opened his big heart and substantial resources to fund the project as long as necessary (that was before the depression of 1837 wiped him out). In the summer of 1835 Finney brought his family and a round tent one hundred feet in diameter to Oberlin.

Finney came on two conditions: (1) there would be complete academic freedom to discuss slavery, and (2) there would be no racial discrimination.

The news spread that Finney was coming to Oberlin. More students poured in, and by the time classes started about a hundred eager young people were on hand. In the years that followed many young people received their theological education and training for the ministry under Charles G. Finney. Oberlin grew, and so did Finney. His influence expanded--through his students, his preaching, and his writings.

In 1842 he returned to Rochester, where at one service a group of lawyers rose spontaneously and came forward en masse to accept Christ.

The parade of revivals, conversions and victories marched on. Finney labored diligently, teaching at Oberlin, pastoring the First Church at Oberlin, conducting revivals in the United States and Britain, and writing prolifically. In 1857 and 1858 a great revival spread across the northern states. Prayer meetings sprang up from Omaha to Boston. During the peak of the awakening, fifty thousand people were being converted per week.

In some of the cities where Finney's influence had been the greatest, the majority of the adult population were born-again Christians. In some villages around Boston, not one sinner could be found!

Finney continued his labors as health permitted him right up until his death early in the morning of August 16, 1875, at nearly eighty-three years old.

In fifty years of ministry, Charles G. Finney won approximately half a million people to Jesus Christ. Volumes have been written about his remarkable life and ministry, about the times during which he ministered, about his great influence on nineteenth century America.

But our main concern now is to find out what it was that Finney believed and preached that had such a powerful effect on his hearers, especially on the more educated and intelligent audiences--not the sermons themselves, but the deep underlying principles and philosophy.

What clear Scriptural concepts did Finney present with compelling logic that would bring such full endorsement by the Holy Spirit? What great principles were so deeply instilled in the new converts that kept the majority of them true to Christ and made them effective workers in the Church?

Yes, Finney was a man of tremendous prayer and faith. But so have been others with fewer results. Yes, he had many helpers. But so have others.

A lot could be said about social and political factors, about the nature of the young nation. But none of these explains a qualitative difference about Finney's ministry.

Did he say something fresh and meaningful? Did he present some principles that are valid in every age--principles that society in general and the Church in particular desperately need to know now, today? Many of us believe he did.

In 1846 Finney wrote his most important work. He called it Lectures On Systematic Theology. It is his declaration of the principles that produced such great results when put into practice.

And do we have access to those principles today?

Fortunately, we do. But for some reason they have been neglected. This neglect is one of the tragedies of our times.

Oh, yes, people like to talk about Finney's great life and revivals. But not very many are willing to dig down into his theology with an open mind to discover the real why--the logical, Scriptural truth that set so many free.

The dynamic ministry of Charles G. Finney is an eloquent practical demonstration of the principles set forth in his Theology. Likewise, the Theology is an outpouring of the giant intellect and noble heart of this prince of soul-winners. No, Finney was no cold logician or dead theologian; his ministry proves that!

So, when someone who won half a million souls to Christ tells us what the basic principles are, we ought to examine those principles very carefully.

Let us do so.

2

Principles Do Not Change

Something deep within the human intellect says that absolutes must exist. Man cannot live without them and maintain his sanity, nor the other elements of his distinctive humanity. Reason demands absolutes, because absolutes integrate everything. Without them nothing makes sense.

So thinking man looks at himself and his world and says, "Everything should make sense; it should be meaningful. All the elements are there." All that remains is to find the absolutes, and chaos is turned into cosmos. There must be a core, a fundamental reality, an underlying set of facts and unchanging principles!

But where to look? Philosophy, ethics, or religion broadly defined? Modern man has done that but has heard discord instead of harmony.

Western man devotes himself to technology. In the physical sciences things are governed by laws--workable, predictable, harmonious. But "know-how" is no substitute for "know why." Man must know why, and no amount of knowing how will bring the answer.

Groping to find their way out of the dilemma, many Westerners are experimenting with parapsychology, the occult and metaphysical Eastern religions. Rejecting plastic materialism, they hope to find immutable universals in the preternatural, or within their own minds and emotions. But for those who reject the reality and finality of the God who has revealed Himself authoritatively and personally in the Bible, few things are more vague than the metaphysical, or more changeable than human emotions. Cut loose from their anchorage in the Christian revelation, they drift into the dark, dangerous waters of the supernatural they neither understand nor escape by themselves.

Then we have the epicurean and/or hedonist. This is the person who accepts the premises of materialism and proceeds to escape from his reasonable humanity into pleasure seeking. He believes that he is a meaningless animal and tries to live like one. His is the bumper-sticker philosophy "if it feels good, do it"; The Bible describes this as the "eat, drink, and be merry" philosophy--the philosophy of the fool. ( Luke 12:16-21 .)

We turn from these delusions to something that meets the demands of both reality and reason while satisfying the yearnings of the human soul--biblical principles.

MORAL LAW

We know that the physical world operates according to definite physical law. If this were not true, we could not have put men on the moon.

It might come as a surprise to many that morality also operates according to definite law--moral law.

The laboratory where moral law is observed in operation is not equipped with test tubes, flasks, Bunsen burners and embalmed specimens. It is populated instead with real persons, moral agents who live, move, love, suffer, struggle, hope, and sometimes rejoice.

Some people do attempt to account for human behavior by ascribing it to physical causes only (brain cells, stimulus response associations). But human values and moral actions go far beyond physical considerations.

True, physical law and moral law do operate side-by-side. They do affect each other. But, and this is fundamentally important, they are separate and distinct from each other and operate in different areas.

Physical law does not govern moral action, and moral law does not directly govern physical action. Moral law governs people who live in the world of substance, but moral law does not govern substance itself. It governs morality and moral relationships, including what people do with their physical world.

Physical law governs everything that is involuntary, including matter and involuntary states and actions of the mind. Everything is under physical law except free will and what is caused by free will. Physical law is the law of automatic sequence, necessity, force. It is cause and effect.

Moral law is the law of free will, including what is caused by free will. It is the law of intelligence, the law of liberty, the law of responsible choice. It operates by persuasion, not coercion. It does not force, but holds up to the intelligence the values to be chosen and the consequences of free choice. It moves by motivation. It rules by reason.

If a moral agent will not be governed by reason, external restraints may be applied to safeguard society. But, strictly speaking, moral law operates only in the area of free will. Whatever is not the action of free will or the result of free will is under physical law, not moral law. Please keep this clearly in mind.

For example, Joe decides to steal Bill's watch. He plans how he is going to do it. He waits for the opportune moment. Then he carries out his plan. His hand reaches out and takes the watch. Swiftly, his feet carry him away from the scene of the crime and he is lost in the crowd.

Now, where does moral law apply directly? To the emotional excitement of planning the theft? To the movement of the hand to grasp the watch? To the muscular action of the body as Joe hurried away?

No.

Did Joe's hand reach out of its own accord and grab Bill's watch against Joe's will? Can Joe say, "I just don't know what I'm going to do with this thieving hand of mine. It just keeps stealing things against my will".

Of course not. Joe's hand cannot take anything unless Joe wills for it to do so. in other words, the sin of theft takes place in Joe's heart (choice), not in his hand.

So moral law applies directly to the choices involved--the choice to commit the act in the first place and the choices involved in carrying it out (which are a continuation of the original choice). Thoughts, emotions and physical actions are the direct and indirect results that follow necessarily from the choices. They are under physical law, the "law of necessity," the law of automatic sequence. They derive their moral character only from the choices, the willing, that produced them.

In other words, the guilt is in the heart; that is, the will, intention, purpose. What is in the heart is carried out into the life. "Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death" (Jas. 1:15). Lust or desire conceives the moment it gains the consent of the will.

THE ESSENTIAL QUALITIES OF MORAL LAW

Moral law has several attributes, or permanent qualities. Let's look at them as Finney listed them.

"1. Subjectivity. It is, and must be an idea of the reason developed in the mind of the subject."4

To be a free moral agent, a person must have some inner knowledge of right from wrong. This means that he (or she) must have some perception of the valuable and therefore be under a personal moral obligation to choose the valuable. This is the point where conscience starts operating and the "age of accountability" arrives.

