10.29.07
Holiness to the Lord
Our forefathers, especially the Puritans, were concerned to ask concerning absolutely everything (no matter how small), ‘What does God say about this?’ Here is J. I. Packer explaining the Puritan desire to build a complete Christian and Reformed worldview – in other words, how they sought to live as “reasonable” saints, how they sought in everything to live to the glory of God, how they desired at all times to think and act in a positively Christian manner.
“They [the Puritans] yoked their consciences to his Word, disciplining themselves to bring all activities under the scrutiny of Scripture, and to demand a theological, as distinct from a merely pragmatic, justification for everything they did. They applied their understanding of the mind of God to every branch of life, seeing the church, the family, the state, the arts and sciences, the world of commerce and industry, no less than the devotions of the individual, as so many spheres in which God must be served and honoured. They saw life whole, for they saw its Creator as Lord of each department of it, and their purpose was that ‘holiness to the Lord’ might be written over its entirety.” [Consider Richard Baxter's Christian Directory, with its breadth and detail! G.M.]
A Quest for Godliness, p.28
G.M.
10.27.07
Puritan Summaries (4) – The Family
This is the fourth summary taken from Worldly Saints by Leland Ryken.
The Family
“The family provided a good test case for the Puritans to apply their covenantal theology. Covenant meant relationship, first with God and then to other persons. Beginning with the premise that the purpose of a family is to glorify God, the Puritans attempted to make their families a ‘little church.’ The family was ideally a place of sanctified relationships and the mutual worship of God. [They viewed the raising of children as 'Kingdom work', as Church building; thus the Westminster Assembly's statement on Marriage: 'Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for the preventing of uncleanness.' G.M.]
The idea of a ‘well-ordered’ family also goes a long way toward explaining the Puritan household. In Puritan theory and practice, a well-ordered family was a hierarchical one in which the husband/father was the accountable head, the wife/mother his subordinate with her spheres of responsibility, and children subject to the discipline and nurture of both parents.
The Puritan theory of child development stressed that children were, like their parents, fallen creatures whose sinful bent needed to be redirected toward God and moral goodness. The threefold foundation of Puritan childrearing was the importance of early training, the influence of example as well as precept, and a balance between restraint and positive support. [They gave their children gospel motives when commanding them to obey - 'Obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.' Eph 6:1. G.M.]“
I think what Graham Hind says in his 2003 Westminster Paper, The Puritans and Marriage is useful to add at this point. He is commenting on the Puritan William Gouge’s description of marriage as a public action:
“The questions that Gouge raises if we reflect on his point are obvious: What public function does my family have? How are we as a family influencing the church and community? More daring yet, how can we as a family serve others? These questions are rarely asked. Instead, the family becomes, as Bellah says, ‘the private sphere,’ the means of escape from the public. It also becomes a place where the couple put themselves first, provide as well as possible for their own needs and plan for their next short break or longer holiday that they feel they must have to recover from the pressure they feel.” We may add in the words of Christopher Ash, “Children fit uneasily within the worldview of the privatised family, except as objects of sentimental gratification.” We need to recover the full Puritan vision of life to the glory of God!
Part Four
G.M.
10.20.07
Omnipotent Wrath
Blogs are curious things, as are blog authors and readers. From examining our own blog stats and what posts get clicked, I suspect that many people read first the comments rather than the post. This post is short, and should it never receive a single comment I simply ask you Christian and non-Christian, to think on it for a moment. The author is Stephen Charnock and I found the quote tucked away in Spurgeon’s treasury of David on the text Ps 3:7.
“When God takes vengenance upon the ungodly, he will smite in such a manner as to make him feel his almightiness in every stroke. All his power shall be exercised in punishing and none in pitying. O that every obstinate sinner would think of this and consider his unmeasurable boldness in thinking himself able to grapple with Omnipotence.”
Christ is our only refuge.
G.B.
10.16.07
Young Sober Christians by Matthew Henry (1)
What follows is a mixture between a normal post and a book review. The book is a slim volume published by Christian Focus Publications called The Young Christian, and the author is Matthew Henry. Perhaps Mr. Henry’s deserved fame as a practical and pious expositor of Scripture means his books need no real recommendation. His commentary upon the whole Bible is perhaps one of those works that really should be referred to as a ‘must have’ for every Christian’s library. Whatever the case may be, this little work is truly worth the small amount of time it takes to read. At a mere 63 pages it could be read in a couple of hours; though I would highly advise giving it two reads, or one slow perusal.
