A Supreme Regard for the Supreme Being

Edwards speaking of the supreme regard due God as an exceedingly fitting thing:

To determine, then, what proportion of regard is to be allotted to the Creator, and all his creatures taken together, both must be as it were put in the balance; the Supreme Being, with all in him that is great, considerable, and excellent, is to be estimated and compared with all that is to be found in the whole creation: and according as the former is found to outweigh, in such proportion is he to have a greater share of regard. And in this case, as the whole system of created beings in comparison of the Creator would be found as the light dust of the balance (which is taken no notice of by him that weighs) and as nothing and vanity; so the arbiter must determine accordingly with respect to the degree in which God should be regarded by all intelligent existence, and the degree in which he should be regarded in all that is done through the whole universal system; in all actions and proceedings, determinations and effects whatever, whether creating, preserving, using, disposing, changing, or destroying. And as the Creator is infinite, and has all possible existence, perfection and excellence, so he must have all possible regard. As he is every way the first and supreme, and as his excellency is in all respects the supreme beauty and glory, the original good, and fountain of all good; so he must have in all respects the supreme regard. And as he is God over all, to whom all are properly subordinate, and on whom all depend, worthy to reign as supreme head with absolute and universal dominion; so it is fit that he should be so regarded by all and in all proceedings and effects through the whole system: that this universality of things in their whole compass and series should look to him and respect him in such a manner as that respect to him should reign over all respect to other things, and that regard to creatures should universally be subordinate and subject.

—Jonathan Edwards, Ethical Writings (vol. 8 in the Works of Jonathan Edwards; ed. Paul Ramsey; New Haven: Yale University, 1989), 423-424.

The Limitations of Reason in Discerning Teleology

Toward the end of his life, Jonathan Edwards wrote one of his most important works—The End for Which God Created the World.

The bare bones broad outline for this "dissertation" is as follows:

I. Explanation of Terms and General Positions
II. Chapter 1: What Reason Teaches in This Affair
III. Chapter 2: What Holy Scripture Teaches about the End for Which God Created the World 

The section explaining terms and the first chapter on reason display close, careful, and acute argumentation. That is, really tight, profound reasoning. Yet, at the beginning of chapter 2, Edwards (America's greatest philisophical mind) says this fitting word about the limits of reason:

Indeed, this affair seems properly to be an affair of divine revelation. In order to be determined what was aimed at or designed in the creating of the astonishing fabric of the universe which we behold, it becomes us to attend to and rely on what he has told us who was the architect that built it. He best knows his own heart, and what his own ends and designs were in the wonderful works which he has wrought.

—Jonathan Edwards, Ethical Writings (vol. 8 in the Works of Jonathan Edwards; ed. Paul Ramsey; New Haven: Yale University, 1989), 419.

Personal Righteousness Delivers from Death

I'm reading through Ezekiel nowadays for my soul's breakfast most mornings. And I came across Ezek. 14:12-14 today:

And the word of YHWH came to me: "Son of man, when a land sins against me by acting faithlessly, and I stretch out my hand against it and break its supply of bread and send famine upon it, and cut off from it man and beast, even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the sovereign YHWH."

Despite what the false prophets were spewing about "peace" (Ezek. 13:10; cf. Jer. 6:14), Ezekiel had a God-given message of impending divine judgment for Jerusalem. Divine judgment was inevitable. And not even Noah, Daniel, and Job could deliver Jerusalem by their righteousness.

But, and here's what I really want to point out, the righteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job would avail to deliver their own lives (Ezek. 14:14).

Now, it appears to me that all too often today people speak as though Protestants have no room for personal righteousness as significant in the day of wrath (Prov. 11:4-6). I don't think that's the case, however, and certainly not for historic, classical Protestantism of the Puritan variety.

