The Fullness of the Godhead

Edwards:

Now God's internal glory, is either in his understanding or will. The glory or fullness of his understanding is his knowledge. The internal glory and fullness of God, having its special seat in his will, is his holiness and happiness. The whole of God's internal good or glory, is in these three things, viz. his infinite knowledge, his infinite virtue or holiness, and his infinite joy and happiness.  

Indeed there are a great many attributes in God, according to our way of conceiving them: but all may be reduced to these; or to their degree, circumstances, and relations. We have no conception of God's power, different from the degree of these things, with a certain relation of them to effects. God's infinity is not properly a distinct kind of good, but only expresses the degree of good there is in him. So God's eternity is not a distinct good; but is the duration of good. His immutability is still the same good, with a negation of change. So that, as I said, the fullness of the Godhead is the fullness of his understanding, consisting in his knowledge; and the fullness of his will consisting in his virtue and happiness.

—John Piper, God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 243–244.

The Torah of YHWH in Psalm 1

So often so many, in my view, interpret wrongly the phrase “the torah of YHWH” (תוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה) in Psalm 1. It is often taken simply to mean “the instruction of YHWH.” No one, to my knowledge, really doubts that the word “torah” (תּוֹרָה) does in fact often simply mean "instruction." That much is clear.

However, in Psalm 1, which sets the agenda for the whole Psalter, should we understand “the torah of YHWH” simply to mean “the instruction of YHWH”? I doubt it. I’ll not reproduce the argumentation of Mark D. Futato in his excellent handbook Interpreting the Psalms, but I will provide his conclusion, with which I joyfully concur in my inner being. He says:

So the תוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה in Psalm 1 naturally refers to the Five Books of Moses. When we combine the sense of תּוֹרָה as ‘instruction’ with תוֹרַ֥ת יְהוָ֗ה as the Five Books of Moses, we conclude that the book of Psalms invites believers to meditate on the Five Books of Moses[1] as a source of instruction for experiencing the joy/blessings (v. 1) and prosperity/success (v. 3) held out in Psalm 1.

— Mark D. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 61–62.

---

[1] Italics mine.

One of the Great Tragedies of Our Time

David Wells:

This, in fact, is one of the great tragedies of our time, that evangelicals have lost their spiritual status as outsiders to the culture, those who march to a different drummer and have the capacity to think about their world in ways that are completely different from what is taken as normative in it. So many consequences derive from all this . . . [such as] the matter of being salt and light in society.

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 170.

The All-Comprehensive Gift of God's Good Spirit

Chapter 7 of Andrew Murray's spiritual classic With Christ in the School of Prayer is delicious and delightful to the soul that longs for more, more, more of God.  The chapter is titled "The All-Comprehensive Gift" and instructs on God's good gift of the Holy Spirit to those who ask for him (Lk. 11:13).

Murray says this of this inestimable gift held out simply for the asking (and, as an aside, don't miss the implications for eduction of our children):

We can easily understand the unspeakable worth of this gift. Jesus spoke of the Spirit as "the promise of the Father," the one promise in which God's fatherhood revealed itself. The best gift a good and wise earthly father can bestow on a child is his own spirit. This is the great object of a father in education—to reproduce in his child his own disposition and character. If the child is to know and understand his father, if he is to enter into all his will and plans, if he is to have this highest joy in the father and the father in him, he must be of one mind and spirit with him. It is impossible to conceive of God bestowing any higher gift on his child than his own Spirit. God is what he is through his Spirit; the Spirit is the very life of God. Just think what it means for God to give his own Spirit to his child on earth (53–54).

Given the value, then, of the gift, what naturally flows from recognizing this?

This truth naturally suggests that this first and chief gift of God must be the first and chief object of all prayer. The one necessary element in the spiritual life is the Holy Spirit. All the fullness is in Jesus. His is the fullness of grace and truth from which we receive grace for grace. The Holy Spirit is the appointed intermediary whose special work is to convey Jesus and everything there is in him to us. He is the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (55).

To entice one still more, and to urge one to ask the Father as directed by the Lord Jesus, Murray tells us who this Spirit is:

He is the Spirit of grace, who reveals and imparts all of the grace there is in Jesus; of faith, who teaches us to begin, go on, and increase in believing; of adoption and assurance, who witnesses that we are God's children, and inspires our confiding in him and our confident, "Abba, Father!"; of truth, who leads us to accept each word of God in truth; of prayer, through whom we speak with the Father so that we may be heard; of judgment, who searches our hearts and convicts us of sin; of holiness, who manifests and communicates the Father's holy presence within us; of power, who makes us testify boldly and work effectively in the Father's service; of glory, who is the pledge of our inheritance and prepares us for the glory to come (56). 

—Andrew Murray, With Christ in the School of Prayer (Springdale, PA: Whitaker, 1981), 53–59.

Trying to Do for Ourselves What Only God Can Do

David Wells:

The language of the self is not interchangeable with human nature. They are two entirely different things. The self is the way we think about ourselves when we are inhabiting a psychologized universe. Human nature is how we think of ourselves in a moral universe, and, as understood in the imago Dei, it is how we think of ourselves in God's universe. This is our entry into a Christian worldview. . . . This substitute language of the self, with the whole overlay of techniques that goes with it, is a false trail, a dead end. 

Why is this? May I gently suggest that the reason is that the essence of pride is finding in the self what in fact can only be found in God. So pride leads us to think much about the self and much of the self. We imagine that within ourselves we have power enough, wisdom enough, and strength enough to find our way out of our own painful realities. Inevitably, though, very finite preoccupations are substituted for those that are eternal. Here is the "autonomous self" at work. 

The self movement has tapped into this by offering self-mastery through the right technique. It encourages us to think much about the self and much of the self. It is an industry that lives off of and for pride. As such, it offers a way to dissolve all the internal aches and heal all the internal wounds that life inflicts as we try to do for ourselves what in fact only God can do.

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 167–168.

The Majesty of Grace Lost on a Psychologized Evangelicalism

David Wells:

The majesty of God's forgiveness is lost entirely when we lose what has to be forgiven. What has to be forgiven is not just what we do but who we are, no just our sinning but our sinfulness, not just our choices but what we have chosen in place of God. This belief in our inherent innocence is belied by the kind of life we all experience, and, more importantly, it is also contradicted by Scripture. When we miss the biblical teaching [concerning sin and sinfulness], we also miss the nature of God's grace in all its height and depth. In biblical faith it is God's grace through Christ that does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. In this kind of psychologized evangelicalism, grace works only around the margins of our self. It completes the bit that we cannot quite get done by ourselves. 

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 167.

The Glory of God

Jonathan Edwards:

All that is ever spoken of in the Scripture as an ultimate end of God's works, is included in that one phrase, the glory of God. . . . The thing signified by that name, the glory of God, when spoken of as the supreme and ultimate end of all God's works, is the emanation and true external expression of God's internal glory and fullness; meaning by his fullness . . . God's internal glory, in a true and just exhibition, or external existence of it. 

—John Piper, God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 242.

The "Idiocy" of an Open Mind

C. S. Lewis:

An open mind, in questions that are not ultimate, is useful. But an open mind about the ultimate foundations either of Theoretical or Practical Reason is idiocy. If a man's mind is open on these things, let his mouth at least be shut. He can say nothing to the purpose. Outside [natural law] there is no ground for criticizing either [natural law] or anything else.

—C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 48.

