"Counsels": Good Works Commended, Not Commanded

Status
Not open for further replies.

frog

Puritan Board Freshman
I've been reading Turretin's "Institutes of Elenctic Theology" and in Vol. 2 Q4 he asks:
May anything be added to the moral law in the way of counsel? We deny against the papists.
Counsels are defined as those good works that are not commanded, but commended. The idea seems related to works of supererogation.

I found Turretin's discussion and refutation very helpful. Does anyone know of other resources which discuss and refute the idea of good works that are commended but not commanded?
 
Providentially, I read something in this vein yesterday from Calvin. Try Institutes, book 2, ch. 8, sec. 57. He addresses false distinctions made between "exhortations" and "precepts."
 
How do "counsels" relate to works of supererogation?
I take the concern to be: that only God be allowed to define what is "good," strictly speaking. If, for example, the church through its figureheads declares that reciting so many "Our Fathers" and "Hail Marys" may take the place of failure to love one's neighbor, or compensate for a previous omission, or do penance for some act against the neighbor--the Protestant denies those recitations are the "good" alleged for them. The direction given partakes rather the more of that "vain repetition" the Lord himself rebuked. We have a duty always to do all the good we are able, but God alone is Lord of the conscience.

Also, becoming a monk or even a priest has of itself no moral excellence. Being a monk or priest does not improve one's works over any of the same work done by someone not "religious." Whereas, Rome would account a priest's prayers worth more than a simple baptized person's, on account of his station. Thus, while the work itself may qualify as "good" since God makes it a moral command, Rome makes an "improvement" to the work based on its own definition, imagining God will weigh a "religious" (or ultimately a "saint's) work of superior merit or worth. Here you see the supererogation aspect, as a priest, a monk, or a "saint" having done already sufficient for his own need has "merit" to spare, or may wish to donate the "merit" of a particular attainment for the benefit of another.

The church has no authority from God to make its "counsels" any kind of law; even as it does have authority under a 5th Commandment rubric to issue various directions (counsels?) to members within the scope of its ministerial bounds, much the same as parents may command their children to tasks if couched as the parent's preferential right, but only in the Lord. It would be evil for a parent to dominate his child by characterizing his preferences as GOD'S preferences only because of parental station. So too, the church sins when it teaches for law the commandments of men, when it assigns "good" to that which is its preference, or by which it maintains control over its members.

Can Protestants do similar things? Yes. Imagine if I should say to a church member, "You are regular in attending worship, thus keeping (to some degree) the 4th Commandment; but have you been reading a chapter of the Bible every morning during the week?" If by this "counsel" I aim to bind the conscience of the member to fulfill a "holy duty" that I have made up, on the supposition that not-doing this reading habit produces negative spiritual growth or energy, on my own authority (outside my scope) I have taken something I may think is a "spiritual discipline" and surely (!) good for everyone, and made it law. Regardless of how it might benefit even 100% of the people who adopt the habit, yet it is not commanded anywhere in Scripture. It is arrogant of me, not pious at all, to impose as "good" this duty. Exercise of this habit does not make a better Christian of the performer (but perhaps God in his freedom will use the habit to spiritually benefit the humble exerciser).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top