03.31.08
Common Grace Debate
For any interested in the subject of ‘Common’ Grace, and the affect our views regarding it have on the preaching of the Free Offer of the Gospel, you could do a lot worse than take the time to listen to this debate between Ron Hanko (‘Anti-Common Grace’ advocate) and D. Silversides (‘Common Grace’ advocate). Both clearly present their respective positions, respond to each other, and answer questions.
A single address on the subject may also be found here.
If you are especially interested in this very important subject then you may also wish to visit the James Durham blog; from where I got the following quotation:
“It is a fact that many, persuaded as they rightly are of the particularism of the plan of salvation and of its various corollaries, have found it difficult to proclaim the full, free and unrestricted overture of gospel grace. They have laboured under inhibitions arising from fear that in doing so they would impinge upon the sovereignty of God in his saving purposes and operations. The result is that though formally assenting to the free offer, they lack freedom in the presentation of its appeal and demand.”
John Murray, The Atonement and the Free Offer of the Gospel, Collected Writings, 1:81
G.M.
03.24.08
Young Sober Christians by Matthew Henry (6)
This is the sixth part in this short series from Matthew Henry. For an explanation of the series read here.
9. Serious [Part 2] “Wise men will always reckon him over fond of his mirth, that will rather lose his friends than his jest; much more may he be reckoned so, that will rather lose his God and a good conscience.
Never make sport with the Scripture and sacred things, but let that which is serious always be spoken of with seriousness…
Let the inward thought still be serious; and in the midst of your greatest mirth, retain a disposition habitually serious, and a reigning affection to spiritual and divine things, such as will make you indifferent to all vain mirth and pleasure, and set you above it, and enable you to look upon that with a holy contempt, which so many spend so much of their time in with so great a complacency…
A serious Christian, though to relax himself, and entertain his friends, he may allow himself a little mirth and recreation, yet he will make it to appear he is not in that as in his element, but he knows better pleasures, and has given them the preference…
But while I am pressing you that are young to be always serious, habitually so, always well-affected to serious work, what shall we think of those that are never serious – that are always on a merry pin – always jesting, always bantering, so that you never know when they speak in earnest…
Shall I now prevail with you that are young to value wisdom above wit, and that which helps to make you serious above that which helps to make you merry; and to take as much pleasure in gravity as others do in vanity? It will be the honour of your youth – will arm you against the temptations you are surrounded with – and will not only mark you for something considerable in this world, but for something infinitely more so in the other world.”
Part Six
G.M.
03.19.08
Puritanism and Missionary Zeal
The subject suggested by the title of this post really deserves a scholarly dissertation, to say the least. My original intention was to simply add the following quote to the Quote Page on the Church and the Establishment Principle. However, upon further thought I decided to make it more public, since the truth it contains is not at all well known. In other words, many Evangelicals assume that the Puritans were not greatly concerned about missionary endeavour. They think that the great missionary movement which began in the century after Puritanism was the result of some new truth rediscovered – a truth that the Reformers and Puritans, great as they were, did not fully grasp. People like Elliott are regarded as exceptions to the rule and non-representative. It is further often assumed that the Puritans fought among themselves on the subjects of Church government and worship, precisely because they were relatively unconcerned about the advance of the Gospel among the nations.
Much could be said about the fact that it was the writings of the Puritans – particularly on the subject of the Gospel’s advance among the nations – that provided the spur and sustaining force of what is known as ‘the great missionary movement’. An optimistic view of Church history, and a belief that Christ will be owned in all nations (including Israel) before the end, was central in the thinking of most of the missionaries who started the modern missionary movement. The Puritans and Covenanters believed that the cause for which they stood and died would one day fill the whole earth. [See Iain Murray’s book The Puritan Hope for a brief and heart-stirring study of this important subject.]
It can further be added, that the spread of Puritanism to Ulster and New England was viewed by the Puritans as somewhat missionary in purpose.
Many other facts could be brought forth to disprove the above assumption, but the key issue is to do with the settling of the Church in England, Scotland, and Ireland. Unlike so many modern ‘evangelicals’, the Puritans believed that matters of Church government and worship, not to mention doctrine, were extremely important. Christ must be owned as King in his own Church. There was to the Puritans little point in taking the gospel to the ends of the earth, if the result was likely to be the end of true religion in the British Isles! They saw their role under God to be one of completing the Reformation which had only really begun in the sixteenth century.
The times were exceedingly unstable and unsafe, to say the least. Due to half measures and false toleration, a multiplicity of sects and heresies threatened the very survival of true Christianity. In such times and circumstances the need of the hour was to build at home. They had the opportunity to so establish the truth in Britain that it would become the centre from which missionary and reforming zeal would go forth into all the world – as it in fact did at a later stage, though to a lesser degree than they envisaged. From this ‘settled’ home they hoped to be free to do what was their duty in bringing about the fulfillment of that Scripture, “for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea”.