Parting with All for Christ's Sake—and Meditation on Heavenly Things

Owen:

When our Saviour requires that we should part with all for his sake and the gospel, he promiseth a hundredfold in lieu of them, even in this life—namely, in an interest in things spiritual and heavenly. Wherefore, without an assiduous meditation on heavenly things, as a better, more noble, and suitable object for our affections to be fixed on, we can never be freed in a due manner from an inordinate love of the things here below.

—John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 329.

Men Without Chests

C. S. Lewis:

"We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful."

—C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: HarperCollins, 2001), 16.

Gospel Hope

Owen on our heavenly and holy hope:

Hope in general is but an uncertain expectation of a future good which we desire; but as it is a gospel grace, all uncertainty is removed from it, which would hinder us of the advantage intended in it. It is an earnest expectation, proceeding from faith, trust, and confidence, accompanied with longing desires of enjoyment. . . . Gospel hope is a fruit of faith, trust, and confidence; yea, the height of the actings of all grace issues in a well-grounded hope, nor can it rise any higher (Rom. 5:2-5). 

Now, the reason why men have no more use of, nor more benefit by, this excellent grace, is because they do not abide in thoughts and contemplation of the things hoped for. The especial object of hope is eternal glory (Col. 1:27; Rom. 5:2). The peculiar use of it is to support, comfort, and refresh the soul, in all trials, under all weariness and despondencies, with a firm expectation of a speedy entrance into that glory, with an earnest desire after it. Wherefore, unless we acquaint ourselves, by continual meditation, with the reality and nature of this glory, it is impossible it should be the object of a vigorous, active hope, such as whereby the apostle says "we are saved." Without this we can neither have that evidence of eternal things, or that valuation of them, nor that preparedness in our minds for them, as should keep us in the exercise of gracious hope about them.

 —John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 321–322.

The Apostolic Proclamation

A good friend and I have been noting for years the centrality of the resurrection in apostolic preaching (particularly in Acts). And yet Evangelicals tend to stress the cross in the proclamation (not that the cross ought not to be right at the heart of preaching!).

Craig Blomberg notes the apostolic focus as well:

Throughout the book of Acts, early Christian preachers announce not the crucifixion, as we might have expected from Mark, but the resurrection as the central feature that gives Jesus' life and death significance (e.g., Acts 2:24-36; 13:30-37; 17:18; 23:6).

—Craig Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey (Nashville: B&H, 2009), 162.

A Due Meditation on Things Unseen and Eternal

Commenting on 2 Cor. 4:16-18, John Owen instructs the twenty-first century and our worldliness:

Not to faint under the daily decays of our outward man, and the approaches of death thereby, to bear afflictions as things light and momentary, to thrive under all in the inward man, are unspeakable mercies and privileges. Can you attain a better frame? Is there any thing that you would more desire, if you are believers? Is it not better to have such a mind in us than to enjoy all the peace and security that the world can afford? One principal means whereby we are made partakers of these things is a due meditation on things unseen and eternal. . . .

Without doubt, the generality of Christians are greatly defective in this duty, partly for want of light into them, partly for want of delight in them; they think little of an eternal country. . . . Men do not exercise themselves as they ought unto thoughts of things eternal and invisible. It were impossible, if they did so, that their minds should be so earthly, and their affections cleave so as they do unto present things. He that looks steadily on the sun, although he cannot bear the lustre of its beams fully, yet his sight is so affected with it that when he calls off his eyes from it, he can see nothing as it were of the things about him; they are all dark unto him. And he who looks steadily in his contemplations on things above, eternal things, though he cannot comprehend their glory, yet a veil will be cast by it on all the desirable beauties of earthly things, and take off his affections from them. 

 —John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 318.

Know Yourself, Your Relief, and Your Savior

Owen on how to stand against temptations:

There are three things required unto this duty, and spiritual wisdom unto them all. First, know what are the especial temptations from whence you suffer, and whereby the life of God is obstructed in you. If this be neglected, if it be disregarded, no man can maintain either life for peace, or is spiritually minded. Second, know your remedy, your relief, wherein alone it doth consist. Many duties are required of us unto this end, and are useful thereunto; but know assuredly that no one of them, not all of them in conjunction, will bring in relief, unto the glory of God and your own peace, without application by faith unto him who "is able to succour them that are tempted." Wherefore, third, herein lies your great duty with respect unto your temptations, namely, in a constant exercise of your thoughts on the love, care, compassion, and tenderness of Christ, with his ability to help, succor, and save them that do believe, so as to strengthen your faith and trust in him; which will assuredly prove successful and victorious. 

 —John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 316–317.

Many Thoughts on Things Above

Owen:

It is our duty greatly to mind the things that are above, eternal things, both as unto their reality, their present state, and our future enjoyment of them. Herein consists the life of this grace and duty [to be spiritually minded]. To be heavenly minded—that is, to mind the things of heaven—and to be spiritually minded, is all one; or it is the effect of being spiritually minded as unto its original and essence, or the first proper actings of it. . . . Nor do I understand how it is possible for a man to place his chief interest in things above, and not have many thoughts of them.

—John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 317.

Called to Inherit and Bestow Blessings

God is a God of blessing. He delights to bless. He has undertaken—at the price of his Son's life—the greatest undertaking of the cosmos: the commitment to bless this sorry and sinful world through the seed of Abraham. And he will see to it that his word concerning blessing is confirmed and fulfilled!

Thoughout the whole of Scripture, we see the prominence of blessing. God blesses men. (Read the Pentateuch.) Men bless men. (Read the Pentateuch again.) Men bless God. (Read the Psalms.) God blesses his peole that his people might be a blessing that the world might bless God (Ps. 67:1-7).  The Lord Jesus gave his disciples the beatitudes (Mt. 5:3-12), blissful blessings for those who follow him faithfully. And we're commanded to bless and curse not (Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14). For we were called for the express purpose that we might inherit a blessing (1 Pet. 3:9). We are a people of blessing.

So it is good and right, then, not least in order to imitate our heavenly Father, to bless our children who grow up under our care, to bless one another, and to bless those who curse us. In my house, I bless my little girl, Ariana, mainly as she goes to bed. But I'm also routinely blessing her (and her mother) along the way.

Here are just a few of the blessings of Scripture I have memorized or am memorizing for planned and spontaneous use as I seek to be a man and means of blessing to my household and to others:

"The LORD bless you and keep you;
  the LORD make his face to shine upon you
                    and be gracious to you;
  the LORD lift up his countenance upon you
                    and give you peace" (Num. 6:24-26).

"Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 15:13).

"May the God of peace be with you all. Amen" (Rom. 15:33).

"The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you" (Rom. 16:20).

"Now may the Lord of peace himself give you peace at all times in every way. The Lord be with you" (2 Thess. 3:16).

"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen" (Jd. 24-25).

I merely scratch the surface. There are blessings literally strewn everywhere in Scripture. So let us lay them up and bless our homes, bless one another, and be a blessing to the world.

We are blessed! Blessed be his holy name! And blessed be those who seek his face, who seek the face of the God of Jacob, who seek the blessing of the world, seeking that blessing on mission with the God of all blessing.

Faint in the Day of Adversity

David Wells:

In the older world we left behind, people thought of adversity as inevitable. Adversity was a consequence of the fall for those of a Christian outlook. But even for non-Christians it was never seen as an unexpected intruder in life. It was never thought that life should be without pain. Pain, disease, setbacks, disappointments, and wrong done to us were all seen as part of our life in this world, part of its texture, a thread woven with all the other threads through the fabric of our daily experience. Adversity was seen, even, as a necessary component in life. 