The style is quaint though very readable, as all who have read anything of Mr. Henry’s commentary would expect. It is addressed to all the young within the visible church of God. It thus alternates between exhorting those who know not the Lord of glory to turn to God through Christ – to become sober about the most important matter of all – and exhorting those who love the Mediator of the covenant to live ‘soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world…’. It advocates therefore a serious view of the Christian life; such as all the other Puritans in Mr. Henry’s day proclaimed and exemplified. Indeed he pleads with the young to become serious, lovely, and humble Christians.
What follows from here is an outline, with quotations from each section to give a flavour of the books contents. There are five parts of varying lengths. The words in Titus 2:6, ‘…exhort to be sober minded.’ form the basis of Mr. Henry’s exhortation to the young.
Part One – What is a Sober Mind?
1. Considerate. “You must be considerate and thoughtful, and not rash and heedless. To be sober-minded, is to make use of our reason, in reasoning with ourselves and in communing with our own hearts – to employ those noble powers and capacities, by which we are distinguished from, and dignified above the beasts…but being rational creatures, may act rationally, as behoves us, as becomes us. You learned to talk when you were children, when will you learn to think – to think seriously – to think to purpose?”
2. Cautious. “You must be cautious, and prudent, and not wilful and heady… You must not only think rationally, but when you have done so, you must act wisely, and so as will be to your true interest; walk circumspectly… Those that govern themselves, God will guide, but will justly leave those that love to wander… Put away childish follies with other childish things, and do not all your days think and speak as children. Espouse principles of wisdom; fix to yourselves rules of wisdom, and be ruled by those rules, and acted by those principles.”
3. Humble. “You must be humble and modest, ‘and not proud and conceited.’ It is recommended to the young to be clothed with humility (1 Pet. 5. v.5), that is, to be sober-minded. It is an observation that I have made upon that little acquaintance I have had with the world, that I have seen more young people ruined by pride, than perhaps by any one lust whatsoever…think soberly.”
“Let this branch of sober-mindedness appear in your looks and carriage [how one carries themselves]; let the show of your countenance witness for you, that you are not confident and conceited, but that you keep up a due diffidence of yourselves, and a due deference to all about you, especially those above you. Be not pert [cheeky] in your carriage, nor outrageous in your dress. If there be any thing in the garb and carriage that young people may be innocently proud of, because those about them will be justly pleased with it, it is the gravity of it, when it is an indication of humility and modesty reigning in the heart; for those are the best ornaments…”
Part One
G.M.
10.13.07
Bible Words Explained (4) – ‘Faith’
This is the fourth in this series by Mr Silversides. For a brief explanation of the series click here.
“Faith
“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28).
A guilty sinner is justified when God declares him not guilty on the basis of what Christ did in bearing the punishment of sin on the Cross of Calvary as his substitute.
God does this when a sinner believes, but what is it to believe? What is faith in Christ?
God’s Word is True – To become a real Christian we must accept that God’s Word is true. Nevertheless, it is possible to accept that God’s Word is true without really trusting in Christ for salvation. A mere theoretical or mental acceptance of the truth of the Bible is not enough.
God’s Verdict is True – We must accept what the Bible says about us. We really are sinners. “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This includes you. “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).
God’s Verdict is Right – “For thy name’s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great” (Psalm 25:11). David did not think his sins were trivial and that God should overlook them for that reason. His sin mattered; his sin deserved God’s wrath and he accepted that. Do you? Do you accept that the pains of Hell for ever are no more than your sins deserve? Or are you still arguing with God? Still trying to negotiate with God instead of submitting to the Almighty?
Christ Can Save – Christ is “able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Hebrews 7:25). He has done all that needs to be done on behalf of sinners to make them accepted before God.
Christ Alone Can Save – “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). To believe on Christ for salvation, every other ground of confidence must be abandoned. Privileges of background, upbringing, knowledge, decent life-style, church-going, baptism – all these things must be abandoned as grounds of hope and Christ must be seen as the only and complete Saviour of sinners.
Christ Will Save – The Lord Jesus said “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (John 6:37). Do you believe that Christ will take your sins away if you trust in Him? “He that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). The Word of God gives you every encouragement. Ask and you will receive. Ask for what you really need, the forgiveness of all your sins through Christ. God invites you to do so. Saving faith is when we rest on Christ alone for salvation in response to God’s invitation to do so and His promise to receive those who do. “I said not … seek ye me in vain: I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God and there is none else” (Isaiah 45:19 & 22).”
Part Four
D.S.
10.10.07
Puritan Summaries (3) – Money
This is the third summary taken from Worldly Saints by Leland Ryken.
