What Is the Rule of a Saintly Life?

Robert L. Berry - January 22

The mystic, who places wonderful stress on the spiritual life and the spirit, will tell you to follow the inner voice, to obey the dictates of your enlightened conscience, and assure you that thereby you will arrive at a saintliness, an unworldliness, far beyond that set forth in the Word.

To quote one of them: “You will hear it said that the Word of God is the rule of a saintly life. Will you be astonished when I say that Christian conduct is to be regulated by something far above the bare outward letter of the law? If we have not set before us an ideal above that which is pictured by the bare letter of the Word by which to rule our life, we will come far short of being the pure, noble Christians we should be.” —From “The Rule of a Saintly Life.”

We readily admit that the Scriptures do not cover by express command, every possible good or bad, but we earnestly contend that by expressed command or by expressed principle every possible good is demanded and every possible evil prohibited. We emphatically affirm that no one can live a higher life than that set forth in the written Word of God, and, furthermore, that to go beyond its teachings and profess a higher life savors of self-righteousness.

We know that the principle set forth in the quotation is wrong. It sets the conscience above the Word. It makes the rule of unity to rest upon conscience instead of the Word. It opens the way for divisions; because people, even the most spiritual, differ on points not covered by expressed commands, or principles, and the question would arise in this connection, Whose conscience should be followed—my own or somebody else’s? It opens the way for deception; because once you drop the Word as the one supreme standard, you open the avenues to all sorts of ideas and doctrines.

If conscience were a safe guide, we should have more commands to follow it. Of course, the conscience is to be followed, but it must also be susceptible of enlightenment. If the spirit (not the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirit is always safe, but there are many spirits) were a safe guide, we should have little need of the Word. But God in His wisdom saw how prone men would be to have doctrines of their own, so He gave us the Word. By it we can try the spirits and find out whether they lead the right way.

The quotation from the tract mentioned places the issue squarely before us. The question narrows down, in its final analysis, to this: Are we going to make the Word of God the standard of holy living and the unity, or are we going to take something else, as conscience, reason, or what not? Several months ago it was a little difficult to strike a telling blow to the latest error that Satan has tried to use as a divider of God’s people, but now the issue is plain, the question fairly put, and we can easily strike the blow that will put the enemy’s trap out of commission.

Conscience Not an Infallible Guide

In Romans 14 is a pretty complete exposition of conscience, its true position, its limitations, etc. In short, we will say that, according to this chapter, conscience is an individual matter and my conscience must not rule somebody else nor somebody else’s conscience rule me. One man says that his conscience will not allow him do so and so, another says that His will. What shall we do in such a case? Let each one abide by his own conscience and pass no judgment on the other.

Conscience operates not only in that realm which lies between the known right and the known wrong, according to the Bible, but also in the realm covered by the written Word. For instance, Paul speaks of some “weak” ones who would eat nothing but herbs. Where did these people get such an idea? From the Bible? No, but either from former teaching or from notions of their own formation.

There are people today who exhibit the power of former teaching to control their lives and consciences. One time in Missouri I had a very interesting talk with a sister who had been a Mennonite and also some who were still Mennonites. Now, I do not say these things to slur the Mennonites, for I found them to be fine people, but I speak of them merely as an example of what I am trying to enforce. This sister had been taught from childhood to wear a “head-covering,” which was a sort of small cap covering the back part of the head and leaving the face and portion of the hair in front exposed. When she got light on unity, sanctification, etc., she came out of the Mennonite church, but she told me that she could hardly put off her cap. She felt that it would be a compromise, a letting down, almost sin, not to wear it. What made her feel that way? The Bible? No; it was her former teaching on what the Bible meant in regard to wearing a “covering.” It was her conscience that made her feel disinclined to put it off.

Another Mennonite sister, who seemed a true child of God, told me her experience concerning wearing the cap. She had at one time rebelled against wearing it. But she was saved, and she was deeply convicted that she should wear it, that it constituted a crucifixion that was necessary for her to undergo. After she put it on, she felt greatly relieved and, had sweet peace in her soul. And no one who has studied the operation of the soul and conscience can doubt this experience. Now, what was the cause of this experience? To her mind the Scriptures taught the wearing of a head-covering. Her convictions arose from her belief. The spiritual convictions for salvation were mixed with earthly convictions to wear a head-covering. When she yielded, she had satisfied both God and her conscience, and consequently she had peace.

The quotation at the beginning of this article and other teachings from the tract of which it is a part exalts the conscience to a supreme place. But whose conscience shall be followed? The correct answer is: Let each follow the revealed written Word, and all stick to the Bible as the true standard for faith and practice.

Where does God give any leader the right to fasten his conscience scruples on the people? But this is exactly what nearly all reformers and religious leaders have done. Whatever peculiarity the leader has the people accept, it finally becomes, as a rule, a sort of mark among them, a sort of test of fellowship.

A Mennonite brother once asked me how I knew my brethren when I met them. I answered that I could not tell one when I met him unless something was said or done that would mark him as a saint, or I already knew him. He replied that be could always tell his brethren. Why? Because they shaved a certain way. Now, that was an easy way, wasn’t it? But does the Bible make some such peculiarity or peculiarities the mark of discipleship or a test of fellowship? No, indeed not. But some would.

One time while a brother in this last and most glorious and enduring reformation was preaching on the liberty of God’s people, he used as illustrations several sects that have peculiar marks, each as the Dunkards, the Mennonites, and the Quakers. These, said he, are known because of certain outward peculiarities, articles or styles of dress that distinguish them from other people; but the saints, he went on to say, are free from such things. But as he continued preaching, he said there came to him a thought something like this: “Yes, and the saints, or children of God in this last reformation, are being known because of the absence of a certain almost universally known article of dress.” He said that his own arguments overthrew his practice. Anyway, we may say right here that our individual conscientious scruples have no place in the doctrinal scope of the Bible. If any have peculiarities that they feel they are bound to hold to, let them do it, but let them not try to bind these on others.

The Enemy’s Plan

The great enemy of souls is trying to divide God’s people over a piece of cloth. If we will all stick to the Bible, we shall not be divided; but if some follow and set up conscience or personal spirit leadings as the standard, there will be division. Those who do so will pull off, but the church and the truth will go marching on to victory.

Works of Supererogation

The Catholic church has taught that men could do works of supererogation, that is, surplus good works, more good works than the Bible demands; and those who have been supposed to live better lives than the Bible requires have been canonized and called “saints.”

Something like this is what the author of our quotation epitomizes in his tract. The fact of the case is that he is trying to establish his conscience as the basis of unity and holy living, To establish his conscience as right, he goes back to what was taught in the past. If this be the standard, then we should have to teach a number of things that all now admit are not supported by the Scriptures.

Let no one be deceived in this matter. It is either Bible or conscience; the firm, never-changing Word of God, or the changing, fallible, sometimes uneducated, unenlightened consciences of some leaders. It is either take the Word as our standard and stand united like a wall against the dark powers of sin, or take some man-made standard, or try to take it, and go down to defeat on account of abandoning the only foundation or position that can give us the victory. Which will you take? The atmosphere around this mooted question is now clear. We can take our stand without fear, for the issue is easily understood. Oh, may God help every watchman on the walls of Zion to speak God’s Word faithfully and to stand on it alone! “He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.”* (Jeremiah 23:28)

Robert L. Berry
January 22, 1914
The Gospel Trumpet