Today we resent adversity as an interruption in our pleasure seeking, a rude disruption of our opportunities and our sense of calm. It is a gross injustice. Why should bad things happen to good people? Where is the justice of that? We are entitled to better. Indeed, we are demanding better! Adversity of any kind is unacceptable. 

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 161.

I'm reminded of Prov. 24:10.

Reinforcing Our Natural Self-centeredness and Self-absorption

Speaking of the transition to the new therapeutic world we inhabit, David Wells comments:

The downside to this self-worked therapy, of course, is that this constant taking of internal inventory only reinforces our natural self-centeredness and self-absorption. That, at least, is my view. But it is not the view of those who inhabit this therapeutic universe, which seems to be almost everybody else, even in the evangelical church.

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 161.

"Life! Life! Eternal Life!"

I just came across this sentence again, though not while reading Pilgrim's Progress this time, but in a book on writing sentences, and its power falls heavily on my heart afresh, with the weight of the worst burden you've ever borne, only without any burden at all, but with lightening, releasing, freeing efficacy, lifting up to the heights of heaven's highest joys.

"Now he had not run far from his own door, but his wife and children perceiving it, began crying after him to return, but the man put his fingers in his ears, and ran on, crying, Life! Life! Eternal life!"

How many times do we—Christian brother, Christian sister; you alone know this—need to plug our ears even to near and dear relations, not to mention the pleas of this planet's impure allure, and run on, crying, "Life! Life! Eternal life!" refusing to listen to low and perishing things, things of vanity and not of eternity?

The Argument and Flow of Colossians

What follows comes from a paper I produced for Professor G. K. Beale in 2010 for his New Testament Theology class (one of the best classes I have ever taken):

Col. 1:1-2: Paul and Timothy greet the faithful saints in Christ at Colossae with grace and peace from God their Father. 

Transition:  Because the Colossians are faithful saints in Christ in response to the gospel of grace, Paul and Timothy have reason for gratitude to God, expressed in vv. 3-8.

Col. 1:3-8:  Constant thanksgiving is offered to the Father for gospel fruitfulness—faith in Christ and love in the Spirit—because of the heavenly hope of the gospel of grace.

Transition:  Based on manifest fruit, prayer is offered in v. 9ff for still more fruit.          

Col. 1:9-14:  Constant prayer is offered for the saints to be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all Spirit-given wisdom so as to walk worthily of the Lord in his kingdom.

Transition:  Col. 1:15-20 specifies who the Son mentioned in v. 14 is. 

Col. 1:15-20:  The Son in whom the fullness of God dwells and who images forth God is Lord of Creation and Recreation and will therefore have the supremacy in everything.

Transition:  Having made peace by the cross, the results are spoken of in vv. 21-23.

Col. 1:21-23:  God reconciled the formerly alienated Colossians through the death of the Son to present them holy, faultless, and blameless before him.

Transition:  After speaking of becoming a minister of the gospel, Paul explains the design of his Christ-shaped, joy-filled sufferings.

Col. 1:24-29:  Paul’s joyful sufferings in the gospel for the church fulfill the prophetic word of God among the Gentiles—the mystery of Christ in them as the hope of glory. 

Transition:  In 2:1-5 Paul tells more specifically why he has been agonizing and toiling.

Col. 2:1-5:  In view of false teaching, Paul’s joyful struggle aims at encouraging the saints’ hearts unto gospel understanding and continued good order and firmness of faith in the Christ in whom reside all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Transition:  Paul’s exhortation in 2:6-7 accords with the aim of his struggles in 1:24-2:5. 

Col. 2:6-7:  Paul urges a grateful walk with reference to Messiah Jesus as the Lord of all.

Transition:  After urging the Colossians how to walk, Paul shows the way to continue that walk by issuing a warning to avoid what would lead away from Christ.    

Col. 2:8-15:  Do not be taken captive away from Christ in whom is the fullness of the deity and in whom you have been filled when you died and rose with him.

Transition:  On the basis of what was achieved through Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul confidently exhorts the Colossians concerning shadows and substance.

Col. 2:16-19:  Let no one judge you concerning shadows that have their substance in Christ, nor let anyone disqualify you of the prize through not holding fast to the head.

Transition:  Verse 20 refers back to the condition of believers’ dying with Christ to the old world (vv. 11-12) as the basis for exhortation in v. 20ff.  

Col. 2:20-23:  Since you died with Christ to the elements of the world, do not submit to the doctrines of men that are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

Transition: Col. 3:1 now refers back to the condition of believers’ rising with Christ (2:12-13) as the basis for exhortations in 3:1f.

Col. 3:1-4:  Seek the things above where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.

Transition:  Col. 3:5ff is an inference based on dying, rising, and being glorified with Jesus in vv. 1-4. 

Col. 3:5-11:  Put to death and put away the deeds of the old man because you have put on the new man who is being renewed according to the image of Christ—who is all.

Transition:  Verses 12ff give another inference based on having put off the old man and having put on the new man—where Christ is all. 

Col. 3:12-17:  As God’s holy and loved people, wear clothes that fit the new man, doing all—whether in word or deed--in the name of the Lord Jesus. 

Transition:  Verse 17 gives the general injunction, and 3:18-4:1 give specific injunctions that focus on deeds in Jesus’ name.

Col. 3:18-21:  Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus: serve the Lord Christ in the home!

Transition:  Verse 17 gave the general injunction, and v. 22ff continue the specific injunctions that focus on deeds in Jesus’ name. 

Col. 3:22-4:1:  Do all in the name of the Lord Jesus: serve the Lord Christ in society!

Transition:  Col. 4:2-6 continues to work out the general injunction given in 3:17, now focusing on words in Jesus’ name in relation to prayer, evangelism, and outsiders.   

Col. 4:2-6: Continue steadfastly in prayer for gospel proclamation and walk and speak wisely for gospel witnessing.

Transition:  The verses that follow elaborate upon the concerns of apostolic ministry.

Col. 4:7-9:  The faithful brothers will make known Paul’s circumstances.

Transition:  The following verses continue to expand upon apostolic ministry concerns.

Col. 4:10-17:  Gospel greetings, concerns, and love are extended from gospel workers. 

Transition:  After greetings from others, Paul himself adds his personal touch.

Col. 4:18:  Paul himself greets them in chains and extends the grace benediction.

One Sentence Exegetical Summary:  In the face of cosmic opposition, God is bringing about the promised new-creation kingdom of his Son through the apostolic gospel in order that the Lord Jesus might be pre-eminent in all things.

A Cry in Every Rod of God

Commenting on Mic. 6:9, Owen pleads:

There is a call, a cry in every rod of God, in every chastening providence, and therein [he] makes a declaration of his name, his holiness, his power, his greatness. This every wise, substantial man will labour to discern, andd so comply with the call. . . . If, therefore, we would apply ourselves unto our present duty [being spiritually minded], we are wisely to consider what is the voice of God in his present providential dispensations in the world. 

 —John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 308.

Election not Based on Good or Bad Works

In Rom. 9:11, "works" are clearly construed as the doing of either "good or bad." That's important, not least in the light of the claims of the proponents of the new perspective on Paul (NPP). The NPP folks take "works" in Paul's vocabulary to refer to the "boundary markers" or "ethnic badges" of circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath that would distinguish Jews from Gentiles. But Rom. 9:11 provides a crystal clear instance of Pauline usage of the "works" vocabulary where the meaning cannot be reduced to mere "boundary markers" or "ethnic badges."