So I dipped into Matthew Henry's commentary on Ezekiel this morning to see how he interpreted the righteousness of Noah, Daniel, and Job in Ezek. 14:14. Would he simply say this is Christ's righteousness, period? Would he say this is merely hypothetical, or the like? Here's his commentary (italics original):

Though pious praying men may not prevail to deliver others, yet they shall deliver their own souls by their righteousness, so that, though they may suffer in the common calamity, yet to them the property of it is altered; it is not to them what it is to the wicked; it is unstrung, and does them no hurt; it is sanctified, and does them good. Sometimes their souls (their lives) are remarkably delivered, and given them for a prey; at least their souls (their spiritual interests) are secured. If their bodies be not delivered, yet their souls are. Riches indeed profit not in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death, from so great a death, so many deaths as are here threatened. This should encourage us to keep our integrity in times of common apostasy, that, if we do so, we shall be hidden in the day of the Lord's anger (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, 4:651-652). 

So, here's a staunch confessional Protestant of the historic, classic variety expounding Ezek. 14:14 and saying our own personal righteousness and integrity matter in the day of judgment.

This is my heritage, whatever any might say of Protestantism. This is Protestantism, whatever may go by that name today.

The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment

Leon Morris:

The doctrine of final judgment . . . stresses man's accountability and the certainty that justice will finally triumph over all the wrongs which are part and parcel of life here and now. The former gives a dignity to the humblest action, the latter brings calmness and assurance to those in the thick of the battle. This doctrine gives meaning to life. . . . The Christian view of judgment means that history moves to a goal. . . . Judgment protects the idea of the triumph of God and of good. It is unthinkable that the present conflict between good and evil should last throughout eternity. Judgment means that evil will be disposed of authoritatively, decisively, finally. Judgment means that in the end God's will will be perfectly done.

—The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment, 72, as cited in J. I. Packer, Knowing God (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973), 144.

Living and Dying to Jesus

A brief Lutheran prayer of self-dedication to Christ, based on Rom. 14:7:

“O Jesus Christ, I live to you; I die to you; living or dying, I am yours. Amen.”

—Martin Luther, Luther's Prayers (ed. Herbert F. Brokering; Augsberg: Minneapolis, 1994), 71.

One Leak Sinks a Ship

"One leak will sink a ship, and one sin will destroy a sinner."

—John Buynan, Pilgrim's Progress (New York: Penguin, 2008), 205.

Voltaire Versus the Apostle

Consider Voltaire:

"God will forgive; that's his business."

Now consider the apostle Paul:

"Because of your stubborn and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each according to their deeds" (Rom. 2:5-6).

Who're you gonna believe?

Separation of Church and State?

How does our notion of the separation of church and state stand up to Jer. 50:14 (and countless other places in the prophetic word)? Does the word of the Lord care what we think? Does it care what we've got enshrined in law? Consider also Jer. 51:5. Is the political arena neutral? Are not even the pagan politicians and potentates (and parliaments and congresses) held responsible to YHWH?

Jesus' Last Sermon

This Lord's Day sermon at NCC should be compulsory listening in the evangelical world as a model of how Matt. 25:31-46 needs to be understood and applied. In the hands of many sinners and preachers and teachers, who should be ashamed, it's been mangled almost beyond recognition in our day. But O'Donnell brings the clear teaching of Jesus with clear instruction as a workman who need not be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

The Goal of Christian Society

"The highest end and happiness of men is to view God's excellency, to love him and receive expressions of his love; and that therefore their greatest business is to meditate on and use means to understand God's bounty, and to express suitably their love; this love including all those other affections which depend upon it and are necessarily connected with it, which we call worship. The highest end of society, therefore, must be to assist and join with each other in this" (Jonathan Edwards, Works, vol. 13, p. 291).

Heaven on Earth: Divine Love

Speaking of trinitarian love toward us—the fountain of divine love in the Father's sending of the Son, the purchase of the benefits of the Father's love, and the application of that love by the Spirit—John Owen speaks sanity to worldly madness: "What we have of heaven in this world lies herein." Oh for more of that sort of heaven on earth! For heaven is a world of trinitarian love.

I Am Sick, I Must Die

The following poem is called A Litany in Time of Plague:

Adieu, farewell, earth's bliss;
This world uncertain is;
Fond are life's lustful joys;
Death proves them all but toys;
None from his darts can fly;
I am sick, I must die.
   Lord, have mercy on us!

