Were the Puritans Puritanical? (Part 5)

"The Puritans rejected asceticism because of their firm grip on the doctrine of creation.  In their view, it was God who had created people as sexual beings.  Thus William Whately could claim that 'the Author of nature hath appointed this union betwixt one man and one woman,' while William Perkins was assured that marriage 'was ordained by God in Paradise.'  Robert Cleaver spoke of marriage as a 'coupling together of two persons into one flesh . . . according unto the ordinance of God'" (Ryken, Worldly Saints, pp. 44-45.)

John Owen on the Mortification of Sin (Part 2)

John Owen on mortifying sin (now, positively, that is, what it is):

It consists in three things:

1)  In a habitual weakening of it. . . .  The first thing in mortification is the weakening of this habit of sin or lust, that it shall not, with that violence, earnestness, frequency, rise up, conceive, tumultuate, provoke, entice, disquiet, as naturally it is apt to do (Jas. 1:14-15). . . .

2)  In a constant fighting and contending against sin.  To be able always to be laying load on sin is no small degree of mortification. . . .

3)  In success.  Frequent success against any lust is another part and evidence of mortification.  By success I understand not a mere disappointment of sin, that it be not brought forth nor accomplished, but a victory over it, and pursuit of it to a complete conquest.  For instance, when the heart finds sin at any time at work, seducing, forming imaginations to make provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof, it instantly apprehends sin, and brings it to the law of God and love of Christ, condemns it, follows it with execution to the uttermost.

Now, I say, when a man comes to this state and condition, that lust is weakened in the root and principle, that its motions and actions are fewer and weaker than formerly, so that they are not able to hinder his duty nor interrupt his peace—when he can, in a quiet, sedate frame of spirit, find out and fight against sin, and have some success against it—then sin is mortified in some considerable measure, and, notwithstanding all its opposition, a man may have peace with God all his days . . . (Works, vol. 6, pp. 28-32).

John Owen on the Mortification of Sin (Part 1)

John Owen on mortifying sin (first, negatively, that is, what it is not):

1)  To mortify a sin is not utterly to kill, root it out, and destroy it, that it should have no more hold at all nor residence in our hearts.  It is true this is that which is aimed at; but this is not in this life to be accomplished.  There is no man that truly sets himself to mortify any sin, but he aims at, intends, desires its utter destruction, that it should leave neither root nor fruit in the heart or life. . . . 

2)  I think I need not say it is not the dissimulation of a sin.  When a man on some outward respects forsakes the practice of any sin, men perhaps may look on him as a changed man.  God knows that to his former iniquity he hath added cursed hypocrisy, and is got in a safer path to hell than we was in before.  He hath got another heart than he had, that is more cunning; not a new heart, that is more holy.

The Covenant of Redemption

Many theologians have spoken of a covenant of redemption.  I have often wondered, while very sympathetic to the doctrine, if there is much exegetical basis for it, not just conceptual.  While meditating recently on Tit. 1:2, I was struck by how clearly the doctrine is articulated, if not the term itself. 

Continuing the salutation, Tit. 1:2 says this: "in hope of eternal life, which God, who never lies, promised before the ages began (pro chronon aionion)."  A literalistic, wooden, and nonidiomatic rendering could be something like "before times eternal" or "before times of ages").  Now if this promise was made before the ages (i.e., before creation and time as we know it), to whom was the promise made?  Presumably it was not made to creation, for it did not yet exist.  So then to whom was it made?  Well, to the Son, of course. 

God promised the Son concerning eternal life.  He made a covenant with the Son to redeem fallen humanity, dead in sin, to restore them, and to bestow on them eternal life in the Son.  This is the covenant of redemption, planned and promised in eternity, sealed in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity, sealed by the blood of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.  God decreed these things "before the ages for our glory" (1 Cor. 2:7).  And it is indeed marvelous in our eyes!

Marriage as Manifest Glory

Some years back, I believe in 2004, Doug Wilson preached 40 sermons on marriage.  Well, my wife Em and I have been listening to some of those in the evening as we relax before bed.  The third one in the series titled "The Leaden Rule" is an exposition of the golden rule applied to marriage.  Wonderfully helpful, theologically rich.  I highly commend it and the whole series. 

This is my third time through these sermons.  The first time made me want to get married (I'm serious; prior to sermon 39 in the series I had by and large strenuously resisted the idea).  The second helped prepare me for marriage (and all those invovled by extension).  The third time, now with my wife, is helping us continue to mature in our one-flesh union in order to put the gospel on display.  It is all about the gospel of the glory of the grace of God.  Pastor Wilson's sermons are theologically charged toward this end.  So have a listen!  You can get these at Canon Press.