No, the ethnic badge bit just will not work here. Here "works" are construed by Paul in broad moral, behavioral terms—the doing of either "good or bad." And that includes the gamut of human behavior after being born. Moreover, since he chooses Jacob and not Esau, we are also looking at the period of redemptive history prior to the given of the torah. That's also important. Being a good reader of redemptive history in Scripture (and being an inspired apostle of the risen Jesus as well), Paul understands that God's election of Jacob and not of Esau does not depend on their good or bad moral behavior. Not even a little. And so the implications for our understanding of justifcation—as Paul makes evident (e.g., Rom. 8:30; 9:33-10:4; 11:7)—are equally clear, and enourmously important. As in, eternally important; as in, one's status on the last day.

Only Lawyers

David Wells:

America has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined. In his famous Harvard address, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn observed that it is a terrible thing to live in a country, like the former Soviet Union, where there are no laws. But, he went on to say, it is also a terrible thing to live in a country where there are only lawyers. That is what we have in America. Only lawyers. 

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 159.

A Hale and Hearty Amen!

Here's a good word from Peter Leithart's blog over at First Things: 

One of my complaints against contemporary Protestantism is that it is nowhere near word-based enough. Protestant churches are often not Bible-based, but our-favorite-handful-of-texts—based or Bible-interpreted-through-confession—based.

To which I add my hale and hearty—amen!

Only, I want to add: if I had the opportunity, I'd want to remind Leithart that most so-called "Protestants" don't even have a confession, have never read a full confession, and are led by men (and, now, oftentimes women) who eschew confessions of any sort, especially of the ecumenical and historic varieties. So methinks that Leithart has a target closer to home for him than for most evangelicals. 

The Future of Protestantism in the Light of the New Birth and the Gospel

For those who watched the live steam of The Future of Protestantism (which was edifying, but not nearly as insightful as I had hoped), and those in the orbit of this discussion, here is a sensible and sturdy take on it all.

Wilson's response was roughly mine (minus the postmillenialism bit). I also found each participant saying things with which I am very sympathetic, and each man contributing something important to the discussion. However, I also want to know what a robust evangelical doctrine of the new birth (and the utter necessity of the new birth) has to contribute to this discussion.

Along with this ought to go an articulated gospel that clearly defines justification according to Scripture. Since justification in Christ is so often set forth in Scripture as the basis for our unity (see, for example, Galatians), I want to make sure we get it clear in our minds, and hold it fast in a Pauline fashion.

If, for example, Peter had not repented when corrected by Paul, but had continued down that path of making something other than faith in Christ as the basis of our unity, I dare say Paul would have called Peter a "so-called brother," at best.

In other words, I thought that the conversation emphasized ecclesiology over soteriology. And I don't see this in Scripture. I think each has to have its proper emphasis in order to support and strengthen the other. But soon as one is emphasized to the detriment of the other (as Protestants and Catholics are each guilty of doing, each in their own way), we shall soon lose both the pure Gospel and a healthy Church.

I hope this discussion continues, goes deeper still, and  spreads out wider into broader Christendom.

The Self, Self-Esteem, and Social Maladies

Since the 1960s, the self has been at the center. David Wells pens about a consequence of this sad state of affairs, and a significant problem:

Virtually all educators and psychologists appear to have agreed with this. Not only so, but there is now widespread public support of the myth that poor self-esteem explains bad behavior, failing academic work, acting up, antisocial attitudes, violence, divorce, racism, and the entire drug culture. All of this is rooted in a loss of self-esteem. Indeed, so pervasive is this myth, so impervious is it to the facts, that much educational policy has been confidently funded, at both the federal and state level in the United States, to address this matter. 

The problem is that study after study over the last four decades has been unable to show any correlation between low self-esteem and all the social maladies that have supposedly followed. Nevertheless, the myth is now so well established, preserved in place by so great a public desire to keep it there, by so large an industry with an interest in its preservation, that it borders on heresy to question it.

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 156.

What Is Narrative?

Vogt:

A narrative is a selective record of a series of events that uses shared conventions to convey the author's communicative intention in an engaging manner. In the case of the biblical narratives, this communicative intention is usually a theological one, and the author understands the events described as having actually taken place.

—Peter T. Vogt, Interpreting the Pentateuch: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009), 48.

The Long Sunday Afternoon Nap

Among God's greatest creational gifts (conjugal love, toddlers, indoor plumbing, coffee, cheese, salt, beer) is undoubtedly the long Sunday afternoon nap.

Psalm 119 as Touchstone of Biblical Spirituality

In his Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded, John Owen labors in chapter 4 to answer the question, how may we "know when we abound in spiritual thoughts, so as that they may be an evidence of our being spiritually minded"?

His answer, in part, focuses on Psalm 119:

I answer, in general, among other Scriptures, read over Psalm 119 with understanding. Consider therein what David expresseth of himself, as unto his constant delight in and continual thoughts of the law of God; which was the only means of divine revelation at that season. Try yourselves by that pattern; examine yourselves whether you can truly speak the same words with him, at least if not in the same degree of zeal, yet with the same sincerity of grace.

Then he answers an objection. But, "You will say, 'That was David.'" Owen replies:

But as far as I know, we must be like him, if ever we intend to come to the place where he is. It will ruin our souls, if when we read in the Scriptures how the saints of God express their experiences in faith, love, delight in God, and constant meditation on him, we grant that it was so with them, that they were good and holy men, but it is not necessary that it should be so with us. These things are not written in the Scripture to show what they were, but what we ought to be.

 —John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 301.

Wise Love No Simplistic Pursuit

"The challenge of love, of course, is that it is so multi-faceted. It runs the gamut from taking a bullet for someone to kicking them out of your house."

—Ed Welch, "Boundaries in Relationship," in JBC Must Reads: On Relationships (CCEF: 2013), 63.

Responding to Criticism in Marriage with Gospel-Grounded Humility

Over at CCEF you'll find good counsel (as usual) from David Powlison on responding to criticism in marriage.

The Mother Phobia of All Phobias Conquered in Christ

Speaking of the implications of Christ's victory in the cross over Satan, Sinclair Ferguson discusses these under four headings: theology, doxology, ministry, and missiology. Under the rubric of ministry, he says this about the significance of Heb. 2:14-15 for pastoral counseling:

The thesis of the author is that through the fear of death men and women are subject to lifelong bondage. Our deepest fear, the fear of death, is a mother phobia which gives birth to all the phobias of life. "An overdose of fear," writes Calvin, with insight, "comes from ignorance of the grace of Christ." The angst of man, and many of the spiritual neuroses of our day, must therefore be analyzed in these terms as aspects and symptoms of bondage to Satan, or as aspects of his malevolent efforts to hinder Christian believers and to rob them of their joy in Christ. The ministry of the Word, and the work done confidentially in pastoral counseling, must accordingly be sensitive to this whole dimension of Christian life and warfare, and provide "precious remedies against Satan's devices."

Christ is not offered to us in the gospel as a panacea for our fears. But he is a deliverer from that bondage to Satan which engenders the fear of death and gives rise to all manner of other fears. Pastoral counseling must always therefore have the one great fear in view, and Jesus Christ the deliverer as the divinely appointed remedy. We need to appreciate at the deepest level the fact that the words "fear not" were so frequently on his lips.  

—Sinclair Ferguson, "Christus Victor et Propitiator," in For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 187.

Easter

The last two stanzas of Herbert's "Easter":

     The Sun arising in the East,
     Though he give light, and th' East perfume;
     If they should offer to contest
     With thy arising, they presume.

     Can there be any day but this,
     Though many suns to shine endeavour?
     We count three hundred, but we miss:
     There is but one, and that one ever.