With these few thoughts in mind, hear the brief words of Robert Baillie in his Letters (vol. 2, p.102); thoughts written during the sittings of the Westminster Assembly of Divines – the proceedings of which it was hoped would lead to a stable state of religion in the three kingdoms:
“We are thinking of a new work over sea, if this church were settled…”
G.M.
03.15.08
The Scottish Commissioners
The following is simply a small section from Symington’s Historical Sketch of the Westminster Assembly on the Scottish Commissioners to that famous Convocation.
“Whatever suspicions political connections may have contributed to raise regarding the sincerity of the laymen – which, in respect to one of them, it must be admitted were not without foundation – the ministers were individuals of unquestionable integrity and of high standing in point of learning, piety, and fitness for service. The extensive knowledge, the studious habits, and the promptitude and ease in graphic composition, of Baillie; the mental power, the logical precision, the affectionate earnestness, and the lofty devotional feelings, of Rutherford; the calm dignity, the intellectual might, the prodigious wisdom, and the true moral greatness, of Henderson; and the untiring energy, the comprehensive learning, the controversial tact, and the brilliant eloquence, of young Gillespie; conspired to render the commissioners from Scotland the admiration of the Assembly, and to reflect the highest honour on the country and church to which they belonged…
It is admitted on all hands that the services performed by the Scots commissioners in the Westminster Assembly were great… The extent of these services was both appreciated and acknowledged, indeed, by the Assembly itself, as appears from the compliments paid the Scots commissioners on their taking leave, to return to their own country. It was unanimously agreed to record in the books, ‘that the Assembly had enjoyed the assistance of the honourable, reverend, and learned commissioners of the Church of Scotland, during all the time they had been debating and perfecting the Directory of Public Worship, the Confession of Faith, the Form of Church Government, and the Catechism.’…
The chief weight of the public discussions devolved on Rutherford and Gillespie; more especially the latter, who, notwithstanding his youth, proved himself one of the readiest and most able debaters in the Assembly, as appears from the frequent victories he achieved over such antagonists as Selden, Coleman, and Lightfoot. ‘None in all the company,’ says Baillie, ‘did more or more pertinently than Mr. Gillespie. That is an excellent Youth; my heart blesses God in his behalf. Of a truth there is no man whose parts in a public dispute I do so admire…in my poor judgement, there is not one who speaks more rationally and to the point, than that brave youth has done ever.’”
Gillespie was truly brilliant, and there are some very interesting anecdotes about his debating skill which are well worth reading about.
For a brief, readable, inspiring, and faithful account of the Westminster Assembly, I could not recommend more highly the booklet from which the above was drawn. The author was one who was in the fullest sympathy with the content of the Westminster Standards, as also with the vision for uniformity that shaped those Standards.
English readers, however, should be warned of the Scottish bias that runs through the lecture that makes up the said booklet; a bias that is even glimpsed in the above selected sections! Though that being said, there is no exaggeration on Symington’s part – the Scots did exert an influence upon the Assembly vastly beyond their numbers, and much of it was due to the calibre of the ministers chosen to represent the Scottish Kirk.
For the brilliance of the English Presbyterians and Independents, one would need to read something like William Barker’s Puritan Profiles.
G.M.
03.12.08
A Summary of the Tenets of Postmodernism
Below I give you a summary of Postmodernism patched together from parts of Gene Veith’s work Postmodern Times (see p 158ff), together with some of my own comments in brackets.
The Tenets of Postmodernism
1. Social Constructivism – Meaning, truth and morality do not exist objectively; rather they are constructed by the society in which we live.
2. Cultural Determinism – Individuals are wholly shaped by cultural forces. Language in particular determines what we can think, trapping us in a prison house of language.
3. The Rejection of Individual Identity – People exist primarily as members of groups. Any concept of ‘individualism’ e.g. a rugged British or American individualism, is itself a social construction imposed by the group and thus an illusion. Identity is primarily collective.
4. The Rejection of Humanism – Values that emphasise the creativity, autonomy and priority of humans are misplaced. There is no universal humanity since every culture makes its own reality. The old Humanism is rejected and man must now take his place among all the other planetary species.
(Think here of animal rights etc. Also no universal humanity is a flat rejection of the Biblical doctrine of creation of men to be of ‘one blood.’)
5. The Denial of the Transcendent – There are no absolutes. Even if there were, we would have no access to them as we are bound in our culture and imprisoned in our language.