"2. Objectivity. Moral law may be regarded as a rule of duty prescribed by the supreme Lawgiver and external to self."5

Being all-knowing and all-wise, God knows absolutely what is beneficial and what is harmful. So, as the supreme Lawgiver, He has the right and the obligation to reveal the rule of duty and to maintain it.

"3. Liberty. The precept...cannot possess an element or attribute of force in any such sense as to render conformity of will to its precept unavoidable. This would confound it with physical law."6

Love cannot be forced. By its very nature it is voluntary. If obedience is not willing, if it does not come from the heart, it is no obedience at all. So it is with sin. No one can be forced to sin. Persuaded, yes; forced, no. So then, though we use it, the term "free moral agent" is redundant, because moral choice is free choice by its very nature. In his Preface Finney states:

"Especially do I urge to their logical consequences the two admissions that the will is free and that sin and holiness are voluntary acts of mind."7

"4. Fitness. It must be the law of nature, that is, its precept must prescribe and require just those actions of the will which are suitable to the nature and relations of moral beings and nothing more nor less."8

Moral law demands exactly what God's highest glory and our highest good naturally require. Holiness is natural, beneficial, wholesome, reasonable. Sin is unnatural, harmful, disruptive, dissipating, unreasonable.

"5. Universality. The conditions and circumstances being the same, it requires, and must require, of all moral agents the same things, in whatever world they may be found."9

The moral obligation to love God with all the heart and our neighbor as ourselves applies everywhere, to every nation, in every culture, in Heaven, on earth, and in hell. Love is the universal obligation. If certain violations of the good and well-being of others are permitted within a certain culture, they are not thereby justified. Stealing, immorality, killing whatever. Even the members of those cultures that permit such things know that they do not want done to them what they find culturally acceptable in doing to others. The words of Jesus are universal and unchanging: "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets" (Matt. 7:12).

"6. Impartiality. Moral law is no respecter of persons .... It demands one thing of all ...."10

As moral law applies everywhere, so also it applies to every moral agent. If we can perceive the valuable--that is, if we have reason and light--we are responsible moral agents. No moral agent is exempt from moral law. None is above the obligation to love--not even God Himself. In fact, the greater our reason and light, the greater our moral obligation to conform our whole being to reason and light. The clearer our perception of what is valuable to God and others, the greater is our responsibility to pursue it for His sake and the sake of others.

Oh, how beautiful is God's love! He has infinite intelligence, and perfect knowledge of what is truly best for all. And His great heart is perfectly conformed to His intelligence and knowledge. He seeks the highest good with a perfect heart. Oh, the grandeur of His holiness! the perfection of His character!

"7. Practicability. That which the precept demands must be possible to the subject. That which demands a natural impossibility is not, and cannot be, moral law .... To talk of inability to obey moral law is to talk nonsense."11

Everything required by moral law is possible. Remember, moral law applies to free will. It applies to what we can do by choosing to do. What we cannot do by choosing to do is outside the jurisdiction of moral law and moral obligation. Moral law cannot require natural impossibilities, because no one is morally obligated to perform natural impossibilities.

There is no such thing as a moral impossibility. "Moral impossibility" is a contradiction of terms. If something is impossible, it is not required by moral law. If something is moral, it is something the person is obligated to do and can do, otherwise it would not be classified as moral.

The only impossibility is this: We cannot do what we refuse to do. But this impossibility applies only to the outward action, not the heart. The refusal is a deliberate choice. The sinner cannot live for God as long as he (or she) refuses to do so. This is sin.

"8. Independence. It is an eternal and necessary idea of the divine reason. It is the eternal, self-existent rule of the divine conduct, the law which the intelligence of God prescribes to himself .... As a law, it is entirely independent of his will just as his own existence is."12

The will of God always requires what the law of love itself already requires on the basis of the values that impose obligation in and of themselves.

God's interests are infinitely valuable. That is why I should choose them supremely. I must love God for His sake, and not just for the sake of His will. Of course, it is the will of God that we love Him supremely and others as ourselves. But we are to do this for His sake and for the sake of others.

This makes the will of God very precious, because it is the only way we can properly secure these infinitely valuable interests. The will of God is the necessary means to the valuable end, but it is not the end in itself. We shall return to this subject later.

"9. Immutability. Moral law can never change, or be changed."13

What does moral law require? "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40). Moral law requires this and nothing more nor less of every moral agent. No one can possibly do more. No one can morally do less. If a genius suffers a blow on the head and becomes a moron, he (or she) has less mind than before, but can still love God with all that is left. We are simply held responsible according to the amount of moral enlightenment we possess.

"10. Unity. Moral law proposes but one ultimate end of pursuit to God and to all moral agents. All its requisitions... are summed up in one word, love or benevolence. Moral law is the idea of perfect, universal and constant consecration of the whole being to the highest good of being."14

Partial obedience to moral law is impossible. Either we do love God with all the heart and our neighbor as ourselves, or we do not. We often do so with far less than perfect knowledge and understanding. But we obey with a perfect heart according to the knowledge we do have, or we do not obey at all. Jesus said, "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other" (Matt. 6:24).

"11. Expediency. That which is upon the whole most wise is expedient. That which is upon the whole expedient is demanded by moral law .... Expediency may be inconsistent with the letter, but never with the spirit of moral law .... That which is plainly demanded by the highest good of the universe is law. It is expedient. It is wise. So, on the other hand, whatever is plainly inconsistent with the highest good of the universe is illegal, unwise, inexpedient, and must be prohibited by the spirit of moral law .... The Bible precepts always reveal that which is truly expedient and in no case are we at liberty to set aside the spirit of any commandment upon the assumption that expediency requires it .... That which is upon the whole most expedient is right and that which is right is upon the whole expedient.''15

We may disregard temporal laws and regulations when moral considerations clearly require us to do so, but we may not disregard absolute principles on the pretext that moral considerations require us to do so. Because the highest good is inherent within absolute principles, the violation of absolute principles is always destructive of the highest good. Therefore, it is self-contradictory and absurd to claim that a situation could exist in which one would be morally obligated to disregard absolute principles. Absolute principles always embody moral law and moral obligation.

The instructions of the Bible are always the wisest and most beneficial course of action in any situation. They are always what love truly demands.

"12. Exclusiveness. Moral law is the only possible rule of moral obligation .... This is and must be the law of love or benevolence. This is the law of right and nothing else is or can be."16

Every valid law must be an expression and application of the moral law. As a guide for the choices and actions of moral beings, no law can overrule, replace, or even coexist with moral law. Moral law, that is, the law of love, is the only legitimate rule for moral conduct.

Now, is all of this just theoretical and idealistic? Not at all. It is as practical and relevant as eating and drinking. In fact, it touches every part of our lives, as we will see.

3

Somebody Is In Charge

Every new space probe sent out to determine if "life" exists somewhere else in the universe reminds us of the story of a shipwrecked sailor who spent his first days ashore wandering over his island and calling out, "Helloooooooo! Is anybody there?"

When people deny the existence and providence of a personal God, they begin to feel terribly alone in the universe.

Volumes have been written and will be written on the compelling evidences of Divine activity and purpose in creation. And everyone should become acquainted with these evidences.

Look around you. Read. Think! All the complexity and design evident in nature could not possibly have happened by the chance operation of unintelligent, blind forces. The odds against it are astronomical.

Somebody is there and He is not idle. He has the power and the intelligence to create a universe of mind-boggling magnitude, and He is running it by physical laws that are amazing in their complexity, precision and dependability! And He is also governing His universe morally. Almighty God has an overriding moral purpose in His creation, and His moral government is just as vast, active and benevolent as His purpose is. Here is a good definition of the nature and purpose of God's moral government:

"Moral government consists in the declaration and administration of moral law. It is the government of free will by motives as distinguished from the government of substance by force ...."17

We all know how physical control or government works. We push a button, or pull a lever, and a machine, circuit, or some other device goes into operation. Turn the steering wheel and the car turns. Step on the gas, and it goes. Hit the brakes, and it stops. That is physical control.

But moral control does not operate that way. We might know enough about people's psychological nature--what makes them "tick"--to be able to manipulate their emotions and behavior by certain words and actions. But this is still following a law of sequence, a "law of necessity." It is not moral persuasion by an appeal to reason. It is manipulation by externally applied motivation (stimuli).