—George Herbert, The Complete English Poems (New York: Penguin, 1991), 37.

Satan Already Bound by the Strong Man!

Speaking of the implications of Christ's victory in the cross over Satan, Sinclair Ferguson discusses the implications under four headings: theology, doxology, ministry, and missiology. Under the rubric of missiology, among other things, Pastor Ferguson writes this weighty word:

There is a final implication of Christ's victory over Satan. Through the jugdment of Satan and his being cast out, all men are now to be drawn to the Savior—that is, men and women from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. In some definitive sense we can say that since Christ has finished his work, and in the light of his death, resurrection, ascension, and the gift of the Spirit, Satan is already bound and the undeceiving of the nations has begun (Rev. 20:2-3). This is implied in the wording of the Great Commission. All authority in heaven and earth is now Christ's; we are to penetrate "all nations" with the gospel (Matt. 28:18-20). Satan has been overcome. Jesus has asked the Father for the nations as his inheritance in accordance with the promise of Ps. 2:8. He has poured out the Spirit on all flesh to bring it to pass, and now waits for his enemies to be made his footstool.

—Sinclair Ferguson, "Christus Victor et Propitiator," in For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 187.

What Is an "Evangelist" in the NT Sense?

D. A. Carson:

I have come to suspect . . . that we are in danger of reading back into the Greek word εὐαγγελιστής [e.g., 2 Tim. 4:5] what the English transliteration "evangelist" means. If instead we understood εὐαγγελιστής in terms of its cognates εὐαγγέλιον and εὐαγγελίζω, then a εὐαγγελιστής is simply someone who proclaims the εὐαγγέλιον, the gospel. If we are not thinking of "the gospel" in some simplistic or reduced sense, then an "evangelist" (in the Greek sense), precisely because he or she focuses on proclaiming the gospel, will inevitably provide at least some such proclamation to outsiders, and thus be doing evangelistic work, the work of an "evangelist" in the contemporary sense. Nevertheless, such an "evangelist" will still be proclaiming the gospel even when such proclamation is not directed toward outsiders with the aim of their conversion. In short, an "evangelist" in the New Testament sense is simply a gospel-preacher, an announcer of the gospel.

—D. A. Carson, "What Is the Gospel?—Revisited," in For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 166.

One of the Most Urgent Needs Today

D. A. Carson:

One of the most urgently needed things today is a careful treatment of how the gospel, biblically and richly understood, ought to shape everything we do in the local church, all of our ethics, all of our priorities.

—D. A. Carson, "What Is the Gospel?—Revisited," in For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 165.

A Narrative Reading of the Longer Ending of Mark's Gospel

Here is another paper I produced at Wheaton College, this time for a class on New Testament criticism under Professor Nick Perrin. It seems like an appropriate post for holy week.

Introduction

I am not a King-James-only Christian (though I have a high regard for the King James Version). I embrace, by and large, the approach to textual criticism called “reasoned eclecticism.” And yet I shall argue that the long ending (LE) of Mark 16 is at least as likely the original ending to Mark’s Gospel as is the short ending (SE), and slightly to be favored, given the present evidence, on the grounds of external evidence and literary-critical analysis.[1] Delving into the literature on Mark’s ending, one immediately faces bewilderment, not unlike that of the disciples, not only over the complexity of the matter, but also over the varieties of opinions and, even more, over the lofty pontifications of many, all the while standing on a great deal of speculation, guesswork, and uncertainty. Possessing only fragments of the total evidence, dogmatic assertions of one view as solely plausible seem a bit much. We are dealing in probabilities. So I shall speak of probabilities, confessing the tentativeness of my own conclusions at this beginning point of entering the fray of Mark 16 debates. 

Evidence of Degeneracy of the Christian Religion

Owen:

All the flagitious [villainous] sins that the world is filled withal are not a greater evidence of the degeneracy of the Christian religion than this is, that it is grown unusual, yea, a shame or scorn, for men to speak together of the things of God. It was not so when religion was in its primitive power and glory, nor is it so with them who really fear God and are sensible of their duty.

—John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 292–294.

The Double Duty of Christians

Speaking on the imperatives to "flee" and "pursue" in 2 Tim. 2:22, John Stott says this basic word we Christians ought always to keep before us:

This double duty of Christians—negative and positive—is the consistent, reiterated teaching of Scripture. Thus, we are to deny ourselves and follow Christ. We are to put off what belongs to our old life and to put on what belongs to our new life. We are to put to death our earthly members and to set our minds on heavenly things. We are to crucify the flesh and to walk in the Spirit. It is the ruthless rejection of the one in combination with the relentless pursuit of the other which Scripture enjoins upon us as the secret of holiness. 

—John R. W. Stott, The Message of 2 Timothy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1973), 75. 

Together for the Gospel

All of the T4G messages for the 2014 conference are now available.

The Law Is not For the Righteous

One of the most important texts in the NT (I do not hesitate any longer to say it), and one of the more neglected texts in the NT (at least as far as preaching and teaching go), is 1 Timothy 1:8-11. Its importance, I'm convinced, has yet to be adequately grasped by much of the Church. And its importance is directly related to how it views the function of the law ("law" here certainly referring chiefly to the Pentateuch) and how it concieves of the plane on which the Christian life is to be lived out.

Now before I get to the main point of the text, I want to acknowlegde that all texts are constrained by contexts. That's no less true for this text than any other. I say this because this very text before us can be mishandled and misappropriated if applied to the wrong context in the wrong way (after all, Paul pens this text in this context, and not in another, or all others, for that matter). So let us not forget what Paul is dealing with in Ephesus, namely, men teaching divergent doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3). These men wanted to set up shop as the licensed handlers of the law, even though Paul tells us that, with respect to the law at least, they didn't know up from down, didn't have a clue, didn't get it (as they say), though they sure acted like they had gotten it (1 Tim. 1:7).

Without delay, then, on to the main point of the text. Verses 8–11 are one sentence in the Greek with a fairly simple structure. The basic structure reads this way (the other elements are supportive or elaborative): "Now we know that the law is good . . . knowing that the law is not laid down for the righteous, but for [the unrighteous] . . . and whatever else contradicts sound doctrine . . ." (translation mine). Did you hear that? The law is not for the righteous. Isn't that clear? But it is for the unrighteous (described in the list that follows). Isn't that also clear? And the unrighteous and their unrighteous ways are said to be contradicting sound doctrine. They are the ones who need to hear the law. But those who live in line with the sound doctrine, that is, the righteous—they don't need the law. It's not laid down for them. Isn't this what the text is saying?

So what Paul is saying here appears to be quite plain, and yet many Reformed folks (and especially theonomistic types) won't acknowledge what is out there in broad daylight. And I highly suspect they cannot see the apostle's clear assertion because of their systematics (which I by and large love and hope I would shed my blood for). To be fair, it would perhaps be more accurate to say that they have nobly tried to do the work of systematizing all the biblical texts without handling fairly and accurately texts like this one.

So the plain out-in-the-broad-daylight teaching (for all to see, it seems to me) is that the law of God—holy, just, and good (Rom. 7:12)—was never given for the righteous. That's not why God gave the law. If you are righteous, if you are living righteously, you don't need the law of God. (At least not in one very important sense pointed out here by the apostle of grace.) No, it's not meant for you, O righteous. It's meant for the unrighteous, the unholy and ungodly, the sinner and worldling. The lawless need the law. But those who are fulfilling it (e.g., Rom. 13:8-10) don't need it. At least not for the purpose of making them righteous!