(If there is a God He cannot be known. Instead we can only have ‘God to me’ every man can have his own God according to his own idea. Furthermore there is no universal standard of morality binding all and by which we shall be judged.)
6. Power Reductionism – All institutions, creations, artwork and moral values are expressions of a primal will to power. The enforcement of one person’s ideology on another.
(if there is no absolute truth but all is relative – all you actually have left is power. I deal with this in the lecture on relativism).
7. The Rejection of Reason – Reason is thrown out and therefore there is really no basis for debate. Fulfilment comes from submerging self in the larger group and developing a radical openness to existence by refusing to impose order on life.
(You can think here of the lack of real debate in politics – a man might have a very strongly reasoned argument, but society is not concerned about truth. This is why there is so much ‘spin’ in postmodern politics. Spin the issue and let every man come to his own interpretation. The facts don’t actually matter.)
8. Revolutionary Critique of the Existing Order – The old ‘modern’ society from the enlightenment period with its rationalism and unitary view of truth needs to be replaced with a ‘new world order.’ Technology takes precedence over Science and a pluralistic society is promoted in which society is segmented into its constituent ethnic, religious, sexual, gender groups.
Some of the implications of all this are:
(1) Totalitarian government. If truth, meaning and morality is socially constructed then the power of society and those who lead it is in a real sense unlimited.
(2) A Collectivist mentality that denies individual liberty while making great noises about a free democracy! This is why Freedom of speech is being slowly eroded away and everybody must be ‘politically correct.’
(3) Power prevails as there is no basis for rational argument and moral persuasion. This is why minority groups e.g. Homosexuals, are so effective at pushing their agenda – they do it via political power with a very small number of people rather than by rational debate.
(4) Modernism in Marxist Communism looked for Utopia by economic change. Postmodernists pursue their Utopia by seeking to change society’s values – cultural change. It is really a new kind of Facism.
G.B
03.06.08
Instruments of Music?
Perhaps this quote is too small to be made into a post, but it contains a truth that has sadly been forgotten in many reformed churches.
New Testament worship is marked by simplicity, as opposed to the complexity of the worship in the old economy. Indeed simplicity is the very glory of worship under the new administration of the Covenant of Grace; such becomes the accomplishment of redemption. Musical instruments, however, are an unwarranted addition to that God-ordained simplicity, and one of the most difficult to argue in favour of.
John Calvin the great Reformer [and he is echoed by such men as Owen, Knox, Rutherford, Thornwell, and Spurgeon] responds in the quote below to Papists, but his words are also applicable to those who would claim the passages in the Psalms and the Book of Revelation that refer to musical instruments, as proof that such are to be a part of New Testament worship. Bear in mind that the same passages refer to incense, dancing, and other ’shadows of the law’.
“Musical Instruments in celebrating the praises of God would be no more suitable than the burning of incense, the lighting of lamps, and the restoration of the other shadows of the law. The Papists therefore, have foolishly borrowed, this, as well as many other things, from the Jews. Men who are fond of outward pomp may delight in that noise; but the simplicity which God recommends to us by the apostles is far more pleasing to him.”
G.M.
03.05.08
Young Sober Christians by Matthew Henry (5)
This is the fifth part in this short series from Matthew Henry. For an explanation of the series read here.
9. Serious [Part 1] “You must be grave and serious, and not frothy and vain…I put this last of the ingredients of this sober-mindedness, because it will have a very great influence upon all the rest; we should gain our point entirely with young people, if we could prevail with them to be serious. It is serious piety we would bring them to, and to live in good earnest.
Not that we would oblige young people never to be merry, or had any ill-natured design upon them to make them melancholy; no, religion allows them to be cheerful; it is your time, make your best of it: evil days will come… Nay, religion prescribes cheerfulness to all that are sincere and hearty in it: ‘Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart, for God now accepteth thy works’ (Eccl. 9, v.7), God accepts to be served by us with ‘joyfulness and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all things’ (Due. 28, v.47). And it is certain, that none have such good reason to be cheerful as godly people have; none can be so upon better grounds, or with a better grace; so justly, or so safely. I have often said – and I must take all occasions to repeat it – that a holy heavenly life, spent in the service of God, and in communion with him, is without doubt the most pleasant, comfortable life any one can live in this world.
But that which I would caution you against under this head, is vain and carnal mirth – that mirth – that laughter of the fool – of which Solomon says, ‘it is mad, and what doth it?’ Innocent mirth is of good use in its time and place; it will revive the spirit, and fit you for business; ‘a merry heart doth good like a medicine;’ but then it must be used like a medicine – must be taken physically; only when there is occasion for it, and not constantly like our daily bread [today one is expected to be always merry!]; and, like medicine, it must then not be too often, so not too much at a time, like opiates, which are taken by drops, and with great caution. When you make use of these medicines, it must be with due correctives, and you must take great care of yourselves, lest that turn to your prejudice, and become a snare and trap, which was intended for your health and welfare.