Moral government operates on an entirely different principle. It tries to secure voluntary and intelligent obedience to moral law by internal motivation. It presents values to the reason in an appeal to the will of the person to choose those values and live by them. True, external motivations (stimulation of certain emotions, the promise of reward and the threat of punishment) are used to make the choice of the values easier and to minimize the appeals of opposing emotions and circumstances. But moral government is essentially an appeal to reason, with appropriate built-in consequences of acceptance or rejection of the appeal to reason.

We are ready now to talk about the reason for moral government. Government must be based on a valid reason, or it has no right to exist. Nobody has a right to exercise authority over others unless there is a basis for that right.

Does moral government rest on a solid basis? Is there an obligating reason for God to exercise moral government over His universe, including the inhabitants of this planet?

Yes, indeed. God's right to rule the heart is based on a very solid foundation. We will never have a world where everybody agrees. Even if everyone were virtuous and living up to all the light he has, not everybody would have the same degree of light or knowledge. Nothing would guarantee that we would not drift into ignorance. So then, we need someone to reveal, establish and uphold moral law and moral order. We need moral government. This need for moral government is the basis for its existence.

The fundamental reason for moral government, therefore, is the necessity for moral government as an indispensable means of securing the highest good. Without it there would be moral disintegration. The resulting moral anarchy would be an intolerable catastrophe for the whole universe. Who would want to live in a society where the well-being of the members of that society is not maintained by appropriate moral authority? So we need moral government to sustain moral order for the good of the universe.

But who has the right to govern? Obviously, the One who is best qualified. That, of course, is God. We have every reason to believe that God is the Moral Governor of the universe. Would a God of love create beings who need His moral supervision, and then refuse to provide that supervision? Of course not. Everything that God does clearly demonstrates His determination to uphold moral order. He has given us His Word, the Bible, to show us the way. He sent His Son to die for us to save us from our sins and our sinning. Now His Holy Spirit is here doing everything morally possible to move human hearts to God and righteousness--that is, everything short of violating man's free will.

We see clearly that God's sovereignty over the universe is a just and legitimate sovereignty. He rules because our good requires it, and not merely because He happens to be powerful enough to force His authority upon us.

If God did not love us, He would not bother to commit His infinite energies to administer faithfully the vast and complex moral government that we need so desperately. He is working earnestly for our good, even though most of the inhabitants of this planet earth are in open rebellion against His just and benevolent rule. Oh, how great is God's love! God is the only one qualified to govern the universe. For that reason it is His right and His obligation to govern.

And what does this imply? Just this:

A. "... the duty or obligation to govern. There can be no right in this case without corresponding obligation, for the right to govern is founded in the necessity of government and the necessity of government imposes obligation to govern.

B. "... obligation on the part of the subject to obey. It cannot be the right or duty of the governor to govern unless it is the duty of the subject to obey. The governor and subjects are alike dependent upon government as the indispensable means of promoting the highest good.

C. "... the right and duty to dispense just and necessary rewards and punishments... whenever the public interest demands ....

D. "... obligation on the part both of the ruler and the ruled... to make any personal and private sacrifice demanded by the higher public good ....

E. "... the right and duty to employ any force which is indispensable to the maintenance of order...and sustaining the supremacy of moral law....To deny this right is to deny the right to govern."18

Again, the good of all is dependent upon the moral government of God. And God is faithful in His benevolent administration, always acting in the highest interest of His creatures.

Oh, how good and reasonable it is to yield heart-obedience to Him! How wicked and unreasonable it is to rebel in heart against His rightful authority in our lives! Man's selfish determination to be independent of God's holy will and rule is most destructive. The person who refuses to allow God to rule upon the throne of his heart is his own worst enemy as well as the enemy of the highest good of the universe.

THE LIMIT OF THE RIGHT TO GOVERN

It is important to define the limit of the right to govern. Since the right to govern is based on the necessity for government, it follows that the right cannot go beyond the necessity.

God is the Creator. And God is uniquely qualified to govern the universe He has created. If He were not, He would have no right to govern, no matter how much the universe needed to be governed. On the other hand, no matter how much God is able and qualified to govern, He would have no right to govern the universe unless it needed to be governed. The fact that it needs to be governed is the basis of God's right to govern it, and His unique qualifications are the conditions of His right to govern it.

This means then that God is not a bully, ruling us just because He has the power to do so. There is a compelling reason for Him to govern and for us to obey. We need God, and we cannot get along without Him and His moral authority!

But, base government on anything else than the necessity of government for the good of all, and rulers will see no limit to their authority. Look at the parade of history. Kings, generals, Caesars, prelates, emperors march through its pages. How many of them ruled for the good of the people? How many followed the principle that their right to rule went no farther than the people's actual need for their rule?

Look at the sad record. From ancient Nimrod to this evening's news we see a long line of monarchs, tyrants and demagogues ruling for their own ends on the basis of power and might. Only now and then will you find a ruler who governs truly for the highest good of the people and who limits his power by the actual requirements of the people.

In contrast, let us look at the majestic moral government of God.

Now it is true that God is sovereign. He does not ask anyone for permission to govern His universe. He does not ask anyone's advice how to run it. But the sovereignty of God, though complete, is not arbitrary. God's authority (and duty) to govern is based on the necessity for moral government and is conditioned on His unique qualifications to govern.

And God is fulfilling His moral obligation to govern. God's sovereignty is being directed by His infinite love and wisdom. In all that He does, God is guided by His determined purpose to secure our greatest good and His highest glory by the best, wisest and most just means possible. Truly, "God is love" (1 John 4:8).

Loving submission to the sovereign will of God is the only morally justifiable course of action for reasonable creatures. Sin is the basest form of treason ever introduced into the' universe, because, remember, all who refuse to obey God are working directly and violently against the good of the universe, against the good of their community, against the good of their family, and against their own personal good.

4

Where Do I Fit In?

Most people do not like it. They do everything possible to avoid it. They deny it. They throw it onto someone else. They try to escape it personally by spreading it over society collectively. It challenges them and makes them uncomfortable.

What is it? Personal moral responsibility!

One school of psychology says that man is only a machine (and who ever heard of a machine being morally responsible for anything?). Stimulus-response associationism places all the blame on in-coming stimuli ("society made me do it; my social and physical environment stimulated me, and I had to respond the way I did. I am a victim.").

Maybe it is heredity ("it's my glands, you know"); or parental influences ("my mother dominated me as a child"). Sometimes it sounds theological ("it's my sinful nature"); or religious ("the devil made me do it").

You name it; somebody has thought of it.

Of course, many things influence us or appeal to us. But they do not make us do anything. The choice is still ours. We are not the product of these influences unless we choose to be.

We are more than machines or animals. Our thoughts, feelings, attitudes, values, hopes, joys, sorrows, and affections are not just complex electro-chemical processes. There is a spiritual part of our being that is uniquely human. One of its functions is the power of intelligent, self-determined choice--choice either in conformity with reason or in opposition to reason. And because these choices are self-generated, we are personally responsible for them. We are morally obligated to choose intelligently in conformity with the will and Word of God.

THE CONDITIONS OF MORAL OBLIGATION

"There are various forms of obligation: obligation to choose an ultimate end of life, obligation to choose the necessary conditions of this end and obligation to put forth executive efforts to secure this end."19

A little later we shall discuss the foundation or basis of moral obligation. Right now we shall explore the conditions of moral obligation, that is, the two things a person must have to be under moral obligation.

The first is moral agency. A person must be a moral agent to be under personal moral obligation. And what must a person have to be a moral agent?

"The attributes of moral agency are intellect, sensibility and free will.

"Intellect includes... reason, conscience, and self-consciousness.

"Sensibility is... feeling.

"Free-will is... the power of choosing, or refusing to choose,... in compliance with moral obligation.

"Unless the will is free, man has no freedom; and if he has no freedom, he is not a moral agent, that is, he is incapable of moral action and also of moral character."20

So then, to be capable of responsible choices one must have (1) a functioning intellect, (2) feelings by which we are aware that happiness is valuable (whether our own happiness or the happiness of others), and (3) the ability to choose without coercion. These three capacities make a person a moral agent.