President Ryken

Have a look at this post at Between Two Worlds that discusses the significance of the appointment of Philip Ryken to the presidency at Wheaton College.  I heartily agree with and rejoice in what is said there.  Have a look at the Gospel Coalition Blog for the full reflection by Ligon Duncan.

Great NCC One-Liners

"I've waited 27 years for this."—Cory Gerdts

(The context of this statement will remain the private property of the privileged community of NCC.)

Great NCC One-Liners

"He's the God-baby!"—Simeon O’Donnell

(In response to the Sunday school question, "Who is this in Mary's arms?"  The scene was Jesus' dedication at the temple. From the mouth of babes!)

Were the Puritans Puritanical? (Part 4)

"Alexander Niccholes theorized that in marriage 'thou not only unitest thyself a friend and comfort for society, but also a companion for pleasure.'  In this acceptance of physical sex, the Puritans once again rejected the asceticism and implicit dualism between sacred and secular that had governed Christian thinking for so long.  In the Puritan view, God had given the physical world, including sex, for human welfare.  Robert Croftes wrote that 'he that useth these external felicities of the world, such as this of nuptial love, to the glory of God and to good ends . . . is better to be reputed than he that . . . neglects so great a good, which God freely offers to our acceptance'" (Ryken, Worldly Saints, p. 44).

Sweet Sermons on the Song of Songs

As I've noted before, New Covenant Church Pastor Doug O'Donnell is currently unfolding that sweetest of all flowers, the Song of Songs, each Lord's Day.  I already posted the first sermon a few weeks back.  The next three in order are Better than Wine, The Metaphors and Metamorphosis of Loving Words, The Voices of Spring.  My wife and I are profitting immensely from these sermons and will likely point other couples as well as unmarried folk to this series.  We'll have to see how the series continues, but one has the sense that this series is the sort that people never forget, the sort that profoundly influences a people, the sort that gets reread later.

Speaking of reading these sermons, it won't be too long, Lord willing, before they are in print in the Preaching the Word Series edited by Kent Hughes.  So be on the lookout for them.  You won't want to miss these fine expositions.  Many know Pastor Hughes' preaching, fewer O'Donnell's, as Doug is almost 30 years younger than Kent Hughes.  But despite being young, O'Donnell's preaching is quite mature. To those who've heard Doug preach it is no surprise that he has been profoundly shaped by Pastor Hughes' preaching, so much so, I think, that Doug's preaching sounds uncannily like that of Kent Hughes!  Pastor Hughes retired from pulpit ministry at College Church several years ago, but from time to time I still feel like I'm listening to him through Doug!

Inauguration Ceremony of Dr. Philip Ryken

Yesterday Wheaton College celebrated the inauguration of its eigth president: Dr. Philip G. Ryken.  The ceremony was wonderful.  The charge of president emeritus Dr. Duane Litfin and the inaugural address by Dr. Ryken left me deeply moved and spoke encouragement for Wheaton's future.  For the passing of the baton to such a man as Philip Ryken, we ought to bless and thank God.  This is the sort of man Wheaton College needs for its next chapter, more than many, I think, realize. 

President Ryken's address leaves me leaping for joy.  The title of the address was this: “A World Servant in Christian Liberal Arts Education.”  Pastor Ligon Duncan says of the title, "Don’t miss the word servant—it is not a mere slogan in the lexicon of Wheaton’s new president but a concrete aspiration. It is also clear that Phil will not be satisfied with a reductionist or ambiguous or atheological definition of evangelicalism."

I loved Dr. Ryken's vision for the "reintegration of learning with faith."  He said that reintegration is a more fitting way of thinking of faith and learning than is the "integration of faith and learning."  Why?  Because faith really is more fundamental.  And as he eloquently pointed out, the departure from faith in the garden was the first instance of learning divorced from faith.  And what a disaster that was.  So faith, he avered, must undergird and inform all learning.  Dr. Ryken also spoke of the need for Wheaton College to move toward more global engagement, even learning orthodoxy from the thriving church in the south and east.  Yes!  And amen! 

For the cause of Christ in the next generation, we ought to pray for Dr. Ryken and others in his position of influence.  May God be pleased to do a new and greater work at Wheaton college in the next couple of decades and beyond.