This has implications for what's called "the third use of the law" in Reformed circles. And the main one is that we are not sanctified by the law. It's powerless to make us righteous. Oh, it still has a function, alright (e.g., Matt. 5:17-20). Not one jot or tittle passes till all is accomplished (as an aside, note the eschatalogical language in Matt. 5:17-20). But it is not God's primary instrument for changing us into the likeness of Christ. No, that's accomplished by "sound doctrine" that accords with "the Gospel of the glory of the happy God" (1 Tim. 1:11). If you are living under the almighty sway of the good news of God's joyful glory, the law has done its job, and hardly has any work to do anymore.

And so the plane on which the believer's life moves is sound doctrine. But what is that sound doctrine? Is this sound doctrine the ten commands? Well, that's not quite how Paul puts it, now is it? Is it Mosaic legislation? Is it a list of rules? Statutes? Precepts? Commands? Well, I don't dare say that a believer's life moves on a plane that is out of step with God's commands or the ten words or the Mosaic pattern. But going to these commands and demands of the law is not where Paul goes when he speaks of what is "opposed to sound doctrine" (1 Tim. 1:10), what kind of life is not like the life that is lived in line with sound doctrine.

No, but by "sound doctrine" Paul means what accords with (we might say, what flows from) not so much the law (though that is true!), but with "the Gospel of the glory of the happy God." That's more to the point. If the life is lived out on the Gospel plane, it will be a life of love flowing "from a pure heart and a good conscience and an unfeigned faith" (1 Tim. 1:5). And love driven along by the engine of the Gospel of a Vesuvius-like God who explodes with happiness and blessedness has no truck with the lawlessness of 1 Tim. 1:9-10. And so it also has no need for the law.

Machen Faces Modernism in Faith

From Taylor's 10 Key Events on fundamentalism and evangelicalism in modern America, this is key event number 6:

Machen Defends the Faith against Modernism (1929-1937)

In 1929, J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)—a brilliant Reformed New Testament professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, who had studied under Adolf Schlatter in Germany—left the school after it reorganized its curriculum, having opened the door (in Machen’s view) to modernist compromise. He would then found Westminster Theological Seminary (1929) and later The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (1936) after he was tried and found guilty for continuing his Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions (IBPFM), designed so that money contributed by orthodox Presbyterians would end up going to support likeminded orthodox Presbyterian missionaries rather than modernist Presbyterians like Pearl Buck (1892-1973).

Machen was a non-dispensational example of conservative dissent. He did not particularly care for or embrace the “fundamentalist” label, but he understood that their belief in premillennialism (while in error, in his judgment) was an error of a different kind than that propagated by the modernists.

In 1923 Eerdmans published Machen’s landmark book Christianity and Liberalism, arguing that modernistic liberalism was not a sub-species of Christian orthodoxy but rather a different religion that must be rejected once and for all. For example, he wrote, that the “Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all” (p. 52).

When Machen died in 1937 at the age of 55, after a bout with pneumonia, it marked the passing of an era in 20th century fundamentalist-evangelicalism.

(The best biography of Machen is D.G. Hart’s Defending the Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Crisis of Conservative Protestantism in Modern America; the best entry point is Stephen J. Nichols’s J. Gresham Machen: A Guided Tour of His Life and Thought.)

Fashioning Sentences: Only One Rule

In chapter 2, "Why You Won't Find the Answer in Strunk and White," of Stanley Fish's How to Write a Sentence, Fish says that there's really "only one error to worry about" in our fashioning of sentences—"the error of being illogical."

And so he gives, then, this "one rule to follow": "make sure that every component of your sentences is related to the other components in a way that is clear and unambiguous (unless ambiguity is what you are aiming at)."

—Stanley Fish, How to Write a Sentence (New York: HarperCollins, 2011), 20.

The Pastoral Function of Theology

J. I. Packer:

"It is vital to realize that truth is for people, and therefore, the pastoral function of theology is ultimately primary."

—Donald J. Payne, "J. I. Packer's Theological Method," in J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of His Life and Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009), 64.

Spirtually Minded Praying

How may we know that our prayers pour forth from an internal fountain of grace, that is, from new life within imparted by the Spirit of God, and thus know that we are truly spirtually minded in our prayers?

This is my restatement of a question John Owen asks in his incomparable and soul-satisfying work on The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded. And here are what I regard as some highlights of his answer, which I give to help us discern whether or not we are spirtually minded in our prayers.

But before I give these highlights, I want to answer an objection. I can hear someone saying, "Well, now, isn't prayer itself an expression of spiritual mindedness?" And the answer is, "Well, it depends." Think (to point to only two examples that come to mind) about what the Lord Jesus teaches about hypocritical and unacceptable praying in Mt. 6:5-8 and in Lk. 18:9-14.

Now, then, for the highlights of Owen's answer:

First, Owen says that we are assured generally that "whoever believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself" (1 Jn. 5:10). "Sincere faith," he says, "will be its own evidence" (292).

Second, it is an evidence that grace within is at work in spiritual thoughts and desires when the soul finds sweet spiritual satisfaction in spiritual disciplines and duties such as prayer. Not to put to fine a point on it, Owen challenges our lukewarmness in asserting that "this holy complacency [satisfaction], this rest and sweet repose of mind, is the foundation of the delight of believers in this duty" (292).

He then adds, the spiritually minded "do not pray only because it is their duty to do so, nor yet because they stand in need of it, so that they cannot live without it, but they have delight in it; and to keep them from it is all one as to keep them from their daily food and refreshment" (292–293).

Alright, so delight is the essential matter in this matter. But how does it arise? What brings it about? I mean, we can't just turn it on, can we? Owen says that this delight in prayer of which he is speaking arises from the following three things:

First, it arises from "the approach that is made unto God therein. It is in its own nature an access unto God on a throne of grace (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 10:19-20); and when this access is animated by the actings of grace, the soul hath a spiritual experience of a nearness in that approach" (293).

Second, this soul-satisfaction arises "from the due exercise of faith, love, and delight, the graces wherein the life of the new creature doth consist" (293).

Third, it arises "from the testimony of conscience, bearing witness unto our sincerity, both in aims, ends, and performances of the duty" (293–294).

Owen then rounds off this instruction by saying, "Hence a gracious repose of mind and great satisfaction do ensue" (294).

—John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 292–294.

Read Everything by David Wells

Read everything by David Wells. Everything. As soon as you can. And more than once. He's perhaps the top cultural and ecclesiastical analyst and critic in the evangelical world today. Here is one man's testimony of Wells' influence on him personally, and a review of Wells' most recent book. I concur with the commendations. Only I'd put the commendations far more strongly. Wells stuff is tops.

I cannot express too strongly how helpful David Wells' writings have been to me after I was hurled into the morass of modern evangelicalism through my conversion, not knowing what I was being thrown into, and then discovering that it was a chaotic morass some years later. Without Wells I just might have departed from the faith entirely, or at least lost any sanity I might possess. 

So in some ways I feel like I owe my ongoing perseverance in faith and my ongoing ability to cope with the present state of affairs in modern evangelicalism to the insightful and incisive pen of Wells. 

Greek NT "Utter Chaos"

Struggling to know exactly how to translate a portion of a Pauline epistle this morning, I consulted an authoritative grammar, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Blass, Debrunner, and Funk (known as BDF). Here's what BDF said (§§ 467):

“The construction 1 T 1:3ff. is reduced to utter chaos by interminable insertions and appended clauses.”