But before our choices can have real moral character, we must have something else:

"A second condition of moral obligation is light, or so much knowledge of our moral relations as to develop the idea of oughtness."21

We must realize what is valuable in itself and that we ought to choose it because it is valuable in itself. The moment that we realize that God's happiness is supremely valuable and that the happiness of others is just as valuable as our own, we have light. We know what we ought to live for, and therefore we come under moral obligation to love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. The more we understand how to please God and do good to others, and how our words and actions affect others in practical every day living, the greater is our light.

Moral obligation cannot go beyond our knowledge, but it does go as far as our knowledge. It demands that we live up to all the light we have, and that we get all the light we can. Love can do no more. And love will do no less.

So then, as we become aware of the value of what we should live for, we become aware of personal moral obligation and of the development of a sense of right and wrong.

We human beings know right from wrong because we know the valuable. That is, we know what we ought to live for and we know whether or not we are living for it.

EXTENT OF MORAL OBLIGATION

Now that we have established what is required for us to be personally morally accountable, let us consider what we are morally accountable for. That is, to what does moral obligation apply?

We start by eliminating the things that are not directly under moral obligation.

Physical action is neither right nor wrong in itself. The right or wrong is in the motive for choosing to act in a given situation. And some bodily actions are purely reflexive, with no deliberate choices or purposes behind them.

At the instant the choice is made in the heart, moral character is determined, whether a person has the opportunity to carry the choice out into practice or not.

When does a person become a murderer? When he pulls the trigger, or when the decision was made to do the deed? The answer is obvious--the person became guilty of murder the instant the decision was made (see 1 John 3:15). And so Jesus taught us "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:28).

Feelings also are not directly under moral obligation. They are not directly within our power of choice. For that reason our moral character does not depend upon how we feel. It does depend, though, on what we do with our feelings. More about this later.

Involuntary mental conditions and actions are not under moral obligation, either. The actions of people who do not know what they are doing (babies, sleepwalkers) are not under moral obligation. The actions of people who are senile often come into this category.

To what then does moral obligation directly apply? The answer is simple: moral obligation applies directly to our ultimate motive, freely and knowingly determined by and within ourselves personally.

Now, every moral agent who has any degree of light has chosen an ultimate end or purpose and is living to fulfill it. Having chosen an ultimate end, moral agents are also choosing the known means to secure that end, and they are actively working on those means.

Yes, we can give up one ultimate end and choose the opposite ultimate end. But as long as we actually choose a particular end, we cannot deliberately refuse to pursue it. Choosing an end is the same thing as choosing to go after it by all known available means. Refusing to go after a goal is the same thing as giving up the goal.

So then, if we really love God, we will live for Him. If we refuse to obey Him, we do not love Him.

We might experience certain sentiments about Him or toward Him. But these in themselves are involuntary and have no moral character. Our moral character is determined not by how we feel but by what we are living for!

Suppose you walk up to a friend at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago:

"Well, hello there, Mike. Getting ready for another ride on the DC-8, eh? Where to this time?"

"Oh, uh ..., hi, Glen. I'm heading for New York City. Really important that I be there immediately."

"New York City? Then how come your ticket is for Los Angeles?"

"Well, you see, Glen. It's like this. I really want to go to New York. And I'll make it to New York somehow. But right now ... oh, excuse me, Glen. My flight to L.A. is boarding at Gate 3. See you later."

And so Glen walks slowly away, muttering to himself, "Poor Mike. He's flipped. He's really flipped."

What was Mike's real goal? It was the one he was knowingly using means to secure, not the one he professed.

"Men are to be judged by their motives, that is, by their designs, intentions .... If a man intend evil, though perchance he may do us good, we do not excuse him .... So if he intend to do us good and perchance do us evil, we do not and cannot condemn him .... He may be to blame for other things connected with the affair. He may have come to our help too late ... but for a sincere and of course hearty endeavor to do us good he is not culpable ....

"The Bible... recognizes this truth. 'If there be a willing mind,' that is, a right willing or intention, 'it is accepted' [2 Cor. 8:12]. Again, 'All the law is fulfilled in one word, love' [Gal. 5:14]. If the intention is right, or if there be a willing mind, it is accepted as obedience. But if there be not a willing mind, that is, right intention, no outward act is regarded as obedience."22

The motive is what really counts with God. If the heart (supreme motive) is truly right, all else will be right. But if the heart (supreme motive) is wrong, all is wrong.

Remember the Pharisees? Jesus reviewed their religious activities, and then disposed of them all by saying, "But all their works they do for to be seen of men..." (Matt. 23:5). Their motive was selfish, and so all their religious actions were selfish also. They were only religious means to a selfish end.

In fact, 1 Corinthians 13:3 informs us that it is possible to give all one's goods to feed the poor and to give one's body to be burned, and to have it all amount to nothing in the sight of God if the motive is wrong.

"Example: A student labors to get wages, to purchase books, to obtain an education, to preach the gospel, to save souls and to please God. Another labors to get wages, to purchase books, to get an education, to preach the gospel, to secure a salary and his own ease and popularity.

"Now the proximate ends, or immediate objects of pursuit, in these two cases are precisely alike, while their ultimate ends are entirely opposite. Their first or nearest end is to get wages. Their next end is to obtain books; and so we follow them until we ascertain their ultimate end before we learn the moral character of what they are doing.... One is selfish and the other benevolent."23

Now, before we can choose means and exert actions intelligently, we must first choose an end. It is the choice of an end that sets moral action in motion. In fact, it can be said that the choice of an ultimate end or purpose in life is the great moral action. All others flow from it.

Once the ultimate goal or end has been chosen by a moral agent, the will immediately embraces all the known available means to obtain that end and generates actions accordingly. This is unavoidable. The choice of a supreme object automatically sets a moral agent in motion toward securing that object. And please notice, it is the choice of a supreme object, not just the recognition, admiration, or desire of an object.

A river system is a good illustration. Each drop of water finds its way into a rivulet, each rivulet into a creek, each creek into a tributary river, each tributary river into the main course. Finally, everything surges past the mouth of the mighty river to its end or goal--the ocean.

Choice is the same way. Every intelligent and meaningful choice contributes directly or indirectly toward securing the great ultimate goal of the moral agent.

And there are only two ultimate ends to choose from. One is "the highest well-being of God and the universe," that is, God first, and our neighbor as ourselves. The other is self. There is no other mode of moral action. As ultimate objects, the two are mutually exclusive, antithetical, antagonistic.

So if Jesus Christ is not occupying first place in the heart, it is for one reason and one reason only: self has usurped the throne and is ruling there.

Moral obligation applies directly only to free-will choice or motive. If that be true, and it is, then moral obligation applies indirectly to everything that is controlled in some way by the free will, and that is an expression or result of free choice.

For this reason right thoughts, actions and even feelings are required by the moral law because a right heart will produce them under normal conditions.

On the other hand, if thoughts, actions, and even feelings that seem to be good and righteous proceed from a selfish ultimate motive, there is no real virtue in them.

"Sinners do many things outwardly which the law of God requires. Now unless the intention decides the character of these acts, they must be regarded as really virtuous. But when the intention is found to be selfish, then it is ascertained that they are sinful ....

"Moral obligation then indirectly extends to everything about us over which the will has direct or indirect control.

"We speak of thought, feeling and action as holy or unholy. By this, however, all men really mean that the agent is holy or unholy, is praiseworthy or blameworthy in his exercises and actions, because they regard them as proceeding from the state or attitude of the will."24

The character of the end determines the character of the means and actions. The means and actions are right only if the end is right. The heart, or motive, is what counts with God. This will become clearer and more meaningful as we proceed to apply this principle to everyday living.

5

What Is Really Worth Living For?

In this chapter we shall examine the true basis, or foundation, of moral obligation. It is of vital importance to understand clearly just what we are required by the great moral law to aim at and live for as the great ultimate goal or value of life.

But first we need to define some terms. Finney frequently uses the word "intrinsic." Intrinsic means "within itself." Something intrinsically valuable is valuable within itself. It is valuable, not because it is scarce or because of demand, but because it has worth or value within its own nature.