“One of the ironies of the history of the Puritans is that their very industriousness and plain living tended to make them relatively affluent. Their virtues produced corresponding temptations. On the one hand, the Puritans held attitudes conductive to the amassing of wealth and property: the view that money and property are good in principle, disbelief that poverty is meritorious in itself, and a conviction that a disciplined and hardworking lifestyle is virtuous.
On the other hand, to curb the potential for self-indulgence that followed in the wake of their lifestyle, the Puritans had an even longer list of cautions: an awareness that God sends poverty as well as riches, an obsession with the dangers of wealth, the ideal of moderation, a doctrine of stewardship in which God is viewed as the ultimate owner of goods, and a view of money as a social good.”
Nor were the Puritans against accumulating wealth over generations. In fact, they were not opposed to, but recognised the reality and rightness of distinction and privilege in society – including such as one could be born into. The following quotation from W. B. Sprague’s Letters to Young Men is very much the sort of thing them would have said.
“It is evidently the design of providence that there should be distinctions in society; these distinctions are clearly recognised in Scripture; and though they are capable of being greatly perverted and abused, yet, in themselves, they are not sinful – they are even necessary to the accomplishment of the greatest good, and the enjoyment of the highest happiness.” p.131
And echoing what was said in the summary the same author offers this counsel to young men:
“If you are in affluent circumstances, you have a right to live more expensively than if you were in indigence; and if you gather around you some of the luxuries and elegances of life, I do not believe that you are chargeable with wrong. But, after all, the obligations of economy rest on you, just as truly as if you were poor. You are bound to take heed that your property does not go needlessly to waste; and that you do not indulge your elegant tastes at the expense of the claims either of justice or charity. That is certainly a criminal [shamefully or dreadfully sinful. G.M] extravagance that appropriates splendour, and turns a deaf ear to the imploring voice of human want.” p.131-132
Part Three
G.M.
10.08.07
Help from Dabney on the Free Offer of the Gospel (2)
This is the second post of R. L. Dabney’s comments dealing with many of the issues surrounding the free offer of the Gospel and the disposition of God in it. This can be found in Lecture 43 of his lectures on Systematic Theology.
The manner in which a volition which dates from eternity, subsists in the Infinite mind, is doubtless, in many respects, inscrutable to us. But since God has told us that we are made in His image, we may safely follow the Scriptural representations, which describe God’s volitions as having their rational relation to subjective motive; somewhat as in man, when he wills aright. For, a motiveless volition cannot but appear to us as devoid both of character and of wisdom. We add, that while God “has no parts nor passions,” He has told us that He has active principles, which, while free from all agitation, ebb and flow, and mutation, are related in their superior measure to man’s rational affections. These active principles in God, or passionless affections, are all absolutely holy and good. Last: God’s will is also regulated by infinite wisdom. Now, in man, every rational volition is prompted by a motive, which is in every case, complex to this degree, at least that it involves some active appetency of the will and some prevalent judgment of the intelligence. And every wise volition is the result of virtual or formal deliberation, in which one element of motive is weighed in relation to another, and the elements which appear superior in the judgment of the intelligence, preponderate and regulate the volition. Hence, the wise man’s volition is often far from being the expression of every conception and affection present in his consciousness at the time; but it is often reached by holding one of these elements of possible motive in check, at the dictate of a more controlling one. For instance a philanthropic man meets a distressed and destitute person. The good man is distinctly conscious in himself of a movement of sympathy tending towards a volition to give the sufferer money. But he remembers that he has expressly promised all the money now in his possession, to be paid this very day to a just creditor. The good man bethinks himself, that he “ought to be just before he is generous,” and conscience and wisdom counterpoise the impulse of sympathy; so that it does not form the deliberate volition to give alms. But the sympathy exists, and it is not inconsistent to give other expression to it.