Directions for Communion with the Spirit

In the third section of On Communion with God, John Owen gives three general directions for communion with the Holy Spirit.  The headings are these:

(1)  Do not grieve the Spirit, the third person of the Triune God, who indwells you.
(2)  Do not quench the Spirit in his actings and motions in grace.
(3)  Do not resist the Spirit in the ordinances of Christ and his gifts for their administration.

A good start for American Christians who are seeking communion with God the Spirit is simply to start thinking and speaking of the Spirit more personally, not as some impersonal force or energy.  His personality is often affirmed on paper (or in the creed), but functionally it is often denied.  But he is a person, an infinitely glorious person, worthy of all honor, adoration, and praise.

Democratic Wisdom?

"In America, the founding fathers conceived of democracy as a way of establishing accountability by restricting power.  If the populace as a whole did not like the executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government, the ballot box provided a means of turfing them out.  Strangely, modern politicians speak of 'the wisdom of the American people,' as if special insight resides in the masses.  That was not the perception of the founding fathers; it is certainly not a Christian evaluation" (Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, p. 16).

The Effects of Unmortified Sin

"Every unmortified sin will certainly do two things: (1) it will weaken the soul, and deprive it of its vigour; (2) it will darken the soul, and deprive it of its comfort and peace" (John Owen, Works, vol. 6. p. 22).

The Song of Songs in Eden

Tremper Longman:

"The Song of Songs, in which many poems present the man and the woman in the Garden, enjoying one another's nakedness, makes one think of Eden and understand that the Song is about the redemption of sexuality.  However, it is an already-not yet redemption because of the continuing problems acknowledged by some of the poems."  (Note that Longman sees the Song as an anthology of love poems, twenty-three in his judgment.)

Many agree that the Song takes us back to Eden in some fashion, but why does it do this?  What is being communicated?  Is there divine authorial intention in this?  Longman says that we have "an already-not yet redemption" of marriage.  Well, there is perhaps something to this, but what are the warrants for saying this?  And, more, what will the "not yet" of the redemption look like when there is no marriage in the new heavens and new earth?  (At least not like now.)  And since there is nothing like full redemption in this age, maybe "already-not yet" is not the way to speak of what the Song is doing as it takes married love back to the garden.  So what is it doing?

Are there any gardens later in Scripture that might help us answer this question?

Spiritual Depression

I am aware of no better resource for the spiritually depressed than Martyn Lloyd-Jones' now famous sermon series on Spiritual Depression.  When I've sunk for an extended time (not just for a day or two), I've often turned to this resource and have always found encouragement and light.  In fact, I just read another chapter today (after not touching the book for probably a year) since I'm going through an unusually dry and dull season.  And, again, I got help.  I highly recommend it.

Lewis on Government

"Government is at best a necessary evil" (C. S. Lewis, Letters).

The Purest Churches on Earth

"The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error . . ." (WCF, Ch. 25, Sect. 5).

Were the Puritans Puritanical? (Part 3)

"Married sex was not only legitimate in the Puritan view; it was meant to be exuberant.  Gouge [a Puritan pastor] said that married couples should engage in sex 'with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully.'  An anonymous Puritan claimed that when two are made one by marriage they 'may joyfully give due benevolence one to another; as two musical instruments rightly fitted do make a most pleasant and sweet harmony in a well tuned consort'" (Ryken, Worldly Saints, p. 44).

The Puritans used language for married sex that is outdated, such as matrimonial duty, cohabitation, act of matrimony, but (especially, says Ryken) due benevolence.  Don't you just love that expression, due benevolence?  Try wooing your wives, men, with this sort of languange.  "For date night this week, my Love, why don't we do a nice dinner, enjoy a litte fruit of the vine, share some conversation, and then delight in due benevolence."  A surefire way to stir her affections for you, despite your balding and the extra ten pounds you gained last winter and never shed.

Were the Puritans Puritanical? (Part 2)

"A leading Puritan preacher, in giving an exposition of Proverbs 5:18-19 (which compares a wife to 'the loving hind and pleasant roe'), claimed that the hind and roe were chosen because they are most enamoured of their mates 'and even mad again in their heat and desire for them'" (Ryken, Worldly Saints, p. 39).

The Bellies of Lust Under Foot

"Let not that man think he makes any progress in holiness who walks not over the bellies of his lusts" (John Owen, Works, vol. 6, p. 14).

What's at Stake in War with Sin

"Be killing sin or [sin] will be killing you" (John Owen, Works, vol. 6, p. 9).

Were the Puritans Puritanical?