Finney also uses the word "intention." He does not use the word in the popular sense of "I mean to do it someday." Rather, he uses the word to mean actual and immediate choice.

Here is what Finney says about the foundation of moral obligation:

"The ground of obligation, then, is that reason or consideration intrinsic in or belonging to the nature of an object, which necessitates the rational affirmation that it ought to be chosen for its own sake.

"The well-being of God and the universe... is intrinsically important or valuable, and all moral agents are under obligation to choose it for its own sake. Entire, universal, uninterrupted consecration to this end... is the duty of all moral agents.

"God's ultimate end in all he does or omits is the highest well-being of himself and of the universe .... All moral agents should have the same end, and this comprises their whole duty.

"Thus it is self-evident that moral character belongs to the ultimate intention and that a man's character is as the end for which he lives, moves and has his being.

"Let us proceed to the examination of the various conflicting theories of the ground of obligation.

1. THE WILL OF GOD AS THE GROUND OF OBLIGATION

"I will first consider the theory of those who hold that... God's sovereign will creates, and not merely reveals and enforces, obligation. To this I reply:

"Obligation to do what? Why, to love God and our neighbor .... And does God's will create this obligation? Should we be under no such obligation had he not commanded it? Are we to will this good, not for its own value to God and our neighbor, but because God commands it?

"If the will of God does of itself create and not merely reveal obligation, then the will and not the interest and well-being of God ought to be chosen for its own sake, and to be the great end of life.

"The reason does indeed affirm that we ought to will that which God commands, but it does not and cannot assign his will as the foundation of the obligation... God requires me to labor and pray for the salvation of souls .... Now his command is necessarily regarded by me as obligatory, not as an arbitrary requirement, but as revealing infallibly the true means or conditions of securing the great and ultimate end, which I am to will for its intrinsic value."25

It is always God's will that we love Him supremely and others as ourselves, because of the value of His highest good and the good of others.

But when people become self-convinced that the will of God is an end in itself, and not the means to the end, the result is fanaticism. Any code of ethics built on this premise becomes completely detached from real, practical values.

The Crusades provide us with a classic example. Once they had convinced themselves that it was God's will to "rescue the holy sepulchre," the crusaders felt perfectly justified in killing everybody who stood in their way. A modern example is the religiously based but politically motivated terrorism that has resulted in so much violence and bloodshed in the Middle East and elsewhere. "God wills it" is used to justify all kinds of evil and foolishness.

People who struggle to "do the will of God" without a real love for God and others are under a delusion. They are only trying to provide a moral rationale for the gratification of passion and ambition. They have no real regard for the good that truly doing God's will would bring to God and to others.

The will of God is not an end in itself to which all interests, human and divine, are to be sacrificed. Rather, the will of God is always to be understood as the course of action that results in the highest practical good to God and man, and for that reason it is the will of God.

2. THEORY OF SELF-INTEREST

"This theory ... makes self-interest the ground of moral obligation. Upon this theory I remark--

"If self-interest be the ground of moral obligation,... to be virtuous I must in every instance intend my own interest as the supreme good.

"Upon this hypothesis I am to treat my own interest as supremely valuable, when it is infinitely less valuable than the interests of God.

"But enough; we cannot fail to see that this is a selfish philosophy, and the exact opposite of the truth of God."26

This is a popular one today. It is the "live-and-let-live" philosophy. We hear it every time someone says, "I just mind my own business. I don't bother other people and they don't bother me."

What they mean is, "I'll live for myself and you live for yourself, and we'll try to stay out of each other's way."

Each cares only for self or what is in some way related to self.

There's no love, no morality in that.

3. THE UTILITARIAN PHILOSOPHY

"This maintains... that the tendency of an act, choice or intention to secure a good or valuable end is the foundation of the obligation to put forth that choice or intention. Upon this theory I remark--

"The tendency is valuable or otherwise as the end is valuable or otherwise.

"A choice is obligatory because it tends to secure good. But why secure good rather than evil? The answer is, because good is valuable. Ah! here then we have another reason, the one which must be the true reason, to wit, the value of the good which the choice tends to secure.

"The obligation to use means may and must be conditionated upon perceived tendency, but never founded in this tendency .... The end must be intrinsically valuable, and this alone imposes obligation to choose the end and to use the means to promote it."27

The utilitarian philosophy is the "good works" tread mill. Its objective is to maintain one's moral self-image by piling up moral "credits."

4. THE THEORY OF RIGHT AS THE FOUNDATION OF OBLIGATION

"The law of God does not, cannot, require us to love right more than God and our neighbor. What! Right of greater value than the highest well-being of God and of the universe? Impossible!

"When we pray and preach and converse, must we aim at right, must the love of right, and not the love of God and of souls influence us?... Did he [God] give his Son to die for the right, for the sake of the right, or to die... for the sake of... souls?

"Consistent rightarianism is a godless, Christless, loveless philosophy. 'Do the right for the sake of the right .... ' But now, having adopted this maxim, the mind... finds God and being to exist and sees it to be right to intend their good... But... we are to will their well-being as an end or for its own sake, or because it is right? If for its own sake, where then is the maxim, 'Will the right for the sake of the right'?"28

 

This system is the opposite of utilitarianism. Here is where millions of people are deceived. They struggle to do "right," thinking that this is true religion and morality. But ask them to surrender their hearts to God, and what do they reply?

"Well, I'm trying to do right. I pay my debts. I try to treat my family and my fellowman right. I try to live a good clean life."

They endeavor to assure themselves that they are "right," while all the time self sits enthroned in their hearts. Not once are they motivated by true love for God and for all mankind. They just struggle to be "right." And when they feel that they are "right," they often find pleasures in judging others. It makes them feel righteous, and reinforces their moral self-image. The world accepts them as "good," and often the church accepts them as Christian. Deluded souls!

5. THE PRACTICAL TENDENCY OF THE VARIOUS THEORIES

"I will begin with the theory that regards the sovereign will of God as the foundation of moral obligation.

"One legitimate and necessary result of this theory is a totally erroneous conception both of the character of God, and of the nature and design of his government. If God's will is the foundation of moral obligation, it follows that he is an arbitrary sovereign... But if his will is under the law of his reason,... then his will is not the foundation of moral obligation, but those reasons that lie revealed in the divine intelligence ....

"There is ground for perfect confidence, love and submission to his divine will in all things... His will is law... in the sense of its being a revelation of both the end we ought to seek, and the means by which the end can be secured.

"I will next glance at the legitimate results of the theory of the selfish school.

"It tends directly and inevitably to the confirmation and despotism of sin in the soul. All sin... resolves itself into a spirit of self-seeking .... This philosophy represents this spirit of self-seeking as virtue, and only requires that in our efforts to secure our own happiness we should not interfere with the rights of others in seeking theirs .... What! I need not care positively for my neighbor's happiness,... yet I must take care not to hinder it. But why? Because it is intrinsically as valuable as my own.

"Practical bearings and tendency of rightarianism. "Having... in mind a law of right distinct from, and perhaps opposed to, benevolence, what frightful conduct may not this philosophy lead to? This is indeed the law of fanaticism.

"It sets men in chase of a philosophical abstraction as the supreme end of life instead of the concrete reality of the highest well-being of God and the universe.

"Lastly, I come to the consideration of the practical bearings of what I regard as the true theory of the foundation of moral obligation, namely, that the intrinsic nature and value of the highest well-being of God and of the universe is the sole foundation of moral obligation.

"If this be true, the whole subject of moral obligation is perfectly simple and intelligible.

"Every moral agent knows in every possible instance what is right and can never mistake his real duty.

"His duty is to will this end with all the known conditions and means thereof.

"Multitudes of professed Christians seem to have no conception that benevolence constitutes true religion; that nothing else does; and that selfishness is sin, and totally incompatible with religion. They live on in their self-indulgences, and dream of heaven."29

No code of conduct or system of ethics that leaves the soul under the control of selfishness is real morality. And no "faith" that does not break the power of selfishness in the heart is true religion.

Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). If a person's religion does not break the bondage of sin in the heart, it cannot be the truth, because the truth always liberates the soul from the power of sin.

The true foundation or reason for moral obligation is the highest happiness of God and His creation. God's happiness is supremely valuable; therefore, we are morally obligated to place His happiness first. Living supremely for anything else is not living right because it is not living supremely for God; it is placing something that bears an ultimate relationship to self ahead of God; it is sin.