We must not ascribe to that God whose omniscience is, from eternity, one infinite, all-embracing intuition, and whose volition is as eternal as His being, any expenditure of time in any process of deliberation, nor any temporary hesitancy or uncertainty, nor any agitating struggle of feeling against feeling. But there must be a residuum of meaning in the Scripture representations of His affections, after we have guarded ourselves duly against the anthropopathic forms of their expression. Hence, we ought to believe, that in some ineffable way, God’s volitions, seeing they are supremely wise, and profound, and right, do have that relation to all His subjective motives, digested by wisdom and holiness into the consistent combination, the finite counterpart of which constitutes the rightness and wisdom of human volitions. I claim, while exercising the diffidence proper to so sacred a matter, that this conclusion bears us out at least so far: That, as in a wise man, so much more in a wise God, His volition, or express purpose, is the result of a digest, not of one, but of all the principles and considerations bearing on the case. Hence it follows, that there may be in God an active principle felt by Him, and yet not expressed in His executive volition in a given case, because counterpoised by other elements of motive, which His holy omniscience judges ought to be prevalent; Now, I urge the practical question: Why may not God consistently give some other expression to this active principle, really and sincerely felt towards the object, though His sovereign wisdom judges it not proper to express it in volition? To return to the instance from which we set out: I assert that it is entirely natural and reasonable for the benevolent man to say to the destitute person: ” I am sorry for you, though I give you no alms.” The ready objection will be: “that my parallel does not hold, because the kind man is not omnipotent, while God is. God could not consistently speak thus, while withholding alms, because he could create the additional money at will.” This is more ready than solid. It assumes that God’s omniscience cannot see any ground, save the lack of physical ability or power, why it may not be best to refrain from creating the additional money. Let the student search and see; he will find that this preposterous and presumptuous assumption is the implied premise of the objection. In fact, my parallel is a fair one in the main point. This benevolent man is not prevented from giving the alms, by any physical compulsion. If he diverts a part of the money in hand from the creditor, to the destitute man, the creditor will visit no penalty on him. He simply feels bound by his conscience. That is, the superior principles of reason and morality are regulative of his action, counterpoising the amiable but less imperative principle of sympathy, in this case. Yet the verbal expression of sympathy in this case may be natural, sincere, and proper. God is not restrained by lack of physical omnipotence from creating on the spot the additional money for the alms; but He may be actually restrained by some consideration known to His omniscience, which shows that it is not on the whole best to resort to the expedient of creating the money for the alms, and that rational consideration may be just as decisive in an all-wise mind, and properly as decisive, as a conscious impotency to create money in a man’s.
R. L. Dabney
(Emphasis ours, Puritanism Today G.B.)
Part One
10.02.07
Review – C. S. Lewis: Clarity & Confusion. A Balanced Introduction to His Writings.
C. S. Lewis: Clarity & Confusion. A Balanced Introduction to His Writings. By Andrew Wheeler. pp144. Day One Publications 2006.
C. S. Lewis divides opinion in the evangelical world. To some his obvious unorthodoxy excludes his usefulness entirely. Others approach his writings with enthusiasm without necessary caution. Andrew Wheeler has done something in this book that I hoped someone would do and has achieved his goal ably. His work will help us read Lewis with discernment and avoid a number of snares we could otherwise fall into.
Chapter one provides a brief overview of Lewis’ life. Chapter two begins the first of two main sections. This section is entitled ‘Some Glimpses of Grace’ and shows from Lewis writings his own experience of the evangelical doctrines of the Sinfulness of Sin, the Person and work of Christ & what it means to know God. What stands out in this section is Lewis examination and understanding of the deceitfulness and wickedness of his own heart and his sense of his absolute need of Christ as Saviour.
The Second section ‘Some Areas of Concern’ highlights Lewis’ obvious unorthodoxy. He was not clear on the inspiration of the Bible but saw Scripture only as a vehicle of the Word of God. He held the theory of evolution to a point, but believed man to be more than a product of evolution requiring the supernatural intervention of God. He challenged the materialist worldview contending that evolution cannot explain our power to reason or our knowledge of right and wrong.
Another serious error was his view that it was possible for followers of other religions to be saved. He believed men could only be saved by knowing Christ but thought this knowledge may be given in different ways. Wheeler interestingly shows that this had its roots in his classical education. From a child he was introduced to the polytheism of the Greeks and their philosophies and simply expected to believe they were nonsense and that Christianity was true. This highlights the need to include in such a classical education a Christian critique and response to what is studied. Lewis believed God revealed himself over time through these pagan religions, together with the Old Testament and in this way Christianity was gradually brought into focus. He was also far too charitable in his view of Roman Catholicism and while he rejected their teaching at crucial points he strangely held on to the doctrine of purgatory.
In many respects Lewis was an enigma. At times evangelical Christianity seems to shine radiant in his writing but overall his theology is all in a muddle. Anyone who has read the Narnia series will know this. Does this mean we do not read Lewis? I would say no. Some of his insights are brilliant and he was blessed with a tremendous gift to convey them. However, you will need to read him with caution for yourselves and to your children. A copy of Andrew Wheeler’s book would be a great way to achieving this.
G.B.