Well, small wonder, then, that I had a little trouble. "Reduced to utter chaos," they say. The authorities on these matters call this tough bit of text "utter chaos."

It probably just needs a verb supplied from the context, as it seems all English translations have done. In any case, I find it encouraging that the authorities and the experts note the difficulties at precisely the point where I myself am finding difficulties.  

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.

Watch Me!

D. A. Carson:

Do you ever say to a young Christian, "Do you want to know what Christianity is like? Watch me!" If you never do, you are unbiblical. After all, the apostle Paul can write elsewhere, "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1). Many things are learned as much by example as by word. Paul understood this point. He therefore grasped that his responsibility was not only to teach the truth but to live it, precisely for the sake of stamping a new generation. . . . Do we not recognize the principle when we encourage parents so to live that they model godly virtues to their children? It's not just what the parents say, it's what they do. 

—D. A. Carson, From the Resurrection to His Return: Living Faithfully in the Last Days (Christian Focus, 2010), 26-27.

World Vision's Credibility Destroyed

Doug Wilson:

World Vision is a parachurch diaconal ministry. This means that the qualifications for leadership apply, and not just the qualifications for fellowship. And this means that the leaders of World Vision cannot just announce one day that a practice that God declared to be an abomination is now all right with them, and then two days later (after their financial support started to evaporate) drop that position like a hot rock, and yet remain qualified to provide moral leadership. They blew a huge hole in their credibility. Leadership being what it is, they can receive full and free forgiveness — but the hole is still there. The hole is still there because God wants it still there.

They destroyed their credibility, not me. The first step in restoring that credibility is to receive forgiveness. The second is behave in a way that shows that they understand that destroying their own credibility is what they did. The third is to recognize that credibility is something that is built over time, in the very nature of the case. They can’t just “have it back.” The next thing they should do is start accepting resignations. They sinned in a number of different ways, but one of the big ones is that they demonstrated that they were and are untrustworthy.

You can read the whole post here.

Unacceptable Answers in God's Universe

D. A. Carson on Job 40:8-14:

It is important to recognize that God does not here charge Job with sins that have brought on his suffering. He does not respond to the "whys" of Job's suffering, nor does he challenge Job's defense of his own integrity. The reason he calls Job on the carpet is not because of Job's justification of himself, but because of Job's willingness to condemn God in order to justify himself. In other words, God does not here "answer" Job's questions about the problem of evil and suffering, but he make it unambiguously clear what answers are not acceptable in God's universe. 

—D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering & Evil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 172.

Are We Just a Nation of Nutters?

"In America, we have one-third of the world's psychiatrists, two psychotherapists for every dentist, and more counselors than librarians."

—David Wells, The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 140.

What Sin Is at Its Core

"Sin is trying to quench our unquenchable soul-thirst anywhere but in God. Or, more subtly, sin is pursuing satisfaction in the right direction, but with lukewarm, halfhearted affections (Rev. 3:16)."

—John Piper, God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 81.

Far Too Easily Pleased

C. S. Lewis:

The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire. If there lurks in most modern minds the notion that to desire our own good and earnestly to hope for the enjoyment of it is a bad thing, I submit that this notion has crept in from Kant and the Stoics and is no part of the Christian faith. Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

—C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory (SanFrancisco: HarperCollines, 2001), 25–26.

One Principal End of Prayer

Owen:

One principal end of [the duty of prayer] is to excite, stir up, and draw forth, the principle of grace, of faith and love in the heart, unto a due exercise in holy thoughts of God and spiritual things, with affections suitable unto them. Those who design not this end in prayer know not at all what it is to pray.

—John Owen, The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded (vol. 7 in The Works of John Owen; ed. William H. Gould; Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1994), 284.

Innocent Suffering in Job and the Suffering Savior Substitute

I'm becoming convinced that one of the main reasons for the existence of the book of Job is to preserve a category in the world's consciousness for innocent suffering, not least prior to the coming of the Christ. Clearly Job's three "miserable comforters" (Job 16:2), or three stooges, as I recentlly heard a preacher call them, don't have any categories for innocent suffering, righteous suffering. No, their theological system is tight, tight, tight. For them, if you are suffering, and if God is just, then you must have sinned somehow to bring on God's just judgment. Sounds reasonably logical, doesn't it? But it's all wrong, as the book of Job makes crystal clear.

To steer us clear, then, of the error of these three stooges, God has given us the book of Job. And he's done this, I'm sure, in part at least, to preserve a category for innocent suffering in our minds, in order that we might make sense of the good news he'd be sending in his sinless Son. Having a category for innocent suffering is essential if we are to see and embrace the suffering savior substitute for who he is. He suffered the wrath of God. Yet he knew no sin (1 Pet. 2:22). He was cursed of God as he hung on that Roman tree (Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24). But the curse was due us for sinning at the tree in Eden. He suffered innocently, suffered righteously, not unlike Job, at the hands of satanic malice, but in a way that goes way beyond Job's suffering and Job's righteousness. For Christ alone is the only true sinless sufferer, and Christ alone bears God's just judgment for us. And so he's the only true mediator between God and man, who can argue our case, standing in our place, pleading our cause, wearing our righteousness.

Keeping the Gospel Central

In a message titled "What is the Ministry and Mission of the Local Church? Foundations from the Pastoral Episles," D. A. Carson says that understanding the inestimable value of the Gospel means . . .

. . . keeping the Gospel central. Not keeping preaching central. Or keeping ministry central. Keeping the Gospel central. The preaching is a means to an end. The preaching is not an art form to be admired. Nor is it atomistic. It is a way of declaring the whole Gospel of God, by the power of God, for the transformation of God's people. So maintain a [firm] grasp on the value of the Gospel.

You may watch the whole message here. It is an outstanding message on the priority of the Gospel in the local church.

God Must Make It Burn

"Parents can only work knowledge, God must work grace; they can only lay the wood together, it is God who must make it burn; a parent can only be a guide to show his child the way to heaven, the Spirit of God must be a loadstone to draw his heart into that way."

—Thomas Watson, The Art of Divine Contentment, Kindle edition.

Are Christians Called to Be Uber Nice?

Doug Wilson:

For many compromised Christians, the uber-value is that we must be “nice.” This is assumed to be a universal value, but because an antithesis is necessarily pervasive in and through all things, some things must be rejected. So whenever someone on the “side of history” gets really nasty, he must cover for himself by posing as a victim — he reacted this way because somebody else wasn’t very nice to him. The baker wouldn’t bake him a cake with a swastika, Confederate flag, crossed AK-47s, two grooms on it. So the sin of not being nice is located with the perpetrator of the hate crime, and everybody downstream from that ostensible sin gets to be vicious. 

So Christians must not be nice, as though that were some kind of stand-alone value. Politeness is not what we are called to — Jesus was frequently quite impolite. He made a whip to clear the Temple. In Matthew 23, He gave the Pharisees the dressing down of a lifetime. He upset synagogue rulers for healing people on the Sabbath instead of doing something suitably religious. The Son of God came to live among us, and did so in such a way as to get crucified by all the respectable people. Was Jesus nice?

For the whole post, head over here.

Jack Spratt on the First Law of Dietetics

The good Doctor on dietetics:

Now you will often come across people who advocate ways of living or methods of treating diseases which completely ignore that [no two of us are alike], and which are therefore obviously wrong. I have often said that the first fundamental law of dietetics is just that old word which tells us that:   

          Jack Spratt could eat no fat,
          his wife could eat no lean.