What is to be said about the "religious" person who regards the will of God as a moral justification for some selfish end, and not out of love for God? That person's religion is a delusion. He wants to feel that God is on his side. But he has not the love of God in him. Serving God only for selfish reasons must be terribly tiresome. Religion is a burden if one does not love Jesus Christ.

The same is true of utilitarians, the folks who are always involved in doing "good," and promoting the "cause." Their "morality" consists in quantity, not quality. They strive to achieve higher quotas, more productivity. They are busy in good causes, always "involved." It is "so rewarding" and gives them such a good feeling.

But ask them why they are so active, and they become uneasy, defensive. In their hearts they know that they are not motivated by true love for God and man.

Jesus said, "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. 7:22, 23).

Remember 1 Corinthians 13. That great love chapter teaches that it is possible to give all our goods to feed the poor and even to give our body to be burned without being motivated by love.

Works motivated by self-gratification are of no moral value.

And the rightarian--always a stickler for the letter of the law, regardless of whether or not it does God or anybody else any good.

In the Bible the prime example of rightarians are the Pharisees. Jesus healed a lame man and told him to carry his bedroll home. The Pharisees, however, complained that he was carrying it on the sabbath. In their twisted morality, it was wrong for Jesus to heal on the sabbath, but perfectly "right" for them to plot His death on the sabbath.

Jesus summed up all their religious activity, and then disposed of it all by saying, "All their works they do for to be seen of men..." (Matt. 23:,5).

In other words, their motive was wrong, and when the motive is wrong, all is wrong. All their praying, fasting, tithing were only means to a selfish ultimate end--to be seen of men.

Rightarians are motivated by a smug, self-satisfying regard for the "right," not by real love for God and man. If people just believe and act "right," they are satisfied. Their standing for the "right" keeps them in good stead in the church and/or community, and bolsters their hope that they are on the road to Heaven.

No good deeds, right opinions, firm beliefs, or fervent feelings can be moral or Christian, even in the slightest degree, while the will is not surrendered to God.

When we turn our hearts to God and love Him supremely and others as ourselves, the will of God becomes our delight as the indispensable means of glorifying Him; active service flows freely and gladly; and for the first time we are truly right!

Instead of being objectives in themselves, all these things and others like them become means and conditions for promoting the great end, the great goal, of every true heart--the highest well-being of God and His creatures. Genuine Christians are motivated by the highest possible values. Love for God and for others commands the full commitment of their whole being and motivates them to the development and employment of their full potential. God's highest happiness and the greatest good of all mankind--these are the values worth living for. These are the values that all true believers seek. They are the basis of all morality.

It is that simple. lt all adds up to love.

Yet, many people feel that they can be somewhat good and somewhat bad at the same time. But is this possible? Is there a certain amount of goodness and a certain amount of evil mixed together in all of us? Can we be partly holy and partly sinful at the same time?

That is our next subject.

6

We Cannot Go In Opposite Directions

At The Same Time

I remember hearing a story about a boy, a new convert, who was asked how he was doing in his new Christian life. The boy replied that there were two dogs fighting inside him, a good dog and a bad dog. When asked, "which dog wins?" he replied, "The one I say 'sic 'em' to."

As long as we are in this world we are subject to temptations.. But temptations are not sin. They are just the invitations to sin. Our moral character depends on whether we accept the invitations or reject them.

Because we are free moral agents we can choose and do choose an ultimate end. But while we embrace one supreme end or goal, we reject its opposite. We cannot choose both at the same time. Jesus said, "No man can serve two masters..." (Matt. 6:24). The possibility of changing masters always exists, and the temptation to do so often exists, but we cannot serve both at the same time.

"Obedience cannot be partial in the sense that the subject ever does, or can, partly obey and partly disobey at the same time,

"If, for example, the soul chooses the highest well-being of God and the universe as an ultimate end, it cannot while it continues to choose that end use or choose the means to effect any other end .... The only possible choice inconsistent with this end is the choice of another ultimate end."30

By "choice" is meant intelligent choice--choice under light. We all make a lot of ignorant mistakes, mistakes in areas where we do not yet have sufficient light. We can love God supremely and purely, and yet ignorantly do things that are not in His highest interest. But as we grow in grace and knowledge, we live for God more intelligently and effectively. And, it might be added, more happily.

We progress in obedience, not into obedience. Obedience must be with the whole heart--that is, it must be honest--or it is not obedience at all. If obedience is with the whole heart--that is, if it is honest--it is full obedience. But if it is not, it is not obedience. It is hypocrisy. Jesus said, "He that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad" (Matt. 12:30).

A person's ultimate goal is evidenced in the means he uses. No one can choose an ultimate end and at the same time knowingly choose means that work against that end and for the opposite end. The choice of an end necessitates the choice of the known means to that end.

When we knowingly use means to a particular end, that is the end we are really choosing. If we say that we are living in the Spirit but are deliberately living in the flesh, we deceive ourselves.

"And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth" (1 John 1:6).

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit, the things of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:5). "Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal. 5:16,17).

How much dedication does love produce? It cannot produce an amount of dedication equal to God's real worth, because God's real worth is infinite.

Remember, one's moral obligation goes only as far as one's light. That means, then, that our devotion to Jesus Christ depends on how real and precious He is to us. Love can do no more. Love will do no less. As Jesus becomes more real and precious to us, our devotion and dedication to Him will grow. The same is true of our service for others and our commitment to win the lost, etc.

Get close to God; get into His Word; "Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields" (John 4:35). Give God a chance to make Himself more real to you and to show you the value of lost souls. Love will naturally produce the right amount of corresponding dedication. Wisdom will direct it according to a realistic understanding of our individual gifts, talents, time and opportunities.

Moral law does not require us to live on the verge of exhaustion. That is counter-productive. Moral law requires us to love God with all our heart and others as ourselves, including the expenditure of whatever strength, time, and resources that we honestly believe will do the most good in the long run.

On the other hand, we do not truly love God if we are not living up to our knowledge of what He deserves from us. That is selfishness, not love. The two do not mix.

So then, no one can be partly holy and partly sinful at the same time. Sin is a unit--the choice of self-gratification as the supreme pursuit of life, including the choice of all the known means to secure that end. Holiness or morality is also a unit--the choice of the highest well-being of God and of others as the supreme pursuit of life, including the choice of all the known means to secure that end.

To put it another way, moral action comes in two complete packages. Each package comes complete with a supreme end, plus the known means and actions to achieve that end. One package is labeled "love." The other is labeled "selfishness." The one is full obedience, the other is total disobedience.

The two systems are mutually exclusive and antagonistic. There is no mixing, no crossover, no coexistence between them.

The choice of the end determines the choice of the known means, and the choice of the known means reveals the end we are really living for. The heart determines the life, and the life reveals the heart.

"Virtue consists in willing every good according to its perceived relative value, and... nothing short of this is virtue .... To talk, therefore, of a virtue ... right in kind but deficient in degree is to talk sheer nonsense. It is the same absurdity as to talk of sinful holiness, an unjust justice, a wrong rightness, an impure purity, an imperfect perfection, a disobedient obedience."31

Our whole moral obligation is to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves with all the light we have and can obtain. God requires nothing more than this; He can require no less. We can do no more; we can do no less and be Christians. It is that simple.

"But," someone might ask, "can my heart be right with God when I feel all these bad desires and emotions?" Finney comments regarding the Christian--

"Emotions contrary to his intentions may, by circumstances beyond his control, be brought to exist in his mind; yet, by willing to divert the attention from the objects that produce them, they can ordinarily be banished. If this is done as soon as... it can be, there is no sin. If it is not done as soon as... it can be,... the intention is not what it ought to be.''32

Emotional discipline is an important subject. The point to be emphasized here is that true religion, true morality, is not a matter of how we feel but of what we are living for.

The next question is a big one:

"Does a Christian cease to be a Christian whenever he commits a sin?