Allow yourselves in mirth, as far as will consist with sober-mindedness, and no further; to be merry and wise; never let your mirth transgress the laws of piety, charity, or modesty, nor entrench upon your time for devotion and the service of God.”
Part Five
G.M.
03.03.08
N. Ireland and the ‘Silver Chair’
As I was considering how best to deal with the moral issues that are involved in situation here in N. Ireland, I came across an instance in C.S Lewis’s novel The Silver Chair that I feel can act as a kind of preliminary to the subject. Aslan, the great Lion of Narnia, has sent two children on a mission to find/rescue Rilian, the lost prince of Narnia. To guide them in their mission, Aslan has given them four signs that they must follow – signs which they are to memorise daily so as not to forget. The children are joined in their mission by a ‘marsh-wiggle’ (it is not necessary to know what a ‘marsh-wiggle’ is) after they ‘muff’ the first of the four signs (if they had not failed to follow the first sign, they would have had far greater help in their mission). Yet notwithstanding this first failure, and despite the attempts of the ‘Marsh-wiggle’ – ‘Puddleglum’ – to steer them aright, they proceed to ‘muff’ the next two signs also. However, by various ‘providences’ they again get on the correct path – howbeit as prisoners. As captives they are entertained by a young man who claims to know nothing of Narnia, or any Prince Rilian, and who also declares himself to be under a strange enchantment.
He tells them that he becomes wild and must be bound to a silver chair for one hour every night due to this enchantment. Indeed, he would kill his very dearest friends during this period, and before its end takes the form of a large green serpent. In addition, he tells them that he has no recollection of these periods, but according to his ‘Lady’ he becomes delirious, and begs to be set free from his bonds. Therefore he adures them that they must under no circumstances heed his entreaties during that period, or they will be killed by him. Accordingly the period comes, and though none are supposed to be present, the children and Puddleglum trick their way back into the room where he is bound. They indeed find a changed man in the chair during that time, for whereas the young man was before all laughter and lightness, he is now staid and sober. The young man implores them to set him free. He tells them that he is a captive, that he only has his right mind during that period each night, and that they are in no danger from him.
The children and Puddleglum do a good job of resisting such entreaties until the young man implores them in the name of Aslan. Now the fourth and final sign Aslan had given them was that one should ask them to do something in his name (for they were now long outside Narnia were Aslan is loved). Having already ‘muffed’ the first three signs they are now wary of failing to follow the fourth. However, they are almost sure that the young man was telling the truth before, and that to let him lose would be sudden death at his hands – or mouth! They therefore begin to come up with reasons why following the sign at this time could not have been what Aslan meant. What follows is the section of the book that this very brief summary has sought to set in context:
“‘Oh, if only we knew!’ said Jill.
‘I think we do know,’ said Puddleglum.
‘Do you mean you think everything will come right if we untie him?’ said Scrubb.
‘I don’t know about that,’ said Puddleglum.
‘You see, Aslan didn’t tell Pole [Jill] what would happen. He only told her what to do. That fellow will be the death of us once he’s up, I shouldn’t wonder [Puddleglum is a gloomy chap!]. But that doesn’t let us off following the sign.”
The result? The young man turns out to be Rilian whom they were seeking!
God has not told us what will come to pass; what he has ordained from all eternity. He has, however, told us what we should do; he has given us his Law, his Word to follow. We must, therefore, simply obey and leave the consequences to God; even when they seem terrible. God has not promised that doing what is right will always bring good consequences is this life.
In short, we must do what is right whatever the cost may be!
If we are not solidly convinced of this, then we have already given in (at least in part) to Pragmatism. So, when doing what is right is easy, we will be found faithful. But, when trouble comes, we will buckle. It is then that we will be found saying such things as, ‘what choice had we?’ as we compromise our former ‘principles’. God has ordained all things that come to pass. Does he need our sins to bring about his deliverence of us? This is to distrust God. Anyway, it may not be his will that we are delivered from the particular evil in view. Either way, two things are sure: it is his will that we simply obey; and, he will bring all things together for good – for the ultimate good of each saint, as well as the overall good of his Church.
There is thus always a non-sinful choice, though it may entail great cost. What a joy and relief it is to know that all that is required of us is to avoid sin.
If this is properly grasped, then we will see at once that there was another choice for the Democratic Unionist Party in N. Ireland. If it is not, then no amount of arguing will convince those who want to justify the unjustifiable.
G.M.