Rich men, trust not in wealth,
Gold cannot buy you health,
Physic himself must fade.
All things to end are made,
The plague full swift goes by;
I am sick, I must die.
   Lord, have mercy on us!

Beauty is but a flower
Which wrinkles will devour;
Brightness falls from the air;
Queens have died young and fair;
Dust hath closed Helen's eye.
I am sick, I must die.
   Lord, have mercy on us!

Strength stoops unto the grave,
Worms fed on Hector brave;
Swords may not fight with fate,
Earth still holds ope her gate.
"Come, come!" the bells do cry.
I am sick, I must die.
   Lord, have mercy on us.

Wit with his wantonness
Tasteth death's bitterness;
Hell's executioner
Hath no ears for to hear
What vain art can reply.
I am sick, I must die.
   Lord, have mercy on us.

Haste, therefore, each degree,
To welcome destiny;
Heaven is our heritage,
Earth but a player's stage;
Mount we unto the sky.
I am sick, I must die.
   Lord, have mercy on us. 

--Thomas Nashe [1567-1601]

A plague tends to put things in perspective, now doesn't it?

Lion-like Boldness, Lamb-like Gentleness

All of us are imbalanced people.  None of us stays on the horse.  I believe it was Luther who pictured man as a drunk who is always falling off the horse.  Some fall to the right, some to the left.  But no one stays on the horse.  Except one.

The Lord Jesus combines in his person diverse excellencies.  He is the Lion from the tribe of Judah, with supreme royal majesty and power and dignity.  He is also the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.  Only in Christ Jesus do we meet such diverse excellencies, as Edwards pointed out in a famous sermon on Rev. 5:5-6.  We see this almost paradoxical conjunction of excellencies in the Lord Jesus in the Gospels.  There we see a man tough and tender, bold and meek, mighty and merciful, lofty and lowly.  And it is only by beholding this one in faith that we begin to reflect according to our capacities something of the beautiful balance, proportion, and symmetry that do meet in the lovely Lord Jesus.  Beholding him we are being transformed from one level of glory to another, a glory that reflects the glory of the one after whose image all of redeemed humanity is being refashioned (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:9-10). 

I sometimes almost totally despair of becoming a balanced Christian.  I long to be tough when I should be tough, tender when I should be tender.  My soul pants after boldness and gentleness in the proper proportion, deployed in the right places and at the right times.  And my only hope is beholding Christ--steadfastly.  Gazing at the brightness of his radiant excellencies, his glory and majesty, alone can transfrom a piece of work like me.  So I am persuaded that seeking lion-like boldness and lamb-like gentleness, therefore, should be undertaken not by holding up a list of rules or commandments (at least not mainly).  Such transformation ought to be pursued by sitting at Jesus' feet, beholding him steadfastly by faith, following the Lamb faithfully wherever he goes, listening to his voice intently at all times and in all places. 

Oh to see more and reflect more of him!  Oh to be lion-like and lamb-like!  Do the supernatural work, O sovereign Lord, for it is to you that I pray, in Jesus' strong name and for Jesus' great name's sake.

Free Will or Necessity?

Is the man Messiah Jesus free?  Does he experience perfect liberty in his choices or not?  And is he capable of doing something sinful?  Is it necessary that he always do what is good and right and true?

These questions (and their answers) have a bearing on the relation between free will and necessity in man.  If we are truly free, what necessarily follows?  Is perfect liberty inconsistent with the idea of things necessarily flowing from that liberty?

Jonathan Ewards writes this in miscellany 116a:

Although it be said that 'tis most absurd that there [should] be liberty and yet necessity, that these are most inconsistent; that is, that there should be liberty, when yet 'tis impossible in nature but that the things will be: yet 'tis not worth the while to dispute it, as if liberty and necessity were contraries, for they are not; and 'tis most certain, that that which in any proper sense is called liberty is certainly consistent with absolute necessity.  Thus the glorified [saints], or at least the glorified man Jesus, has as much liberty as any man; but yet 'tis absolutely impossible that he should sin.

Are you free?  That is to say, Are you unable to sin?