"I answer: whenever he sins, he must for the time being cease to be holy...He must incur the penalty of the law of God. If it be said that the precept is still binding upon him, but that with respect to the Christian the penalty is forever set aside, I reply that to abrogate [set aside] the penalty is to repeal the precept, for a precept without penalty is no law. It is only counsel or advice. The Christian, therefore, is justified no longer than he obeys, and must be condemned when he disobeys...Until he repents he cannot be forgiven."33

In two important ways a Christian who sins is different from the person who has never been saved.

First, a Christian who sins is under a covenant of chastisement (see Heb. 12:5-11 ). God has invested a tremendous amount of grace in that Christian, and He is not going to let him go without doing everything wisely possible to bring him to repentance.

My father never did spank the neighbors' kids. He was more concerned about how I turned out than how they turned out. That's because he was my father.

Our heavenly Father is the same way. First Corinthians 11:32 tells us that we are chastened of the Lord, so that we will not be condemned with the world.

But suppose that I am arrested for a crime, and my father is the judge. Can he justly suspend the sentence because I am his son? No, He cannot.

Second, a Christian who sins feels his broken fellowship with God, unlike the sinner who has never experienced real fellowship with God.

When I was growing up as a boy, if our neighbor, Mr. Mathis, was displeased with me, it didn't bother me very much. But if my father was displeased with me, it was a different matter. Real fellowship was broken. I couldn't stand it. I had to make it right.

Christian, if you sin, you know it. Your joy is gone. You miss that peace; oh, how you miss it! And that sweet fellowship and tender communion with your Father. How you long for it! Things are wrong between the Father and you, and you can't stand it. You have to make it right!

But if you refuse to make it right, if you go right on and harden your heart, crushing the tender feelings once so carefully nurtured--you will be lost.

You will not be able to say on that day, "But, Father, I was born again. I am your child." Sorrowfully, the Father will withdraw, having turned the judgment seat over to the Son (John 5:22), and you will have to receive your sentence from the nail-scarred hand of the One whose blood you refused for your cleansing, the One whom you crucified afresh and put to open shame.

"Can a man be born again and then unborn?

"I answer:... None will maintain that there is anything impossible in this except it be those who hold to physical regeneration. If regeneration consists in a change in ... the ultimate intention, as we shall see it does, it is plain that an individual can be born again and afterwards cease to be virtuous."34

Most people who have difficulty understanding this point do so because, like Nicodemus, they fail to realize that the new birth is a moral change, not a physical or metaphysical change. The new birth is a change of the supreme object of pursuit in life, resulting in a complete revolution in all of life. Such a change does not necessitate a change of any "thing" down inside us. It is not a change in the essence of body, soul, or spirit. It is a change of ultimate choice; and, by its very nature, ultimate choice can be changed more than once.

"Can there be no such thing as weak faith, weak love, and weak repentance?

"I answer: If you mean comparatively weak,... yes. But if you mean weak in such a sense as to be sinful, no.

"Unbelief... is the rejection of truth perceived. Faith is the reception of truth perceived. Faith and unbelief then are opposite states of choice and can by no possibility coexist.

"Faith to be real must be equal to the light we have."35

Our commitment to the truth can be no stronger than our grasp of the truth.

Our faith cannot go beyond our light. Our faith is weak if we do not know the Word of God. Our love for Jesus is weak if we do not allow Him to become as real to us as He wants to be. Our burden for lost souls will not be as great as it should be unless we "look on the fields" (John 4:35). A person's repentance and faith will be weak if he does not see clearly the guilt of his sin and the power of Christ to save him.

But in all of these cases the faith, love and repentance are real. The weak Christian does not have much light, but he (or she) is living up to all the light possessed. There is no rejection of light, because that would be no faith, love, or repentance at all.

As light grows, so will the believer. As he feeds on the Word of God, his faith grows. As the Holy Spirit makes Jesus more real and precious, his love for his Savior grows. This is sanctification. It is progress in holiness, but not progress into holiness.

"The theory of the mixed character of moral actions is an eminently dangerous theory, as it leads its advocates to suppose that ... there is some holiness in them while they are in the known commission of sin.

"It leads its advocates to place the standard of conversion or regeneration exceedingly low .... There can scarcely be a more dangerous error than to say, that while we are conscious of present sin, we are or can be in a state of acceptance with God.

"The only sense in which obedience to moral law can be partial is that obedience may be intermittent.

That is, the subject may sometimes obey and at other times disobey .... These may succeed each other an indefinite number of times, but coexist they plainly cannot."36

Nobody has to sin. Victory over sin is the norm for the Christian. In fact, to be a Christian means to be in victory over sin: "Whosoever is born of God sinneth not..." (1 John S: 18). That is, he does not practice sin. "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14).

This does not mean that the Christian is not capable of sinning. Christ is able to keep us from sinning if we allow Him to do so. But if we do sin, He is there as our merciful High Priest to forgive us if we repent and trust Him (see 1 John 2:1).

But, what about the Christian who does sin? Is he lost because of that one sin? Will one sin send him to hell?

For one thing, true Christians do not sin as much or as often as some people might think. The idea that we believers "sin every day" is just not true.

Honest mistakes, errors in judgment, temptations, moods--these are not sin.

We must be careful not to use the term "sin" lightly by applying it to things that are not violations of moral law. If we apply the term to things that are not really sin, we obscure the serious meaning of the word and trivialize sin.

Sin is a deliberate choice to disobey God. That is not the believer's choice.

Christians are walking in the light. Now, believer X might have more light than believer Y. But believer X has no right to say that believer Y is sinning just because he is not living up to his (X's)light.

Light can be imparted, but it cannot be imposed. The attempt to impose light leads to legalism. Light is imparted only when the believer is led to see it for himself or herself.

The effort to impose light is a violation of the believer's liberty in Christ. Christian liberty is the privilege to live honestly in Christ in all the light one has without the imposition of external legal restrictions. But Christian liberty is not the right to violate the light one has, or to refuse further light.

Now, it often happens that when the believer suddenly draws closer to God, the greatly increased awareness of God's holiness (light) reveals areas of his own life that need major improvement. Suddenly he realizes that certain previous behavior does not glorify God, and also that there are certain things he should be doing for His glory that he has not been doing. When that happens, he might say, "How ignorant I was!" or, "I didn't realize that!" But if he was living up to all the light he had at the time, he cannot truly say, "I was sinning."

So, Christians do not sin as much or as often as is sometimes supposed. Christians do not need to be kept under self-condemnation to be kept humble. Rather, Christians need to know that they are victorious in Christ, and that nothing less than present victory over sin constitutes real Christian experience.

It is amazing how victorious Christians become when they believe that they are victorious in Christ. There is no eternal security in defeat. Expecting defeat produces no assurance, but expecting victory in Christ does.

Still there are times when Christians do sin. Here is where 1 John 2:1 comes in: "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."

If the Christian's sin does not bring condemnation, he would not need the Advocate. He would not need forgiveness. The very fact that he needs forgiveness indicates that he is under condemnation if he sins.

If God can justly overlook one sin, why not two? ten? a hundred? No, God does not operate His moral government that way. If He did, the Bible's oft-repeated warnings to Christians would be meaningless.

Grace is not the careless overlooking of sin. It is the forgiveness of repented sin. Only if we confess our sins are we forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness (see 1 John 1:9).

But remember, the moral momentum of the believer is in the opposite direction of sin. He is not prone to wander. To conquer the Christian, temptation has to overcome the strong moral and spiritual momentum of the believer's light, his love for God, his regard for God's honor and for eternal values, his faith in Christ's keeping power, the arsenal of Scripture hidden in his heart, the indwelling presence and power of the Holy Spirit, plus a host of other positive influences--all combined together!

Even if temptation can concentrate its appeal on one point strongly enough to overcome such a moral momentum and such spiritual resources, usually it is able to succeed only briefly. Convicted by the Holy Spirit, and feeling deeply his broken fellowship with God, the sinning believer flees quickly to his Savior and is immediately and fully restored.

Let us return to Mr. Finney and listen to what he has to say about "entire obedience."

"The government of God accepts nothing as virtue but obedience to the law of God.