Everyone has heard it.  I mean, the heaping of opprobrium upon someone or some view (perceived to be) sexually repressed or inhibited: "Oh, how puritanical."  It's a nasty designation.  Ouch!  It hurts.  Who wants to be puritanical?  After all, the Puritans, as we all know, were sexually repressed and wierd.  And we today are so liberated, enlightened, free. 

Oh really?  Are we?  And were they?  I would submit that we haven't begun to catch up with their holy and healthy views on sex and marriage.  We could learn much from the Puritans.  Us, you say?  Yes.  Us.  The Puritans were a robust Christian people who enjoyed all of life in submission to God's word, a word that speaks robustly of sexual love.  

Some years back Leland Ryken wrote a fine and balanced treatment of the Puritans called Worldly Saints.  In chapter 3 on "Marriage and Sex," he show us just how unpuritanical the Puritans really were (and so the subtitle of the book The Puritans as the Really Were really fits).

Here's a sampling (more to come):  "When a New England wife complained, first to her pastor and then to the whole congregation, that her husband was neglecting their sex life, the church proceeded to excommunicate the man."

Such was their high view of the place of the marriage bed.  Neglecting it was, at least in one Puritan church, grounds for excommunication!

Song of Songs: The Holy of Holies

In his excellent theological survey of the Old Testament—The Faith of Israel—William Dumbrell says that early disputes about the canonicity of the Song of Songs were virtually settled by a pronouncement of Rabbi Akiba. That's powerful, you say.  So what was it?  It was this marvelous word: "The whole world is not worth the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; all the writings are holy, and the Song of Songs is the holy of holies" (m Yadayim 3:5).

Biblically Based Political Principles

Doug Wilson doesn't know how to write a dull sentence.  And for this I love his writing.  But, and more important, I also love his writing because so much soundness and sensibility pours forth from his pen.  Here is a sample in a recent post about biblical political engagment:

"Always act, and never react. Action needs to proceed from a biblically based framework of political principles, and not from faux outrage over the fact that your gored ox is not covered by Medicaid."

The rest of the post (welll worth reading) may be found here.  But read anything within the category of Culture and Politics, especially the subcategory of Obama Nation Building.

The Message of the Song of Songs

Here is a take on the Song of Songs from the back cover of Tom Gledhill's excellent commentary:

At first reading the Song of Songs appears to be an unabashed celebration of the deeply rooted urges of physical attraction, mutual love and sexual consummation between a man and a woman. Tom Gledhill maintains that the Song of Songs is in fact just that—a literary, poetic exploration of human love that strongly affirms loyalty, beauty and sexuality in all their variety. With tender metaphor and extravagant imagery, the Song writer spins a tale of human love into the cadence of verse, innocent of our quest for historical persons behind the text. But in God’s story, human beauty, intimacy and sexuality are not ends in themselves. They are transcendental longings, whispers of immorality. Like all of creation they point beyond themselves to their divine author, who in this Song is nowhere mentioned but everywhere assumed.

Gledhill deals fairly and faithfully with this sacred text, giving due attention to the song in its historic context, noting that the realities of which the Song sings ultimately point way beyond themselves to something more lasting, more satisfying, more invigorating.  Take up, and read!  This is a very readable commentary!

The Song of Songs in Its Canonical Framework

D. A. Carson says this about how to understand the Song of Songs:

Although some have denied that this book is about sexual love in any primary sense, but is an allegory of either the love between Yahweh and Israel or between Christ and the church, I doubt it.  So many details of Song of Songs are so explicitly human and sexual (all the more so when the ancient Semitic symbolism is appreciated) that to argue that the meaning of the text is allegorical is unlikely.  Moreover, there are many parallels in other love poetry in ancient near eastern Wisdom Literature, so that one must conclude the genre was well known. 

On the other hand, after fully acknowledging the human and sexual love that this book celebrates—for God has made us human and sexual, and Wisdom Literature often focuses on the glory of the created order—we may not be far off the mark if we also see, within the canonical framework, a typological connection with God and Israel, with Christ and the church. For that is a theme repeatedly picked up in both Testaments (see, for instance, Hosea, or Rev. 21).

At some later date, as God allows, since I think Carson is on track, I hope to provide reasons from within Scripture itself why the Song should be understood typologically within its canonical context.  I also hope to work out in a rudimentary way an approach to the Song that steers clear of two extremes: the first I will call the literalist approach (common today, especially among scholars); and the second, the allegorist approach.  I think the swing from the allegorist interpretation (dominant throughout the history of the church and the history of Jewish interpretation) to the literalist interpretation is intriguing and even perhaps telling.