Quite right! It is amusing in one sense but on the other hand it is a very vital, fundamental principle for dietetics. Constitutionally Jack Spratt and his wife are different, and to suggest that the same diet would be the best for both persons is to be guilty of a fundamental fallacy.  

—D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression (Hannibal: Granted Ministries), 9.

Expository Exultation Over the Glories of God in His Word

What is preaching? Piper provides this alluring definition:

Christian preaching, as part of the corporate worship of Christ's church, is expository exultation over the glories of God in his word, designed to lure God's people from the fleeting pleasures of sin into the sacrificial path of obedient satisfaction in him.

—John Piper, God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 39.

The Real Value of the Psalms

Lloyd-Jones:

The simplest description of the five books of Psalms is that they were the inspired prayer-and-praise book of Israel. They are revelations of truth, not abstractly, but in terms of human experience. The truth revealed is wrought into the emotions, desires, and sufferings of the people of God by the circumstances through which they pass. 

It is because that is such a true description of them that the Psalms have always proved to be a great source of solace and encouragement to God's people throughout the centuries—both the children of Israel and the members of the Christian Church. 

Here we are able to watch noble souls struggling with their problems and with themselves. They talk to themselves and to their souls, baring their hearts, analysing their problems, chiding and encouraging themselves. Sometimes they are elated, at other times depressed, but they are always honest with themselves. That is why they are of such real value to us if we also are honest with ourselves. 

—D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Spiritual Depression (Hannibal: Granted Ministries), 9.

The Song of Songs Read Along the Bible's Storyline

Stephen Dempster on how to read the Song of Songs along the Bible's storyline:

In the light of the larger storyline and the prophetic commentary, notably Jeremiah and Hosea, the love between the two human lovers points to the relationship between Yahweh and Israel at the beginning: "I remember the devotion of your youth, how as a bride you loved me, and followed me through the desert, through a land not sown" (Jer. 2:2). . . . 

Short of its literary context, the song [of Songs] could be almost pornographic. But the context of the canon both restricts the meaning to the context of marriage and expands it to include the relationship between Yahweh and Israel. When reading this text, the reader hears Jeremiah's oracle, Ezekiel 16, and Hosea 1–3. There is the reminder of the passionate and fiery love that Yahweh had for his people before the crisis [of exile]. . . .

He concludes, quoting Karl Barth:

The little text of the Song of Songs looks to the end of the larger Text, of which it is a part, when "Yahweh and His people are together and are one flesh."

—Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003), 207–208.

Riches and Honor Nothing to Him

Pius IV, hearing of Calvin's death, exlaimed:

"Ah, the strength of that proud heretic lay in this, that riches and honour were nothing to him."

—David McIntyre, The Hidden Life of Prayer: The Life-blood of the Christian (London: Christian Focus, 2010), 106.

The Basics of Greek Aspect Theory

Due to relatively recent advancements, aspectual theory has become an important consideration for anyone working in the Greek New Testament. I have no intention here to canvass the issues, debates, and positions on aspect theory. What I want to do instead is simply provide a perspective on aspect as presented by my first-year Greek instructor Professor Jon Laansma. It has proved to be a valuable reference point for me as I continue to think about Greek verbs and poke around in discussions of aspectual theory. Professor Laansma was one of the clearest teachers I've ever had, communicating his subject matter with crystal clarity, never leaving me in doubt about what he was talking about and what I needed to know.

What follows comes from the handouts Professor Laansma gave to his first-year Greek class at Wheaton College in 2007:

Aspect: the speaker's presentation of an action to the hearer. It is a matter of choice (it is subjective). It is a matter of how one chooses to talk about an action. Aspect does not describe an action realistically. It does not tell us that an action is or was actually ongoing, momentary (i.e., punctiliar), and so on. It only presents the action from a certain viewpoint. 

Laansma then describes the different kinds of aspect:

Imperfective aspect [present and imperfect tenses]: presents the action as a process; looks at the action from the inside, as if we are watching the action unfold. "I am hitting the ball." We cannot infer from the use of this aspect alone, however, that the action was or is of an ongoing nature (although it may often be). The action could be "point-in-time"—such as "to hit the ball"—but presented as a process, contemplating the action as if watching it happen. 

Perfective aspect [aorist tense]: presents the action as a simple and undifferentiated whole; looks at the action from the outside, as if we see it all at once. "I studied four years." We cannot infer from the use of this aspect alone that the action was or is momentary or point-in-time, although it may be. In fact, this aspect tells us the least about the nature of the action itself. 

Stative aspect [perfect and pluperfect tenses]: presents the action as an entire state of affairs coming to fruition; looks at the action as if from both the inside and the outside. "I have hit."

Future aspect [future tense]: presents the action from the viewpoint of expectation or intention, implying futurity in most contexts. 

Describing how the imperfect tense (imperfective aspect) and the aorist tense (perfective aspect) often function in the literature, Laansma says this:

Some grammarians argue that what distinguishes the imperfect and present tenses is not time (present vs. past) but space (foreground vs. background; here vs. there; nearness vs. remoteness). What is not debated is that the imperfect tense is usually used in narrative contexts for background (vs. foreground) action, and it usually refers to past-time action. Like the imperfect tense, the aorist tense [perfective aspect] is used most often in narrative literature to refer to background material (though it is extremely common throughout the NT), usually with a past-time reference. Yet the aortist tense is also used for present and even future time action, as well as for timeless statements. The time reference of aorist tense verbs is therefore dependent on context, and the aorist tense is not a past time tense. The decision of time-reference depends on word choice and context.

Lastly, he says this of the stative aspect:

The stative aspect expresses the speaker's personal choice to present the state of the (grammatical) subject from the speaker's viewpoint. The focus is broadened from the action of the verb as such to a whole state of affairs dependent on that action and in which the subject of the verb is involved. Thus we have in our mind's eye not merely the action happening on the street [as with the perspective of the imperfective aspect; Laansma is deploying a parade analogy here], but the whole complex of arrangements and events surrounding the parade [the view of the parade master]. It is this complex state of affairs that is analogous to the perspective taken with the stative aspect. This aspect draws the most attention to the action of the verb and thus demands careful attention whenever used.

There you have it. Greek aspectual theory basics. Thanks Professor Laansma!

The First Effect of the Power of God in Regeneration

Edwards:

The first effect of the power of God in the heart in regeneration is to give the heart a divine taste or sense, to cause it to have a relish of the loveliness and sweetness of the supreme excellency of the divine nature.

—Jonathan Edwards, Treatise on Grace, in Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith (vol. 21 in the Works of Jonathan Edwards; ed. Sand Hyun Lee; New Haven: Yale University, 2003), 509.

Sage Advice on Daunting Reading Lists

In their classic How to Read a Book, Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren provide (in Appendix A) their recommended reading list of great books.

Though it would doubtless be helpful to some to reproduce that list here, instead I simply want to record some of Adler and Van Doren's sage advice about approaching such a list (and send you off to purchasing and reading the book and list for yourselves):

The list is long, and it may seem a little overwhelming. We urge you not to allow yourself to be abashed by it. In the first place, you are likely to recognize the names of most of the authors. There is nothing here that is so recondite as to be esoteric. More important, we want to remind you that it is wise to begin with those books that interest you most, for whatever reason. As we have pointed out several times, the primary aim is to read well, not widely. You should not be disappointed if you read no more than a handful of books in a year. The list is not something to be gotten through in any amount of time. It is not a challenge that you can meet only by finishing every item on it. Instead, it is an invitation that you can accept graciously by beginning wherever you feel at home.

—Mortimer J. Adler and Charles Van Doren, How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), 348.