"This...is generally denied. Indeed, probably nine-tenths of the nominal church deny it .... They maintain that there is much virtue in the world, and yet that there is no one who ever for a moment obeys the law of God; that all Christians are virtuous...and yet not one on earth obeys the moral law of God."37

By "law" Finney is not referring to the law of Moses or to any body of external regulations. He means the moral law--the law of love. The law of faith has not abolished moral law. Some seem to suppose that because Christians are not under the Law of Moses, we are therefore not under moral law or moral obligation. But every moral agent is obligated to love God supremely and others as himself, and that obligation is moral law. It is the law of faith, the law of love.

Moral law in itself is not a set of legal enactments. No legislature can pass or repeal moral law, because moral law is made up of principles, not regulations. 'The principles were there before the regulations were, and the regulations were formed to give expression to moral law within the framework of society.

Moral law was present before the Ten Commandments were given as an expression of moral law within society.

Cain never heard of the Ten Commandments; but when he killed Abel, his brother, he knew he had violated moral law. So the moral law was in existence before the law of Moses, and it is still in existence today. The law of Moses was replaced by the law of faith so far as believers are concerned, for the very reason that the law of faith secures obedience to the moral law whereas the law of Moses did not.

Love replaces legislation because love succeeds where legislation failed.

The repeal of the legislation did not mean the repeal of moral law. Personal obedience to moral law, the law of love, is still required of all moral agents.

"A common idea seems to be that a kind of obedience is rendered to God by Christians which is true religion, and which, after all comes indefinitely short of full or entire obedience at any moment... that they are justified by grace, not in the sense that they are made really and personally righteous by grace, but that grace pardons and accepts... them... in the present commission of an indefinite amount of sin.

"What is this, but pardoning present and pertinacious rebellion! Receiving to favor a God-defrauding wretch! ... Yes, this must be if it be true that Christians are justified without present full obedience.

"That surely must be a doctrine of devils that represents God as receiving to favor a rebel who has one hand filled with weapons against his throne.

"To ask for pardon while we do not repent and cease from sin is a gross insult to God.

"Does the Bible recognize the pardon of present sin... ? Let the passage be found, if it can, where sin is represented as pardoned or pardonable unless repented of and fully forsaken. No such passage can be found.

"The very beginning of true religion in the soul implies the renunciation of all sin. Sin ceases where holiness begins. Now, how great and ruinous must that error be, that teaches us to hope for heaven while living in conscious sin,... that justification is conditioned upon a faith that does not purify the heart of the believer.

"Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation and must repent... or be lost."38

So it is clear that moral action is a unit. It is impossible to obey and to disobey at the same time. Obedience and disobedience do not mix. Either we obey or we do not obey. There are no half-Christians.

Just as the tributaries of a river system all flow to one end, so the intelligent choices of the heart all flow to one end--the object of ultimate choice.

No wonder salvation is such a radical change. It is like reversing the flow of an entire river system, turning it completely over so as to flow in the opposite direction.

When the object of ultimate choice--what the person is ultimately living for--is reversed, the whole life is revolutionized. New life and new motives produce new interests, desires, experiences and relationships.

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cot. 5:17, italics added).

When Christ comes in to take His rightful place on the throne of the heart, self comes down to its proper position. The love of God replaces selfishness. Light replaces darkness. Peace replaces turmoil. Holiness replaces sin.

No wonder the Bible calls it a new birth, regeneration, a new life. Have you experienced it? Have you made the choice?

If not, the Savior is waiting now to come into your heart. He said, "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him...."(Rev. 3:20).

7

Let's Talk About Love

Obedience to God is the most natural and normal life for any human being.

Conversion or regeneration is not like Clark Kent stepping into a phone booth, then--ZAP--stepping out as Superman.

Remember, the change in becoming a Christian is not physical or metaphysical. It is a moral change, a change in choice, supreme choice.

"Entire obedience does not imply any change in the substance of the soul or body .... Entire obedience is the entire consecration of the powers, as they are, to God."39

"Nor does it imply...continual calmness of mind. Christ was not in a state of continual calmness. The deep peace of his mind was never broken up, but the surface....emotions....were often in a state of great excitement ....

Nor does it imply perfect knowledge Nor does it imply freedom from mistake on any subject whatever.

"Nor does it imply exemption from sorrow or mental suffering. It was not so with Christ. "Nor does it imply moroseness of temper and manners....Cheerfulness is certainly the result of holy love."40

Many people have strange ideas about what it means to be a Christian. Even knowledgeable people can have wrong ideas about what is implied and what is not implied in morality or true religion. They include things that have nothing to do with moral obligation, and exclude the very things that are essential to moral obligation.

In this way the world often gets the idea that the Christian life is something unreal, impractical.

But the life of obedience to God--the Christian life--is the only truly natural life. Love is normal and natural; selfishness is abnormal and unnatural. It is the sinner who is "out of whack."

Living in moral harmony with God is a wonderful life. The love of God rules the heart and all that the heart influences. "For all the law is fulfilled in one word... love" (Gal. 5:14). In other words, it all adds up to love.

When we speak of such virtues as love, compassion, patience, humility, etc., we are referring to choices. But in everyday language we frequently use the same words to describe our feelings.

For that reason it is absolutely essential that we understand the difference between the two. Love as a choice or motive is far deeper than "love" as a mere feeling or emotion. The same is true of all the various expressions and characteristics of love.

Real love--the essence of true morality and religion--is a fundamental commitment of the soul. This commitment usually results in feelings, but it does not consist in feelings. Love is not just an emotion.

Here is where many people make a big mistake. They judge their morality and religion by how they feel, rather than by what they are living for.

Remember, feelings are neither holy nor sinful in themselves. They are involuntary. Thoughts produce feelings. And many feelings are common to both Christians and sinners.

For example, when thinking about someone who is suffering, many sinners can feel the same emotions of pity that a Christian would feel. Think about suffering, and you feel pity. Think about injustice, and you feel indignation. This does not mean that you are religious or good. It just means that you are human. A gangster can murder a man one day, and cry the next day when he hears that the little girl next door was injured by a car.

Some sinners assume that they must love God a little bit because they have good feelings toward Him once in a while. In fact, some sinners have their warmest religious feelings when they are drunk. This is sentimentality, not love.

Everybody, saint and sinner, can have "good" feelings and "bad" feelings. And so, thinking that morality and religion are in the feelings, sinners believe that they have a lot of good in them along with the bad, just because they have some "good" feelings. Likewise, Christians can be led to believe that they have a lot of bad in them along with the good, just because they experience "bad" feelings.

"Bad" feelings make it easier to make wrong choices and harder to make good ones, and "good" feelings make it easier to make right choices and harder to make wrong ones. But moral character is in the choices, not in the feelings.

And morality is not a matter of following "good" feelings, either. Obeying "good" feelings does not make us good. It is still obeying our feelings, not God, and so it is nothing but a self-righteous form of self-gratification.

Whenever people do anything through emotion that they would not do through reason without emotion, they are being motivated by the emotion and not by love. Remember 1 Corinthians 13. It is possible to give all of one's goods to feed the poor just for the self-gratification that comes from doing it and not out of real love. This is a very subtle, self-deceiving, yet highly respectable form of selfishness.

All sinners are voluntary slaves to their desires. The sinner is ruled by the desire that is the dominant one at the moment, whatever that desire might be. Today he feels generous, so he contributes liberally to charitable causes or to friends. Tomorrow he feels miserly, so he reprimands himself for "letting his feelings run away with him" the day before. One day he feels lust and commits adultery; the next day he feels affectionately toward his family, has a spasm of conscience, and resolves to be faithful.

Because he follows "good" feelings and "bad" feelings, he thinks that he is both good and bad at the same time. He does not realize that as long as he chooses to be ruled by his desires, whatever they are, there is not a particle of goodness in him. He is ruled by self-gratification, not love.

Love is a fundamental choice--the choice of the highest good to God and man. This choice has many qualities. These qualities of love are expressions of love in various relationships and situations. Love is intelligent and reasonable. It is soft-hearted, but not soft-headed.

Love is a unit, a whole, and all of its parts harmonize. Every characteristic of love is consistent with every other characteristic of love. They all work together, balance each other, reinforce each other. The result is beautiful.

"Every virtue is only benevolence viewed... in certain relations .... This is true of God's moral attributes. They are... only attributes of benevolence .... This is and must be true of every holy being.''41

Let us look at the qualities or characteristics of love. What can be said about love?

Love is voluntary. It is a free choice, made